the scriptures wherein he doth not so much honour to them for placing them in the first roome as iniury and disgrace in ioyning with them anie other For as they are grounds of all true doctrine so are they onelie grounds and as in matter of faith arguments ought principallie to be drawne from them so such arguments onelie conclude necessarilie as euen your owne Thomas of Aquine doth directlie confesse Thom. 1. part 1. qu. artic 8. ad 2. Traditions of the Apostles are but deuised forged things which you make your second heade and therefore no staie for a man to settle his conscience vpon For tell me if you can which be the Apostles traditions how many and where they may be found If you cannot satisfie this demaunde as you cannot indeede how may you then make any reckoning of that whereof you haue no certaine knowledge how can you without falling builde your faith vpon fantasies such as they are The Apostles doctrine we haue in writing other traditions of the Apostles we receiue none for our beliefe Concerning the catholike Church which is your third head we reuerence and loue it as the spouse of Christ but we know that her duetie is to hearken onelie to the voice of Christ her husband and that she hath no authoritie to adde so much as one iotte to his worde or anie waies to dissent from it And further we know that your Romish synagogue is not that Catholike Church of Christ whereof we speake For generall councels and Doctors which are other twoe of your principall heades we esteeme and regarde them in their place we thanke God for them we reade allowe and commend them so far forth as they agree with Gods word If you thinke they neuer disagree from it your owne masters will correct you and tell you an other tale Are not these then goodly groundes and heads of faith that euen your selues are enforced oftentimes to disauow As for your supreme pastor of the Church we know him not by that name if you meane anie other but Iesus Christ alone For who so els taketh that honour and office vpon him to be the supreme pastor of the Church he is a theefe an Apostata an Antichrist make as great accompt of him as you list And where you saie we care for none of these groundes you speake vntruelie your selues indeede caring for none but onelie the last which is in stead of all the rest The determination of your supreme pastor that is your scripture your Apostolicall Tradition your Church your councels your Doctors your Faith your saluation your onelie staie in this world and in the world to come Scriptures you prooue we deny pag. 26. because we admitte not the authoritie of Tobias for inuocation and helpe of Angels nor of Ecclesiasticus for free will But you must first of all prooue which neuer shall you be hable to prooue that Tobias and Ecclesiasticus be canonicall scripture before you can inferre that we denie the scripture These bookes are not the holie Canonicall scriptures as we haue prooued against you by most inuincible and manifest demonstration by councels Fathers Doctors your owne Cardinals and schoolemen and we reioyce with all our harts that such popish doctrine hath no better scripture for proofe thereof then Apocryphall which because it hath a counterfayte stampe is no currant monie among the Lords people And for Traditions vnles you can approoue them by authoritie of Apostolicall scripture you haue our answere we regarde them nothing we know not from whence they came we will not giue ouer the certaine scriptures for such obscure and most vncertaine traditions For Councels true it is the argument holdeth not in this forme such a Councell decreed soe and therefore so must we beleeue Sett this principle downe for certaine and perpetuall in diuinitie and we shall haue strange beliefes enow yea scarsely shall we retaine any one true beliefe Two farâ—ous generall Councels haue beene held in Nice the first and the second In the first is condemned the Popes supremacie Can. â— in the second is established the Idolatrous worship of Images The first beliefe you will not alow the second we detest Let Councells therefore be esteemed as they deserue let their decrees be examined by Gods word and if they agree let them be receaued for that agreement if not let them be reiected for the contrarie The same iudgement haue we of auncient fathers pag. 27. Learned and Godlie men we graunt they were but yet men hauing their infirmities and imperfections Their learning their zeale their ages were noe priuiledge vnto them but that notwithstanding they might be deceiued in their writings and expositions of scripture And take you this Master Rainolds for a sure conclusion that in the sayings of those who are all of them subiect to errour there is no stable and steadie ground to build our faith vpon lest perhaps we build vpon error in steade of trueth vpon the sand and not vpon the rocke So that without tryall and examination no sentence of a father nor of all fathers may safelie be receiued Neither are we so addicted to the late writers pag. 28. as to beleeue whatsoeuer they haue saied we are no more partiall vnto them in this behalfe then we are vnto the auncient fathers our religion and faith hangeth not vpon the sayings of men be they olde or younge but onely vpon the canonicall scriptures of God And as for Augustine Ierome and Cyprian they are as much ours in the moste and weightiest controuersies as Luther Caluine or Melancthon And if they or any other be against vs so longe as scripture is for vs our cause is good and we will not be ashamed thereof And therefore moste false is it that you say our Diuinitie resteth vpon these fathers pag. 29. c. whome you so scornfullie compare with the olde fathers We vse not to alledge for proofe of any doctrine Thus saith Caluine Bucer or other but thus saith the Lord thus saith the Prophet thus saith the Apostle thus the Euangelist thus is it written in the scriptures thus we reade in some booke of the olde or new Testament Notwithstanding we vse also to reade the fathers both olde and new as much as your selues and oftentimes we rehearse their sentences and expositions not as proofes in doctrine of them selues but to stoppe your mouthes that crie so lowde in the eares of the simple that all the fathers are against vs it being moste true that they are notablie and generallie as I haue saide for vs You talke in this place as one that would saie something and telleth a long tale but in the end forgetteth of what he meant to speake Of all that you saie make your conclusion and then shall appeere how emptie and barren a declamor you are Now saith Master Rainolds if these serue not pag. 31. a man woulde thinke their martyrs testimonie should be irrefragable And thinke you
So that by his comparison the doctrine of the gospel doth infinitelie in largenes excel al the scriptures of the new testament Such mad wicked sentences hath he throughout his wholl booke manie Ambrose Catharine saith It is the Popes proper priuiledge to Canonize scriptures Catharin in epist ad Galat. cap. 2. Ipse canoniz at scripturas reprobat or to reprooue scriptures to Canonize true Saints and to reiecte false meaning thereby that the holynes authoritie and estimation of scriptures procedeth frō the Pope Wherein yet he seemeth to haue foulie forgotten that canonicall scriptures are a greate deale more auncient then the Pope and therefore could not receiue theire Canonization from him But thus they vtter their minde that scripture is no otherwise the word of God then as it is approoued authorized and Canonized by the Pope which is in effect to bring the holy ghost vnder the censure approbation of a man and such a man as he I omit because I will not be tedious a number of such sayings moe wherein the holie scriptures of God are shamefully intolerably dishonoured by these men in their writings and disputations and yet to procure a litle enuy to Luther they accuse him with out all measure continuallie for calling the epistle of Saint Iames a strawne epistle not absolutelie in it selfe but onelie in respect of S. Peter and Paules epistles Thus much now haue I thought good for satisfiing of the godlie to answere If you will not be satisfied you may write againe twise as much more whoe can let you this matter requireth no longer talke CHAP. 2. Of the canonicall Scriptures and English Cleargie FRom Saint Iames Epistle Master Rainolds proceedeth to entreat of other bookes refused by the Church of England which yet he saith were not further disprooued in times past then that epistle of Saint Iames whereupon he would haue his reader beleeue that in alowing some bookes and reiecting others we are ledde by opinion fansie not by learning or diuinitie Wherein Master Rainolds your selfe haue shewed that opinion not learning ruled you when you writ this For Saint Iames epistle was neuer disprooued by the wholl Church of God but onelie by some of the Church but those bookes that are refused by vs were by the wholl Church distinguished from the canonical scriptures had no greater credit then they are of with vs as shall appeere The reason therefore of our refusing them is not as you imagine because they containe some proofe of your Romish Religion which we cannot otherwise auoid but by denying the bookes to be of Canonicall authoritie but because they doe bewray themselues of what stampe they are by most euident markes and therefore haue bin generally of the wholl Church heeretofore sette in the same degree that they are left by vs. These Reasons you sawe comming against you and because you durst not openlie encounter with them you steale by an other way let them passe But I must call you back a litle though it be to your griefe and trouble and require of you a plaine and direct answere how those bookes of the olde testament which are commonly called Apocryphall written first in Greeke or some other forraine language can be Canonicall For all bookes of holie scripture in the olde Testament were written and deliuered to the Church by the holie prophets of God being approoued by certain Testimonies to be indeed the Lords Prophets Therefore Abraham answered the rich man Lue. 16.29 requiring to send Lazarus to his fathers house They haue Moses and the Prophets whereby it is plaine that the wholl doctrine of the church then was contained in the bookes of Moses and the other Prophets 2. Pet. 1.19 And Peter saith we haue a more sure word of the Prophets meaning the scriptures of the olde testament And so the Apostle to the Hebrewes writeth that God spake to our fathers by the Prophets Heb. 1.1 By which testimonies of Scripture it is prooued that none could write bookes to be receiued of the Church for the Canonicall word of God but onelie they whome God had declared to be his Prophets But the writers of those Apocriphal books were no Prophets as may easily appeere For then they would not haue written their bookes in Greeke as is confessed most of these were nor in any other tongue then that which was proper to the Church of God in that time as Moses and the Prophets after him writers of the holie scriptures had done The Church was then amongst the Iewes and the Prophets were the messengers ministers of God in that Church and vnto it they deliuered dedicated their bookes Wherefore the Greeke tongue being not the tongue of Canaan nor of the Church then was not chosen by the Prophets to write and set forth therein the doctrine and Religion of the Lord so that the verie tongue wherein these bookes were written being not the tongue of the Prophets doth plainlie conuince them to be no prophetical therefore no canonical bookes of the olde Testament And here I omitte particular arguments which might be brought against euery one of those bookes seuerallie whereby it may be prooued inuincibly that though you entitle them with the name of Canonical scriptures yet they had not the spirite of God for their father Agaynst this reason you bring Saint Augustines authoritie De doct Christ l. 2. 8. whoe reckoneth them amongst the Canonicall bookes of scripture and so you say did the Catholike Church of that age But that this is a moste manifest vntruth appeereth by S. Ierome Praesa in Pro. Solom whoe plainlie writeth that the Church readeth those bookes but receiueth them not amongst the Canonicall scriptures So although Saint Augustine had thought them to haue bene of equall authoritie with the writings of the Prophets which are called properlie Canonicall yet was not this the common iudgement of the Church in those dayes as Saint Ierome doth let vs vnderstand who liued in the Church of that age In what sense S. Augustine calleth these bookes canonicall Saint Augustine calleth them indeede Canonicall by a general and improper acception of that word because they are red in the Church and containe profitable and Godlie instruction but yet not so as though there were no difference betweene them and the other which are vndoubtedlie Canonicall For in that very place Saint Augustine opposeth Canonical scriptures to such bookes as by perilous lies and phantasies might abuse the reader Periculosis mendacus phantismatibus and bring preiudice to sound vnderstanding And then giueth a rule to preferre those bookes that are receiued of al Catholike Churches before them that some Churches receiue of those that are not receiued of all to preferre those that the moste of greatest authority do receiue wherby you may see the vanitie of that you said before that the catholike church then iudged them to be canonicall And
for a season and afterwardes restoring them to health saith thus his flesh is made fresh as in his childhood your translator hath altered the wordes and the sense in this sorte his flesh is consumed with punishments Consumpta est earo eiusà supplicits Such faultes as these which are indeede grosse and great faultes in translating the scriptures is your translation of this booke replenished withall I haue not laboured to note euerie particular fault for that had bene a busines too tedious But of manie I haue picked out certaine whereby the reader maie conceiue what to iudge aright of your wholl translation Now let vs come to the booke of Psalmes which of all bookes of scripture is in your translation most corrupted so as I maie truelie affirme that in some one shorte Psalme in latine moe may be founde then you shall euer finde in the Hebrew text of all the bookes of the Bible Which came to passe by this meanes for that in S. Ieromes daies the other bookes in the latine translation were corrected according to the Hebrewe but this booke onely although it needde as much correction as any other The booke of Psalmes in the latine vulgar translation moste corrupt yet because it was in the corruptions thereof so generallie vsed as it could not be chaunged without much trouble and offense in the Church was not dealt withall by S. Ierome but suffered to remaine as it was and to carie still about with it those manifolde greeuous sores which shoulde with diligence in time haue bene cured This being by the best of your owne side confessed it is a wonder that Genebrard your Hebrew Doctor of Paris would labour so much with all his wit and cunning to make some agreement betwene your translation the text wherin as he hath taken verie greate paines so hath he shewed himselfe in manie places altogether ridiculous in deuising such seelie shifts as he is enforced for some shew of consente in the meaning howsoeuer the wordes sound most diuerslie And when he hath searched all the corners of his heade for reasonable expositions yet is he faine oftentimes to giue ouer and let the wordes quietlie passe without his construction If I should gather and set downe in particulare discouerie the corruptions of this booke this onelie worke would be a volume of greater quantitie then is the Psalter it selfe Therefore as hetherto I haue done so wil I proceed to take a litle of much and in certaine euident examples of sundrie places set before the readers eyes how vnworthie your translation of this booke is to be called by the name of so worthie a scripture In the second Psalme a text that concerneth our sauiour Christ as notablie as anie almost in the olde Testament psal 2.12 is shamefullie peruerted in your translation For where the Prophet Dauid exhorteth al to kisse the sonne Naâ—heku-bar that is to submit themselues to Iesus Christ and his gospell setting forth in these wordes a plaine testimonie of his Godhead and distincte person your translation saith no more in this place but onelie thus Apprehendite disciplinam Apprehend discipline which though it be a good admonition yet is it farre short of the true sense and excellent doctrine therein contained And this maie be an argument of great weight to prooue that the Iewes are not honestly dealt withall by you in that you accuse them to haue corrupted the Hebrewe text for malice against our Sauiour Christ For if they had bene mooued indeed with such a diuelish intention would they haue suffered this text to haue stoode in such sinceritie especiallie hauing so great opportunitie to change the words as was offered vnto them by the Greeke and latine translations In the 3. Psalme the Prophet saith psal 3.8 Thou hast smitten all mine enemies vpon the cheeke boneâ— your translation hath thus Lechi thou haste smitten all those that are mine enemies without a cause Sine cansa Howbeit Genebrarde stoutlie defendeth your translation in this place and obiecteth ignoraunce to those that reprooue it Let all your Hebricians be iudges and let Iohn Isaac a Iewe and a learned Iewe in that tongue answere Genebrarde If this had bene so cleare a case as Genebrarde maketh it could Isaac with a number more as Vatablus Pagnine Tremellius all as good Hebricians as Genebrarde no disgrace to him haue bene ignorant thereof In the fourth Psalme psalm 4.3 being but a verie short one your translation hath three euident faultes which cannot by anie shift be excused reasonablie First there is how long will ye be of a heauie heart Vsque quo graui â—orde in stead of these wordes how long will ye turne my glorie into shame for this to be the true reading euen your Genebrard was compelled to acknowledge and therfore he deuiseth and imagineth what the Septuagints perhaps followed And about this place Lindâ—â—e hath kept a sturre if he might by anie meanes saue the credit of your translation But Isaac his master in the hebrew tongue hath sufficientlie taken him vp for his dealing herein v. 8 Againe there is a word in your translation added to the text in the 8. verse Olei as Genebrard confesseth saying it was done by the 70. interpreters propheticallie which yet he cannot prooue and we wil not graunt Comâ—ungimini for silete And before in the 5. verse is one word put for an other to some change of the sense In the 12. Psalme Psal 12.6 being according to your editions the 11. which difference in numbring continueth to the end almoste and this maie fuffice to haue bene once remembred where the Prophet bringeth in the Lord speaking I will vp and sett him at libertie though he laie a snare for him these wordes are thus translated in your latine Psalter I will deale boldlie in him Fiducialiter again in â—o of which wordes Genebrard himselfe cannot deuise a conuenient interpretation and therefore he wandreth vp and downe and vanisheth awaie in the mist of his owne conceite In the fourteenth Psalme your latine translation hath three wholl verses together moe psal 14. then are to be found either in the Hebrewe or Greeke and are taken out of Saint Paul in the third to the Romanes being gathered by him out of seuerall places of the scriptures Hier. in promoe 10. Esâ—i as Saint Ierome hath noted But some in former times more hastie then wel aduised seeing the Apostle alledge so long a sentence together thought the same was written in some place of the olde Testament as it was by the Apostle recited and finding it no where supplied it in this place because of some wordes which the Apostle there hath rehearsed out of this Psalme And thus much do your owne men confesse euen Genebrard him selfe testifying that in the Hebrew now extant nothing is wanting If then nothing wanteth as he confesseth is it not a plaine case that these three
further if Saint Augustine himselfe had bene of your opinion he would not haue giuen this admonition to preferre some before some but would haue straitly and precisely charged that no difference should be made but all receiued alike being al of like authoritie As for Daniel albeit some parte of him be written in the Chaldey tongue yet was it vnderstood of the Church being then in captiuitie vnder the Babylonians and that tongue is but a diuerse Dialect from the Hebrew and differeth littel from it My second reason Pag. 21. you say is of more force and if I prooue it you promise to be of my iudgement Let vs then set downe the reason first and see the proofes afterward I sayd betwene thosde bookes Apocryphes of the old Testament and Saint Iames epistle there was this difference that they were refused of the wholl Church and so was not Saint Iames wherfore we had reason to reiecte them and not this By the wholl Church I meant not onely the primitiue Church of Christians as you supposed but the Church of the Iewes before Christ which neuer allowed those bookes for Canonicall as your selues confesse which is an inuincible argument against them For had they bene Canonical that Church would not nor ought not to haue reiected them and other Church there was none then to allowe them So by your iudgement it must be thought that diuerse bookes of Canonicall scripture were neuer receiued for many yeares in any Church which howe absurde it is euery man seeth The Apostle writeth that vnto the Iewes were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3.2 whereby is meant his word But these bookes the Iewes neuer receiued and therefore they are of another sorte then those that containe the oracles of God And that the Iewes did not amisse in reiecting them it may be vnderstoode in that they were neuer reprooued by Christ or his Apostles for the same Their false expositions of scripture are often tymes noted and their errours confuted but they are neuer found fault with for refusing these bookes of scripture whereof if they had bene guilty they should not haue escaped reprehension This argument you deale not with but expound my words of the primitiue Church whereas I spake specially of the Church before Christ For though the Catholike Church neuer thought these bookes to be Canonicall as that word is properlie taken yet it vsed in some places to read them for instruction of manners Hieron praef in Solom not for confirmation of faith as S. Ierome teacheth but the olde Church of the Iewes neuer vouchsafed them so much honour as to read them publikelie And that the Catholike Church receiued not these bookes for Canonicall though it read them you haue alreadie heard the witnes of Saint Ierome who also in another place writing expressely of the Canonicall bookes Hieron in prologo Galeats excludeth these out of the Canon and calleth them Apochryphall Hereunto might I adde many testimonies of Councels and writers both olde and newe wherein appeareth what iudgement the Catholike Church had of these bookes Gregory the great whoe in your opinion was the head of the Catholike Church being Bishop of Rome Writers old and new esteeme those bookes for Apocryphall and therefore one that by likelyhood should not be ignorant of the Churches iudgement calleth the bookes of Macchabees not Canonicall yet set forth to the edification of the Church Greg. in Iob. li. 19. cap. 16. Thus for 600. yeares after Christ you see these bookes were not esteemed in the catholike Church for Canonicall which also must be thought of the rest whereof we speake seeing there is one and the same iudgement of thē all And that this iudgement hath euer since continually remayned in the Church is prooued by a c. 49. in Graeco Veronensi Damascene by b De sacram in prol li. 1. cap. 7. Hugo S. victoris by c in Leu. li. 14. cap. 1. Radulphus by d in prol in li. Apocryp Lyrane by e in prol Iosu Hugo Cardinalis and many moe whoe playnly doe affirme those bookes in the olde Testament that the Church of England now accounteth Apocryphall to be so and not as you would haue them taken canonicall Yea since your Tridentine assembly Arias Montanus a man of your owne side though not so absurd corrupt in iudgement as moste of you in his Hebrew Bible interlined is not affrayd thus to write of the same bookes and that not in a corner but in the very forefront and principal leafe of the booke There are added sayth he in this edition the bookes written in Greeke Bibilia Montani 1584. which the catholike Church following the canon of the Hebrews reckneth among the Apochryphall Thus it is euident that these bookes haue beene and are refused by the catholike Church and that our Church iudgeing them Apochrypall consenteth with the iudgement of the catholike Church and yours in receiuing them for canonicall haue not herein a catholike iudgement Now for Saint Iames epistle where you demaund how it may appeere that it was not refused by the wholl Church I would know whether you will say it was indeed refused by the wholl Church or no if you will so say then you shall as much discredite the authoritie thereof S. Iames epistle was neuer reiected by the wholl Church but by some particuler Churches onely as euer Luther or anie Protestant hath done For as the wholl Church neuer receiued anie booke for canonical but that which was truelie Canonicall so the wholl Church hath neuer refused any as Apocryphall but such as were indeed Apocryphall If then the wholl Church of Christ hath refused Saint Iames Epistle it will necessarilie follow that S. Iames Epistle is not canonicall But that the wholl Church euer refused it is vntrue as maybe prooued by the testimonies of writers and Histories of the Church Euse l. 2. c. 23. Eusebius that was the greatest aduersarie of it and did most sharplie censure it yet in the same place confesseth that both that and the rest were receiued and published in moste Churches Wherfore when you saie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that for this part you must credit me vpon my word herein you bewray either great ignorance or desire to quarrell The difference then which I put betweene the Apocryphall bookes of the olde testament and these bookes of the newe that they were reiected by the Church wholie these not so is fullie prooued whereupon it followeth that the Church of England had greater reason to refuse them then these and was therein led by learning knowledge not by fansie and opinion as you saie What learning or what diuinitie is your Church led by first to esteem of these alike then to alowe for Canonicall such bookes as you confesse and can not denie to haue beene refused by the wholl Church Where you say my reasons make moste against my selfe pag. 23. I
know not how I could haue written more plainelie more consonantlie to my selfe then I haue done But some are so froward that though it be beaten into them with hammer yet they will not seeme to vnderstand I saie Luther followed the iudgement of the auncient Church in refusing Saint Iames Epistle what maketh this against my selfe Can you deny but some of the ancient Churches refused it Doth not Eusebius prooue it when he saith it was receiued in moste Churches Then it followeth not in al Churches And would Eusebius haue called it a Bastard if some Churches had not so accounted of it But what if some refused it doth it follow therefore that the wholl Church did so you maie not thinke M. Rainolds to cast vpon vs such a miste but that we shal be hable to espie your walking along Saint Iames epistle was neuer refused of all Churches generally it was refused onelie by some Luther in refusing it agreed with the auncient Churches not with all but some as many as refused it But the greater number of Churches receiued it as Eusebius witnesseth and our Church is led by Gods spirit and true learning to follow them But for the Apochryphall bookes of the olde Testament I haue prooued sufficiently and can further declare if neede require that both the greatest part of the Church and the wholl Church hath reprooued them As for that Ierome sayth The Church readeth them it maketh litle for their credit S. Ierome a great enemy to those apocryphal bookes seeing he addeth immediatly it was to edifie the people not to confirme the authoritie ef Ecclesiasticall doctrine and that though the Church read them yet it receiueth them not among the canonicall scriptures wherein he hath plainely cast them downe from that height of authoritie and maiestie whereunto you would so faine lift them vp The Tower conference is here brought in to no purpose Pag. 25. Their scope was to shew that in the primitiue Church not onely some particuler persons but wholl congregations haue doubted of many bookes of Scripture and yet notwithstanding lost not their dignite of true Churches of Christ and therefore that Luther doubting or denying some of them cannot for that cause iustelie in any indifferent iudgement be condemned seeing whatsoeuer they obiect against Luther in this behalfe must light vpon the auncient Churches fathers that haue thought herein as Luther did Wherefore your conclusion that you set downe in the end of this your idle wandring talke is onelie deuised of your selfe and not maintained by vs. For you father vpon vs that we thinke we may refuse all such bookes as of olde haue bene doubted of pag. 28. which is as farre from our thinking as heauen is from earth and if any man haue euer vttered such a thing as I thinke none hath it is his owne priuat conceite not the approoued and constant iudgement of our Church The bookes in the olde Testament that we refuse besides that they carie in their foreheades euident notes of Apochryphall writings haue not onelie bene doubted of but clean cast awaie by the Church of God as hath bene prooued all the bookes in the newe Testament doe we whollie admit as canonical not refusing any parcell or word thereof because we acknowledge in them the spirit of God and see no reason to mooue vs otherwise For though they haue beene doubted of in former times yet it was vpon no certaine ground and by fewe in comparison of those that receiued them vndoubtedlie Pag. 29. Thus in a word the necke is broken of al your notes that follow where in you labour to saie as litle in manie words as possiblie maie be sayd That we rente from the bodie of the Scriptures in the old Testament Toby Iudith Hester Baruch Wisdome Ecclesiasticus Maccabees the praier of Manasses the song of the three children the storie of Bell herein we doe the canonical Scriptures no iniurie deuiding from them such bookes as are not of that absolute authoritie that they which are in truth canonical maie remaine intire and wholl together no more then the shepheard doth iniurie to the sheepe in sorting the goates and other cattel from them But which of our brethren are they that ioyne to these the two bookes of Cronicles and the song of Salomon If you can name any such in these daies it will soone appeare they are not brethren of ours You will not I suppose charge vs therewith and yet perhaps you will haue men suspect vs as guiltie thereof But your boldnesse is intolerable that knowing both the common consent and practize of our Church do notwithstanding both labour to caste wrong fullie vppon vs some suspicion for refusing these and furthermore also plainlie and most falsllie avouch that we denie sundrie bookes of the new Testament setting downe in a rowe Saint Lukes Gospell M. Rainold accufeth vs for denying some Canonical books of the olde Testament diuers of the new which all the world knoweth to be a great slaunder the epistle to the Hebrews the epistle of Saint Iames the second of Peter the second and third of Saint Iobn Saint Iude the Apocalyps a parte of Saint Iohns Gospell What ment you Master Rainold thus to say and thus impudentlie to lie Are you gone to Rheames and haue you left all conscience behinde you Care you not to publish in printe to the world so great so manie so manifest vntrueths before you vse to make your sacrifice at Masse do you not vse to confesse your lies as sins and yet will you print your lies without repentance Of these our Church denieth nor one doubteth not of one If you meane some Protestants in Germanie whatsoeuer they thinke of Saint Iames S. Iude the second of Saint Peter the second and third of S. Iohn yet the epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps of Saint Iohn they do receiue as canonicall Saint Lukes gospell came neuer yet in doubt or question amongst vs and I muse what the occasion should be of this your so fowle vntrueth If because in the Tower conference of the fourth day one said that the Laodicean Councel omitteth S. Lukes gospel it is too friuolous seeing that was a slippe of memorie or ouersight in him And though the Councel had so done as it hath not yet how followeth it that we therefore doe so My distinction of the wholl Church some Churhes is as cleare as the day it is to be obserued that whereas in it resteth the summe of this your second Chapter and you are desirous to haue it remooued yet you bring nothing once to stirre it That S. Iames hath bene douted of in such sorte as Iudith Macchabees the counterfaite Hester for the right Hester we embrace is prooued alreadie false and that our owne doctours refuse it is an other vntrueth For were it as you saie of that conference yet is it but one single mans sentence and that by waie of arguing
not according to the Hebrew but according to the Septuagints First Master Rainolds your comparison is not equall What are ye to Christ to his Euangelists and Apostles will you be bolde to take as much vppon you as they might herein doubtles you haue not so wiselie be thought your selfe Then shew if you can a place alledged by our sauiour Christ or anie Euangelist or Apostle swaruing in sense from the Hebrew They cite not alwaies the words but they keepe most truelie the sense and meaning euer more Lastlie it is one thing to translate the scripture and an other to cite a place of scripture In citing a place it is sufficient to obserue the true meaning in translating it is necessarie to keepe the wordes as neare as maie be Our sauiour his Euangelists and Apostles were no translatours of scripture but they truelie deliuered the sense of such places as they alledged out of scripture The Apostle you say alledging a place out of the psalme Psa 19.5 Their sound is gone into all the earth followed not the Hebrew First I answere the sense is all one Rom. 10.18 whether you translate their sound or their line is gone forth secondlie Iohn Isaac can tell you Contra Lindā lib. 3. p. 148. that the hebrew word Kau must signifie not onelie a line but also as much as Kol a sound which if it be so Act. 13.41 then hath the Apostle kept the verie word The place in the Actes which S. Paul citeth out of the Prophet Habacuc hath no difference in substance The Prophet saith Behold among the Gentiles c. The Apostle citeth the place thus Habac. 1.5 Behold ye scorners Howsoeuer some diuersitie maie appeare in the wordes the purpose of the Prophet and Apostle is all one and this was the thing which the Apostles regarded in alledging authorities out of the old Testament Your third example in Saint Iames sheweth Iam. 4.6 that the Apostle cited the words of the Greeke not of the hebrew which is graunted to be oftentimes in the new Testament vsed But to alledge the sense of a place therin to follow some translation is another thing then to translate the text it selfe The Hebrew text is to this sense He mocketh the mockers and giueth grace to the meeke Pron 3.34 Saint James rehearseth the wordes thus God resisteth the proud and giueth grace to the humble The sense is not altered seeing these mockers are the proude men of this world and God mocketh them when he resisteth them But tell me now whether you think the Hebrew in these places to be corrupt or no. I think you dare not so affirme seeing your latine vulgar which you account authenticall agreeth with the Hebrew for the two last places Then what is your argument out of these examples gladly would I vnderstand if you could tell That Christ and the Apostles cited places out of the olde testament according to the Greeke Haue an eie to M.R. conclusion and it shal appeare he speaketh beside the purpose was it because the Hebrew was contaminated as you speake If it were then must you confesse your latine translation which you so much esteeme to be full of corruption Would you translate these places according to the Greeke because you finde them cited by the Apostles according to the Greeke Expound your dreame Master Rainolds your selfe and tell vs what you saw Caluine you charge for cutting the place of Iames cleane awaie Lay not the Printers fault vppon Caluine If he had meant as you surmise he would haue cut the same sentence out in Saint Peter also But there you haue it set downe in the text and expounded in the commentary Your spposes haue small weight to ground an argument vpon pag. 290. you may deuise and imagine any thing what you liste Euery canonicall booke of the olde testament is extant in the same language wherin it was written As for your bookes of Tobie Iudith Machabees it is no matter in what tongue or by whome they were set forth That S. Matthewe writ his Gospell in Hebrew is affirmed I graunt by auncient fathers but affirmed onelie not prooued and arguments there be manie to the contrarie But admit that so it were the Greeke was set forth in the Apostles daies as the same authors confesse and by them commended to the Church as the true and authenticall history written by S. Matthewe and of vs is so to be accounted As for the Hebrew of that Gospell now extant your selfe beleeue not I thinke it is the same that Saint Matthew writ if he writ anie at all in Hebrue Looke now to the force of this supposition a litle better your selfe if you haue grace to consider it aright which you saie is wanting in me you will confesse it prooueth nothing My words by you translated I acknowledge pag. 291. c. out of which three things you note First that I confesse you refuse not the fountaines but because you thinke them to be corrupt which yet is not by me any where confessed The fountaines indeed you refuse and of this refusall the reason you pretend to be that they are corrupt Yet thinke I not that so you are in trueth perswaded it being contrarie to all reason that the translation generallie should be more pure and incorrupt then the fountaine it selfe from whence it is deriued Secondlie that I affirme you thus to say because the fountaines be not so commodious for you as the translation This to be the true cause in deede any man may soone perceiue that throughlie indifferentlie considereth your dealing this in some examples I haue alreadie shewed and can more at large declare when occasion shall require Thirdlie that I tell you the fountaines are more pure and holesome then the latine edition Verilie this I beleeue and this can I prooue and this shal in the discourse following appeare whatsoeuer you haue alledged or can alledge to the contrarie In your entrie to the question you thinke to gaine credit to your vulgare translation by S. Ieromes authoritie pag. 294. who was requested by Damasus Bishop of Rome to correct the latine translation of the new Testament Hier. in prefat in nonū Test S. Ierome I reuerence Damasus I commend the worke I confesse to be godlie profitable to the Church But if Ierome or Damasus maie bring anie waight of commendation to your latine translation how much more ought we to haue in high and holie reuerence the Hebrewe and Greeke text which was written not by Ierome or anie such father of meane credite but by the Prophets by the Apostles and Euangelists not at the request of Damasus or other like Bishop but by commaundement from God and direction of the holie Ghost S. Ierome tooke paines at Damasus request in the foure Euangelists of his owne accord in manie bookes of the olde Testament but this maketh nothing for your assertion but
your other argument our of Luke 7. v. 47. of the woman to whom many sinnes were remitted it hath bene answered so fullie and truelie by sundry learned writers that I might whollie passe it ouer A chieâ—â— place of the papistes for merite of workes answere and expounded Onelie this in briefe I saie to stoppe your rayling mouth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because is often times vsed for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore that so in this place it must be of necessitie expounded may appeere by an inuincible reason which your selues cannot denie For that woman being so deeplie drowned in deadly sinne how could her loue deserue the grace of God and remission of her sins doth your scholasticall Theologie maintaine that a sinnefull creature lying in state of condemnation can by loue merit pardon of his sins Tel vs plainly if this be your doctrine your religion your diuinity If then this be moste false and impossible confesse that the loue of that sinnfull and miserable woman was not be cause of forgiuenes of her sinnes but the effecte following and not going before the same This doctrine is true and Catholike the contrarie wicked and hereticall and therefore no cause had you to raile so mightely at Beza and vs for translating expounding this word as we do as the proportion of faith circumstance of the place moste vndoubtedlie and necessarilie requireth For our sauiour Christ sheweth the cause of hir so great loue to be the forgiuenes of the great and manie sinnes They to whome litle is forgiuen loue a litle they to whome much is forgiuen loue much She had much forgiuen therefore she loued much And this the Fathers also acknowledge to be the true and naturall seuse of the place although you abuse their names to the contrarie S. Gregorie as he is also by Thomas alledged Grâ—g 〈◊〉 83. â—â— Luangell writeth thus The debt being forgiuen to both the Pharisie is demaunded who should more loue him that forgaue the debt You see that Gregorie expoundeth this of the loue that followed the forgiuenes of the dâ—bt And so likewise Saint Ambrose vpon this place Ambros is Luc. 7. Because saith he there is nothing which we can worthelie render vnto God woe be vnto me if I loue not I dare saie Peter rendered not and therefore he loued more c. Let vs therefore render loue for debt charitie for reward thankes for the prise of his bloode Thus Saint Ambrose planlie she weth that this loue in that woman did spring from remission of her sinnes Câ—nus l. 12. c. 12. as it must in vs also proceed from the same fountaine I could also put you in minde what Canus a schooleman of yours hath written of this place cleane ouerthrowing your opinion as if he had of purpose deuised a shift for you Notwithstanding that the fathers sometime write our sinnes are washed a waie by teares of repentaunce I graunte wherebie they meane no other thing but that by our earnest sorowe and repentance we receiue a sure testimonie to our soules of the remission of our sinnes Your discourse about Musculus exposition I pretermit with al your monstrous reproches blaspemies of Lucianical onely faith c. except the deuil him selfe stood by them and suggested to them such construction c. fitter for you to vtter then me to rehearse or answere pag. 428. This wholl matter againe M.R. laieth out in particular distinctions wherunto hath bene answered enough alreadle and more then nedd but onelie in respect of that intolerable and outragious Importunity which this cauiller hath vsed If this be an vnlawfull shift in expounding of scripture to trie and correct the translation according to the Hebrew and Greeke fountaines then haue all the auncient fathers of the Church exercized continuallie wicked shifts whoe both appeall them selues to the authenticall fountaines and counsell all others to doe the same far otherwise then your fathers of Treâ— haue done or will suffer others to doe whotie their faith wholly to a bare translation and giue no creditt to the Canonicall fountaines wherin they haue not only vse de damnable and miserable shift but at once haue rased out the wholl scriptures from beginning toending Grat. dist 9. vt veter S. Augustine saith the bookes of the olde Testament must be examined by the Hebrew and the new by the Greeke veritie Saint Ambrose saith Ambrosade incarn cap. 8. The authoritie of the Greeke bookes of the new Testament is greater S. Ierome is euery where of the same minde In the new Testament saith he if there arise anie question among the Latines Hier. ad sonn Fret and there be difference in the copies we repaire to the fountaines of the Greeke tongue wherein the new Testament was written and so likewise in the olde In his preface vpon the fiue bokes of Moses he esteemeth it an absurde and impossible thing that the latine copies should be purer then the Greeke and the Greeke then the Hebrew Againe in a nother place he saith if trueth is to be sought in a Euang. ad Damas whie reiurne we not to the Greeke orignal speaking of the new Testament And such sayings hath he manie alwaies preferring the Hebrew Greeke before al translations in the world But all this by M.R. simple verdite was but a shift in him and al the auncient learned godlie fathers For it is the high waie to Atheisme in his opinion to do as they did and as they haue also taught vs to doe Zuinglius exposition of loue for faith pag. 429. I will not maintaine It may seeme more curious then necessarie In the text is no difficultie if the simplicitie of truth maie be receiued As for Tertullians complaint of certaine heretickes that either refused or mangled or corrupted the scriptures it toucheth vs no whit at al who acknoweledge the wholl bodie of scriptures and are so far of from wilfull corruption thereof that of purpose we would not alter one letter in the Bible to winne the wholl worlde Therefore we litle regard your furious and senseles railing against vs where with you haue stuffed all partes of your booke that neuer was scorpion fuller of poison then it is of venemous and stinging reproches Leauing the Greek you returne againe to the Hebrew Pag. 431. against which you haue deuised pretie reasons to prooue there is no holde in it against contentious heretikes The blasphemie of which assertion M. Rain saith that in the Hebrew text of scripture there is no holde I dout not euerie reasonable man at the first will espie and abhorre For seeing it pleased the Lord of all tongues of men vnder heauen to chuse that tongue wherein to write his word oracles that his Church might haue a most perfecte and certaine rule of religion shall this Papist come and controll the wisdome of God for so doing and say that of the Hebrew litle holde can be
speake and thy selfe considering the matter aduisedlie wilt saie as much For in making an olde rotten translation as I may boldlie call it being compared with the originall word of scripture although otherwise I giue to it that reuerence that the antiquity therof deserueth full of wants faultes errors ouersightes imperfections and corruptions of all sortes as in this booke hereafter god willing thou shalt perceaue to be the authenticall word of God and denying the originall faithfull text which Moses the Prophets the Apostles the Euangelists did write to be the worde of God what do they els but plainlie as it were with one dash of a penne cancel the wholl sciptures Herein maiest thou see what conscience these men make of scripture that do cast awaie the verie authenticall text and bookes of holie scripture preferring before them a homelie latine translation which besides it is such as I haue said no man can tell from whence or from whome it came And this forsooth is their scripture coined and canonized of late in the councell of Trente and neuer before and other scripture haue they none Hitherto Master Rainolds treatise hath bene generall of the English Protestants pag. 41. c. now he craueth leaue of the reader to descend and applie the same to his aduersarie whose booke he is to examine and first he noteth the fashion of Heretikes alwaies to haue bene to inuade the chiefe pastours of the Church What heretikes haue vsed commonlie to doe appertaineth nothing vnto vs we could no otherwise doe but when we espied the wolfe deuouring the flocke and Antichrist sitting in the temple of God giue warning thereof to all crie out against him and call him by his proper name the verie Antichrist of whom Saint Paul to the Thessalonians and the scriptures in other places doe mean This hath bene the iudgement of al reformed Churches from the beginning and wil be to the ending of the world And although Sanders hath taken great paines in this behalfe to prooue their Pope to be no Antichrist for then all were vtterlie lost yet how little he hath by his demonstrations preuailed the godlie reader maie easilie iudge by the answere set forth which Master Rainolds because he cannot orderlie and thorowlie disprooue carpeth at some partes thereof in the residue of this his preface But being appointed as he saith to answere the booke it had bene more for his commendation and credite of the cause to haue perticularlie refuted my wholl replie then thus to pike certaine parcels at his owne choise and to pretermit all the rest Yet let vs see what he can saie whereby it shall appeere how litle he had to saie In the first demonstration of all Pag. 44. c. D. Saunders endeuoureth to proue that the great Antichrist must be one singular man for proofe whereof he allegeth sundrie reasons which are seuerallie answered and lastlie as the chiefest that all the fathers haue spoken of Antichrist as of one man Doctor Saunders and parcel of my answere are here by Master Rainolds repeated but the principall ground thereof is omitted Whereas it is by Saunders affirmed that all the fathers haue spoken of Antichrist as of one onelie man although this be vntrue and can neuer by Saunders or anie Papist be prooued and although further it is one thing to speake of Antichrist as of one man and plainlie to saie that Antichrist is one man yet supposing this were true that Saunders meaneth notwithstanding his demonstration holdeth not being taken from the authoritie of men from whome no demonstration in diuinitie can be drawen This is the summe of this answere which Master Rainolds accuseth of Antichristian arrogancie seing the fathers write according to the apostolicall faith and tradition as he saith But how may it appeere Master Rainolds that the Apostles taught or deliuered such a faith vnto the Churches concerning Antichrist if this faith be contained in their writings tell vs in what booke in what place in what wordes If in secret tradition we admit no profe as you know from such vncertaine and blinde traditions And if you your selues oftentimes doe dissent from the fathers giue vs also the same libertie of dissenting from them vpon as good ground and iust causes as you haue anie The fathers speake diuerse times not according to the tradition faith Apostolicall but according to the common receiued opinion them selues in plain termes confessing that they speake but coniecturally if there was not in that age so full and cleare knowledge of Antichrist as at this daie no maruell maie it seeme to wise men for so much as nowe Antichrist is not onelie borne and bredde but growne to a strong man and perfectlie discerned and acknowledged by all marks essentiall to be Antichrist They forsawe him we see him they knew he should come we know he is come they feared him we haue felt him they geassed at him we can point him out with our finger finallie they might be deceiued but wee cannot vnles we will stop our eares and close our eies and suffer our selues willinglie to be abused pag. 46. c. In the second demonstration Doctor Saunders commendeth the Church of Rome by testimonies of writers auncient and later thereby to make vs beleeue that seing it hath bene so highlie praised it cannot therefore possiblie be the seate of Antichrist Here I gaue Doctor Saunders a distinction betwene the elder Romane Church and the yonger The auncient Church of Rome indeede was worthelie extolled and magnified of the fathers for constant keeping of the faith although euen then in that Church the egge was laide whereof shortlie after Antichrist was hatched the distinction M. R. raileth at with all his mighte but cannot disprooue with all his learning it being euident in al histories that after the daies of those godly fathers the Bishop of Rome was made head of the vniuersal Church wherein he was publikely proclaimed to be the Antichrist that should come afterward continually both religion learning and good life died by litle and litle in that Church as hath bene testified and complained of by infinite writers So the difference betweene that Church in former latter time is no lesse euident then betweene a mans youth and doting age if you consider all partes and properties of a true Church And yet saith Master Rainolds if it be lawfull thus to answere then shall no heresie euer be repressed forgetting fowlie that heresie must be refuted and repressed by scripture which neuer changeth but abideth for euer though Churches varie both from others and from themselues In the third demonstration Pag. 50. c. wherein Saunders affirmeth the succession of priests in the Romane Church to be the rocke against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile I denie the outwarde chaire or succession of bishops to be the immoueable inuincible Rocke wheron the Church is builded which is the sonne of God himselfe the onelie foundation
and refresheth a man in his age I wil not vrge Father Ierome for his vnreuerent wordes but sure I am he hath deserued more reproofe for the same then Luther hath done for any thing euer vttered by him against S. Iames Epistle By these examples you may learne not to be so rash in your iudgement and hasty in your conclusions as you shew your felfe to be in the very beginning that because Luther denied Saint Iames epistle to be Canonical following the ensample of others hence doe gather not onely that he but we also although herein disagreeing from him and denying no one booke of Canonicall scripture neyther of the old nor new testament doe raze the foundation of faith and leaue no ground for Christians to stand vpon We leue such ground and thereupon do build our faith as ye shall neuer be hable to shake with all the force ye haue Verely your Pope and ye all that hang vpon him cannot well stand on this ground because it is too narrowe and slippery for you and therefore ye seeke larger roome in the Fathers Councells Traditions whereof you speak The grounds of Popish faith These are in deed fit groundes for your Church to be founded vpon the corruptions of Fathers the decrees of men superstitious inuentions forged traditions whereunto if you did not more leane and somewhat staye your selfes then to the bookes of holy scriptures your Church your Pope your Cardinals your monkes your friars your selues should surely lie in dust shortly But now to come to Luther whome still you chardge and me also about Saint Iames epistle I could vse as many words against you if the cause required as you haue against me handle the matter by poynts as you doe but what end or vse should there be of such kinde of writing or what profitt could arise thereby to the Church of Christ Had you clerely gayned al that for which you contend yet had you not prooued any thing at all against our Church or fayth nor yet against me but onely that Luthers writings haue beene changed and altered which because you haue so paynfully euicted I praie you take it vnto you and vse it moste to your aduantage Howbeit for all your needles and vnthriftie labour spent herein yet doth Campian still remayne chardged with that vntrueth whereof you would so fayne acquit him which you may sone perceiue if you call to remembrance what Campian in his booke obiected to Luther concerning this epistle of Saint Iames namely that he called it contentious swelling Campian Rat. 1. drye strawen and thought it not worthy an Apostolike spirite All this doth Campian auouch Luther to haue written of Saint Iames epistle Now yf Luther haue in deede thus written then haue I vniustly accused Campian of vntrueth yf otherwise then hath Campian slaundered Luther fowly To know the trueth herein I vsed all conuenient diligence in examining all the copies both Dutche and Latine that I could get and when I found in them noe such wordes but rather the cleane contrary I was perswaded as I had good cause that all this was but a forged matter and therefore sayd it was vntrue Afterwards it fell out that I light vppon an old Dutch Testament of Luthers translation with his prefaces wherein I found something like in one poynt to that which Campian had obiected the which when I had read I dissembled not but confessed it in my answere to Gregory Martin And in that preface Luther in deede writeth that Saint Iames epistle is not so worthy as are the epistles of Saint Peter and Paul but in respect of them is a strawen epistle His censure I mislike and so himselfe I thinke afterwards seeing those words in latter editions are left out Yet I trust euery indifferent reader will graunt that there is ods betweene this that Luther writeth indede and that which Campian saith he writ For it is one thing to speake simply and another thing to speake in comparison Campian sayth Luther calleth Sainte Iames Epistle strawne Luther sayth That it is in comparison of Saint Peters and Saint Pauls epistles strawne If you can by all your wisdome prooue these to be all one and will farther busie your selfe about trifles I am content to giue you the reading but I will not vouchsafe to answere any more such strawen or rather wodden replies And sure Master Rainoldes if you can write nothing to purpose and yet will needs be writing something it were better for you to sit downe and picke strawes then so to trouble your selfe and others wherein you shall purchase nothing els but commendation of a strawne writer and your booke shal be iudged more worthy to be burnt then to be answered But seeing you haue taken in hand to prosecute this matter so largelie M. Rainolds helpeth not where greatest neede is of his helpe why doe you faile in that thing wherein most of all we need your hand and helpe For this that you bring concerning strawne hath already beene confessed somuch as is true your parte had beene now farther to haue shewed that Luther likewse called the same epistle contentious swollen drie not worthie an Apostolicall spirit as he is accused by Campian in the same place But for proofe hereof you can bring forth nothing and therefore you confesse that Campian layd more to Luthers charge concerning this Epistle then was true so that if in one poore word you haue a little auouched the credite of your Iesuite for whome you fight yet in three or foure other you haue condemned him which you slylie passe ouer notwithstanding as though Campian had neuer spoken so or you had nothing to do therwith Indeed I graunt it maketh smale matter what Campian hath lyed of Luther but you that take vppon you to defend him may not thinke you haue performed your duty if of much that he hath said you be able to iustify his saying in one litle point in three points haue failed Wherefore either cease to quarell still about this one word or shew your proofes for the rest also or acknowledge your lewd and miserable wrangling as in deed you must howsoeuer the matter standeth concerning Luther in this behalfe For what if Luther had plainly and constantly affirmed of Saint Iames Epistle as much as Campian hath obiected though vntrulie Is this a cause sufficient why you should make all these outcryes generally against all Protestants why then may not we by like reason complayne of all Papists for that which Cardinall Caietane hath written both of other bookes of holie scripture and namelie of this same Epistle whereof we speake was not Caietane a piller of your Church a peere of the court of Roome the Popes Legate in Germanie against Luther Doth not this famous Cardinall of Roome set downe in playne wordes that the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrewes doth gather insufficient arguments to prooue Christ to be the sonne of God that the second and
third of Iohn are not Canonicall scripture Cardinal Caietane denieth sunday bookes and partes of Canonical Scripture in the new Testament where fore Catharinus hath written against him that the Epist of Iude is Apocryphall that the last Chap. of S. Marke is not of sound authority that the history of the adulterous woman in S. Iohn is not authentical namely of S. Iames Ep. that the salutation is prophane hauing nothing of God nor of Iesus Christ But what speake I of Caietane disalowing certaine bookes and parcells of diuine scripture whereas Hosius another Cardinal and one chiefe founder of all your late sophistications hath written most dishonorably and vilely of the wholl scripture for thus he sayth Scriptura quomodo profertur á Catholicis est verbum Dei quomodo profertur ab haereticis Hofius contra Brent lib. 4. est verbum diaboli that is The scripture as it is brought forth by the Catholikes is the word of god as it is brought forth by the Heretikes is the word of the deuil So that by this notable Cardinals iudgement if a Protestant that is in their language and meaning an heretick shall alledge for proofe of Christes eternall diuinitie the beginning of the Gospel written by Saint Iohn this scripture shall now become of Gods word as it is and alwaies shal be the word of the deuil because it is vsed by such as they account and call heretikes O blasphemous hand and tongue And can you prooue this Maister Rainolds can the word of God be made the word of Sathan It will not stand with your honestie to maintaine it Gods word by whome-soeuer it be vttered though by the deuill him-selfe is not the worde of the deuill God is immutable so is his worde Then hath Hosius blasphemed in calling Gods word the deuills word which you ought to consider who thinke you haue found somewhat against the Protestants when you shewe what Luther hath written in some disgrace of Saint Iames Epistle I can further put you in remembrance what others of your syde haue taught and maintained to the great slaunder and derogation of the Scriptures and that not in one worde or two but in earnest and long discourses Pighius Hierarch li. 1. Cap. 2. What doth Pighius labour to perswade in one whole Chapter often in other places by occasion but onlie that the Scriptures haue al their credit authoritie from the Church as though they had not any of them selues from the lord by whose spirit they were written For thus he sayth All authoritie of Scripture among vs dependeth necessarily vpon the authoritie of the Church Neque enim aliter cis credere possemus nisi quia testimoniumillis perhibenti Ecclesiç credimus for we could not otherwise beleeue them but because we beleeue the Church giuing testimonie vnto them And againe The primitiue Church hath made certaine proofe vnto vs that the writings of all the Euangelists are of canonicall trueth and not the Euangelists themselues that were the writers And against SS Marke and Luke he disputeth at large and boldly auoucheth that they were not meete witnesses of the trueth of those gospells which they writ Marcum Lucam nonsuisse testes libneos veritatis scriptorum à se Euangeliorum Ecclesie therefore euen while they liued that credit was not giuen to their Gospels for them-selues no not of those that certainly knew they were written by them yea and farther also had their verie principall copies written with their ownehands but for the Apostolike Church Yea this presumptuos and arrogant spirit of Pighius proceedeth farther yet and sayth that the Gospells were written by the Euangelists not to the end that those wrytings should beare rule ouer our faith and religion Non quidem vt scripta illa praeessent fidei religionique nostrae sed subessent potiùs Hoc Euangeli um inquit vnicum solumque designans Eu◠gelium esse nō que nos Matthaei Marci Lucae Ioannis que dicimus Euangelia quat uor Hier. li. 3. ca. 3. Ceusur Colonien pag. 112. Cusan epist 2. 7. but rather be subiect thereunto And yet a litle more blasphemouslie That they are not the true Gospell which Christ ascending into heauen commanded his Apostles to preach to euery creature What should I rehearse his often reprochfull comparisons of scripture to a nose of wax and a rule of lead which may easelie be turned bowed and applied euerie way at our pleasure which also the Censure of Colen hath affirmed of them in like manner And to the same effect hath Cardinall Cusane long before set downe that the Scriptures must be expounded diuersly and framed to the time and practise of the Church so that one time they are to be vnderstood and interpreted one waie and an other time an other way Which is more vnreasonable and absurd by many degrees then if one should prescribe that the Ladie must conforme hir selfe to the fashion and manners of hir handmaide William Lindane hath bene and still is a stout Champion for the Pope Lindan Pan. Lib. 1. c. 17. in whose defence he hath vttered many bolde blasphemies against the Scriptures as namelie that the Euangelists tooke in hand to write the Gospels Non vt aliquam totius Euangelij methodum insormarent non vt Christianae fisdei summam consor berent Lib. 3. cap. 1. not to the intent to set downe any forme of the wholl Gospell or to write the sume of Christian faith And that the authoritie of the word not written is greater then of the word written which question he saieth maie easilie be determined howsoeuer to some it seemeth full of difficultie and perplexitie Lib. 3. cap. 6. De to to in vniuersum sacrae scripturae corpore accipiendum and that whereas Saint Peter hath affirmed of Saint Paules epistles that in them are somethings hard to be vnderstoode the same must be taken and ment generallie of the wholl bodie of the Scriptures soe that according to this mans doctrine there is not in all the scriptures one easie sentence and S. Peter was ouerseene to saie that but somethings in the epistles of Saint Paule were hard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he should rather haue said that all things were hard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 1. cap. 22. Furthermore that it is extreame madnes to thinke the wholl entire bodie of Euangelicall doctrine is to be fetched out of those sole Apostolike letters written with incke Dementissimae insaniae Ex pusillo noui testanmenti libello and that litle small booke of the new testament Thus scornefullie wirteth this proud Papist of the diuine scriptures and exemplifieth his meaning by a notable similitude that it is as greate a want of wit to esteeme iudge that al Euangelical doctrine is comprehended in the bookes of the newe Testament as if one should saie that the wholl frame of the world is contained in some one sensible creature
Thirdlie you descant vpon Bene habet It is well pa. 30. but so simplie and fondlie that euerie one may see you are a trifler It is well I said that Campian could not charge Luther for denying a booke which neuer anie Church denied but for denying such a one as had beene heretofore by some Churches denied And although I seeke not herein to defende either Luther or those auncient Churches that refused the same yet is Luthers offence not so hainous as it should haue bene if this had first proceeded of him-selfe without example of other Churches If you will burthen vs with refusall of S. Luke his Gospell the knowne trueth wil easilie acquit vs of that accusation But nothing can be so falslie surmized that you will not finde in your heartes to burthen vs withall As for Atheisme I doubte not but your owne conscience doth tell you our doctrine is farre from it which when you forsooke I wil not saie how neere you approched to Atheisme in yealding to the strawne opinions at Rome but I am assured you went from Christ to followe Antichrist and of a minister of the Gospel became an open enemie of the Gospel If you repent not it had bin better for you neuer to haue bene borne Those forefathers of whome I spake haue giuen such a blowe to your great fathers of Rome pag. 13.32 as you and your companions shall not be hable to heale his wound And though he liue still and breath yet is he scarse hable to stand on his feete and carieth vpon him that marke that shall dailie more and more discouer him to the Saints of God Aerius Vigilantius Iouinianus if they taught anie thing against the trueth of Gods word let them be esteemed as they deserue We laie the grounds of our religion not vpon the writings or opinions of men be they good or badde learned or vnlearned Catholikes or Heretikes but vpon the written word of the eternall God and therefore we praie not as you doe nor offer sacrifice for the dead we worship not nor inuocate Saints we thinke the honourable estate of mariage is pleasing to the Lord as well as single life For thus haue the Prophets the Apostles the Lord him-selfe taught vs As for Marcion Cerdon the rest we abhorre them with all their damnable herisies because the word of God condemneth them the more is your fault in saying they are our fathers But you haue drawen since your departure so hard a skin ouer your conscience Foule vntrueths affirmed of vs by M. R. as you feare not to vtter anie vntrueth be it neuer so desperate You say we matche S. Luke and the Apocalyps with the booke of Iudith and that we saie most plainlie we are not bound to admit those and all the forenamed bookes but may refuse them which for shame of the world you would neuer haue written but that like an Atheist your pen is a readie instrument to publish anie vntrueth The booke of Iudith in dede admit we not and that is no blasphemie prooue it if you can But what should I require you M. Rainolds to prooue anie thing that haue taken vppon you to saie al things and prooue nothing You reason as if you had made a fraie with reason Pag. 33.34 that we are like those olde brutish heretikes called Alogi who denied the Apocalyps of Saint Iohn because we saie we know as certainelie the scriptures to be scriptures and euerie booke thereof as we know the sunne to be the sunne which is as contrarie to those Alogi as the light is to darkenes But who euer doubted of the sunne you saie that it is the sunne of Saint Iames epistle Luther doubteth and the Lutherans wherfore you saie I condemne them for the veriest sottes that euer liued Not so Master Rainolds if you could see For though we are as fullie persuaded of the one as of the other yet doth it not follow that the clearnes of this truth appeereth alike vnto all We must be persuaded assurede of many things that are not seene no lesse then of those things that we see with our eies but to such onelie as it is reueiled vnto Know you not as vndoubtedly there is a God as you know there is a sunne If not to you yet to all Godlie the knowledge of the one is no lesse certaine then of the other though we cannot beholde god with our eies as we may seethe sunne Wil you then conclude that al are stocks and stones which cannot perceiue this so cleare and euident a trueth Doe not your selues thinke all those bookes for which you contend with vs to be as truelie canonicall as that the sunne shineth you will not I am sure say otherwise Doe you then besides an infinite number of auncient writers condemne those of your side for stockes and sottes that denied them To omit the rest of whome I spake before Sixt. biblioth lib. l. Driedo de Catal serip li. 1. c. 4. ad difficult 11. was Sixtus Senensis a sotte for denying your bookes of Hester was Dryedo a sotte for denying Baruch Thus must it be or els your argument is too childish I will not saie sottish Here is brought an argument for Traditions such a one as M. R. diuinitie could afford Pag. 35. It cannot he saith be prooued by scriptures that S. Mat. S. Marke S. Luke S. Iohn his gospell S. Paules Ep. are Canonical scripture that is penned by diuine inspiration then we must beleeue some what which by scripture cannot be prooued so tradition is established I would your other traditions were of this sorte then should we sooner agree But betweene this and the rest of your infinite traditions there is no likenes For this is grounded vpon the word written the rest haue no footing on that ground Although it is not expreslie set downe in thus many words S. Matthewes gospell is Canonicall How we knowe the gospell of S. Matthew S. Marke c. to be canonicall scriptures so likewise of the rest yet that we cannot otherwise come to the certain knowledge beliefe thereof but by reporte is a vaine foolish phantasie For the historie it selfe and doctrine therein contained doe plainlie shewe conuince the booke to be Canonical that is written by diuine inspiration so as although the Churches commendation and testimonie of it may confirme our iudgement in beleeuing the same yet our faith is builded vpon the written word it selfe And so your other argument falleth of faith by hearing and hearing by the word of God Rom. 10.17 For when we heare the doctrine of these bookes preached vnto vs we beleeue the same in euerie point whereof it must needs follow that the bookes are Canonicall containing so heauenlie and spirituall doctrine as the like can not be written of anie but the spirit of God onelie so being enforced to alowe and imbrace by faith the doctrine of those bookes how can we but
acknowledge the bookes them-selues to be canonicall wherfore in that you saie we finde not this word in the scriptures vnles you thinke no word is found in them but such as is set downe in expresse tearmes you are abused For this word is found in them by necessarie collection so be not your vaine vnwritten Traditions and therfore are neither parte nor parcell of Gods diuine word But here is by the waie to be noted how this man seeking to disprooue my comparison of the sunne pag. 36. hath suddenlie ouerthrowen the principall staie of their religion which is the visiblenes of the Church That which is knowen by sense saith he is no article of faith for these two are directly opposite Then the Church is not knowne by sense and so visiblenes is not a marke of the Church For if it be then is it not an article of faith to beleeue the Church Thus sometime you can reason well but then it is against your selfe The similitude was brought not to match our beliefe of scripture with knowledge of the sunne that as we know the one by sense so the other but that we haue certaine and vndoubted beliefe of the canonicall scriptures by themselues as we know the sunne by it selfe Your beliefe in deede of the bookes of scripture is naturall and to vse your owne example such as when you beleeue Tusculans Questions to be written by Tullie For as you are ledde thus to beleeue of this booke because it hath bene so accounted in all times by constant tradition euer since so likewise you haue no better reason to discerne the canonicall scriptures from other bookes but onely this common receiued opinion of the Church which you call Tradition We haue this as well as you and we haue also an other better and surer then this which you haue not yea which you blasphemously deride the testimony of the spirit wherby the authoritie of the scriptures is sealed in our harts and we are throughly induced to receiue them as the most blessed Testament and trueth of God For example that there is a God who created heauen and earth both the Scriptures teache and the creatures them-selues confirme soe as no man ought to stand in doubt thereof Yet notwithstanding this persuasion cannot be faithfullie setled and rooted in mans hearte vnlesse it be approoued and as it were sealed vnto vs by the holie Ghost without the confirmation whereof great doubtfulnes and distrust will arise in our mindes continuallie through the greate corruptiō of our nature Euen so that these scriptures are in trueth the verie word of God not onelie them selues doe prooue by their subiecte matter argument but also the testimony iudgement of the Church which euer so esteemed them may inuinciblie argue the same And yet for all this that we faithfullie receiue them and submit our selues vnto them as to the word of God without wandring or suspicion Gods holie spirit must inwardlie perswade our heartes that this indeede is his word and therefore of vs by all meanes to be imbraced and beleeued Thus it appeereth how false it is that you haue noted in your margent that the Protestants refusing the Church beleeued not the scriptures We refuse not the Church but we knowe the Scriptures of God haue greater credit and assurance then the onelie approbation of the Church I haue allreadie answered whatsoeuer you bring out of Augustine the Councel of Carthage or any other pag. 38.39 both in what sense those bookes of the olde Testament are called canonicall by them alsoe how the other of the new Testament were refused or receiued in times past You shall neuer be able to prooue that you set down in your margent wherein the summe of your wholl speach is briefly comprised that S. Iames epistle and the epistle to the Hebrews haue beene as much doubted of as the bookes of the olde Apochryphall Testament which the Protestans reiect The moste you can alledge is that some Churches haue doubted of those epistles but I haue before shewed that the wholl Church reiected these of the olde Testament This was mine answere to M. Martines demaunde this is mine answere still which you cannot with all your endeuour take away Something you write for a colour and fashion but you come alwaies behinde with your reckning It offendeth you that I saide we haue seene we haue confuted we haue troden vnder foote all the arguments of the Papistes and whatsoeuer they could saie Vnlesse you haue some new haruest growing which yet hath not bene reaped I might truely saie as I saide for you haue vttered all your store such as it was and we haue seene and confuted it long agoe and that by the written word of god against which no tradition no religion though neuer so auncient so vniuersall so glorious may preiudice anie thing What reasons moued you to departe from vs and become a feedes-man of the Pope I leaue to the Lord and your owne conscience for any thing that I could euer see and I haue laboured to see the trueth and what could be saide against it by the best of your side I doe with al my heart reioyce in the cause which we maintaine against you and I thinke it to be the iustest and honorablest defense that euer was vndertaken What you haue learned since you went and how substantiallie you confute my bragge as you call it shall hereafter further appeare as it hath in part alreadie done CHAP. 3. Of Luther preferring his priuate iudgement before all auncient fathers HEre againe is repeated an other quarrel about Luther to no purpose in the world but onely to discredite him a litle with the simple sorte For our aduersaries are so wasted and spent for good reasons that whatsoeuer they light vpon though neuer so vnfit to frame good arguments of they handle it with great earnestnes like seelie fletchers that hauing no store of steles left in theire shoppe are saine to make their blots of euerie crooked sticke What maketh it againest the trueth of our reliligion if Luther preferred his owne iudgement before the fathers is our doctrine therefore false and yours true either in wholl or in parte Others desire to reape great profit of a litle labour but you are content to take a great deale of paine for no commoditie at al. I would not herin vouchsafe you an answere but that I haue respect to the readers weaknesse whoe by such slaunders may be abused Your title sheweth plainlie there is in this Chapter no truth to be looked for at your hands pag. 42. you say Luther preferred his priuate iudgement before all auncient fathers and Doctors wherein you would haue men thinke he was vnmeasurablie arrogant and wilfull But Luthers spirit was farre from this insolent and immoderate presumption as maie by his owne wordes appeare which you haue noted For he saith not that he more setteth by his owne priuate iudgement then he doth by al the
Christ the truth You cannot pul in sunder these two offices but if you wil needs be priests that properly according to this order of Melchis then seeing that order of priesthood hath a kingdome inseparablie annexed to it it must necessarilie followe that you are also kinges and that properlie which were a verie proper thing indeede and greatlie to be accounted of Popish priests if they be according to Melchisedechs order must not be priests onelie but also kings If you deuide these offices in sunder it is blasphemy making a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech whoeis not also a king If you take both iointlie to your selues then will euerie hedge Priest be a gentleman a lord a King As this is most absurd monstrous so is that also that you should be priests according to Melchisedechs order For then further ought you to be eternall without beginning or ending of daies without father or mother as Melchisedech is described vnto vs in the scriptures and as Christ is in trueth and onely Christ So taking vpon you this priesthood of Melchisedech you commit horrible sacriledge and treason against the person of Christ our sauiour who will in time tread such vermine vnder his feete that creeping on the earth do presumptuously chalenge to themselues his speciall prerogatiues and royalties S. Augustine calling the ministers of the Gospell Priests speaketh improperlie Pag. 65. August de eiuit dei Lib. 20 cap. 10. as hath bene answered For although he saieth that all Christians are vnproperly called Preists and others in the Church are so called properly yet he meaneth not that there are anie such preists in the Church as Melchisedech or Aaron or Christ was but onelie that they are so termed by an vsuall and peculiar name which is not in custome of speach giuen generallie to all Christians This to haue bene S. Augustines meaning and the iudgement of the Church heretofore we may learne of Peter Lumbard How the fathers cal the ministers of the Gospell Priests Sent. lib. 4. Dist 12. â— to let the auncient writers passe For Peter first asketh this question whether that which the Preist doth may properly be called a sacrifice oblation His answere he maketh thus To this may be said briefly that which is offered and consecrated of the Priest is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is the remembrance and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation that was made vppon the altar of the crosse Yf then there remaine in the Church no sacrifice in proper and natural sense of the word as your owne doctour and Master of sentences confesseth there can not be remaining any Priests that maie so be called properlie For such as the kinde of sacrifice is such is also the kinde of priesthood if the sacrifice be not a sacrifice properly the priesthood cannot be a Priesthood properly but onely by a figuratiue and vnproper maner of speach That Augustine was a priest him-selfe Pag. 66. August Cofes Lib. 9. cap. 11.12.13 you labour to prooue out of his booke of Confessions in which place though he speak of an altar and sacrifice yet he meaneth not such altares and sacrifices as you haue erected and offered in all places This sacrifice that he speaketh of is the sacrament of Christes death the altar is the Lords table the remembrance of his mother in offering this sacrifice on the altar is giuing of thankes to God for her in celebrating the Lords supper Although I denie not but the superstition of praying for the dead was then crept into the Church so that if you will needes vrge that Monica desired to haue praiers made for her I will not greatly stand with you herein But that anie real sacrifice of Christ as you meane was offered for quick or dead in those daies that I denie and you can not prooue it by this or anâ— other testimonie of S. Augustine Where I saie that Christ hath committed his Church to be ruled by Pastors and Doctors for euer and not to Priestes pag. 67. you demaund whether this appointment had effect or no giue me warning to beware as though some danger were at hand what I answere But we shall easilie I trust driue awaie this craking Annibal from the gates of our Citie who commeth only to make a shew and hath no force to hurt Ephi 4.11 Ministers of the Gospell are ueuer called priests in the new Testament That Christ ordained Pastors and Doctors to rule his Church the scripture is plaine so that you may not forshame deny it now if these were priests trulie and properlie then should they haue bene so called and by this name commended vnto vs in the scriptures But wheras their office is declared diuerslie in great varietie of names yâ—t is this name neuer once giuen vnto them in no Gospell in no epistle in no booke of the new testament And maie we thinke that if the ministers of Christ in the new Testament were by Gods institution verie Priestes as these men beare vs in hand and had commission to offer so excellent a sacrifice as no Priest euer the like saue Christ himselfe may we thinke I saie or is it likelie that this name should neuer haue bene found in all the new Testament in this sense where are so manifold titles giuen vnto them as of Elders Ouerseers Rulers Shepheards Watchmen Ministers Stewards Seruants and such like Of all which names none pleaseth their humor but Priests they wil be called accounted as though Gods spirite which appointeth offices in the Church could not haue giuen fit names vnto them but would rather giue them anie name then that which is their proper name Anie man then that hath but halfe an eie maie soone see that the holie ghost in auoiding this name so carefullie hath giuen our Popish Priests a cleane wipe and both left them out of the dore and shut the dore against them though they striue neuer so much to creepe in yet are they to be driuen awaie by lawfull authoritie and kept forth as they that haue nothing at all to do in Gods howse But here M. Rainolds hath gotten a doughtie argument which I thinke because he knew not how to bring it in fitly in some other place hath halde it in here out of place He bids me shew where this Church for many hundred yeares was gogouerned thus which is as common an argument with them to vse his owne words as Dunstable hiewaie For this reason is euen their common pack-horse to beare the wholl burthen when all other faile where was your Church where were your ministers before Luther Whereunto that you may perceiue how farre we disagree from the Donatistes of whome you speake I answere that our Church was neuer so straited but that it might be found in all countreis christened and our ministers had the chiefest roomes till Antichrist by litle and litle had driuen them out and then afterwards
meant onelie thereby to make himselfe a chiefe Bishop ouer all Bishops and to bring vnder his iurisdiction the wholl Church of Christ and therefore it is euident that S. Gregorie vtterlie misliked that anie Bishop whosoeuer should haue an vniuersall authority ouer the whol Church which is to bring the Church in subiection vnder him That this was the meaning of that title of vniuerssall Bishop S. Gregorie himselfe doth testifie in these words who by the name of vniuersall Lib. 4. epist 38. goeth about to make subiect to himselfe all the members of Christ. And doth not you Pope affirme professe defend proclaime by all meanes possible that all the members of Christ must be subiect to him and that no hope of saluation remaineth for anie but such as continue in his obedience Then denie if you can but that the selfe same authoritie which Saint Gregory reprooued in Iohn of Constantinople your popes haue approoued in themselues euen this last 13. Gregorie who latelie deceased and therefore by iudgement of S. Gregorie manie hundred yeares agoe they are Antichristian Bishops The popes of Rome with their vniuersall supremacie long since condemned by Saint Gregorie a Bishop of Rome and not Catholike pastors of Christes Church Wrangle all ye can S. Gregorie hath plainlie condemned your Popes for taking vpon them both the name and office of vniuersall Bishops Andreas Fricius whom here againe you alledge I haue not to deale with all what thing was meant by this name of vniuersall Bishop may better be learned of S. Gregorie himselfe whoe knewe best the meaning thereof If you require further proofe consider that S. Gregorie reporteth also that the councell of Chalcedon offered that name to Leo Lib. 4. cap. 32. but he would not accept of it Did the Councell meane to take from all other Bishops of the world yea themselues all bishoplie grace and power what madnes is it thus to thinke what impudencie to stand in maintenance thereof as you doe Futher when the Bishop of Alexandria Eulogius in a letter called Gregorie vniuersal Pope Lib. 7. epist 30. Indict 1. meant he to depriue him-selfe of all bishoplie authoritie Nothing lesse And yet Saint Gregorie reprooueth him for so writing and will not suffer himselfe to be so called The name then signifieth that vniuersall authoritie ouer all Bishops and Christians which Iohn claimed and your Popes obtained and long practized and will not yet giue ouer This was vnlawfull in Iohn this Gregorie condemned not onely in others but in the Bishops of Rome also therefore your Popes by witnes of S. Gregorie a Pope are clearely conuicted of vnlawful and Antichristian vsurpation If your Pope refuseth this name of vniuersal Bishop why doth Bellarmine his greatest diuine Couâ—reon 3. Quest 4. recken this for one of the Popes names of dignitie but chieflie why doth the Pope mislike the name and allowe the thing signified by the name Concerning the two other articles pag. 164. c. of Reall presence and sacrifice you are content to saie litle which in effect is nothing For what haue you brought to prooue either of these your opinions you tell vs Saint Gregorie was a Priest and said Masse according to your popish fashion but whe will beleeue your report you haue tolde vs so manie vntruthes That Bibliander calleth him the patriarch of ceremonies that Melancthon saieth he horriblie profaned the communion that Illyricus rehearseth out of a popish writer certaine of his miracles about the sacrament that Paulus Vergerius hath written a booke against his trifles fables that M. Bale preferreth Latimer before Austen the monke whome he sent into England that the Bishop of Winchester M. Horne calleth this Austen a bussard It is not Austen that he calleth so but Bonifacius whome they name the Apostle of Germanie what maketh all this I beseech you against Master Iewells chalenge how conclude you hereof your Real presence or your sacrifice of the Masse surely your masters that set you on worke and made you an instrument to publish these thinges abused you much that you might abuse others more To Luthers iudgement of Saint Augustine pag. 166. that after the Apostles the Church had not more excellent and worthy doctor then he I willinglie subscribe but Luther accuseth the sacramentaries as he calleth them for mangling and abusing him in the question of Reall presence herein I haue nothing to answere in Luthers defense Saint Augustine teacheth no otherwise of Christes presence in the sacrament then we do as by the large treatises that haue bene written of this matter doth appeare yea neither Zuinglius nor Caluin nor anie other of our side hath more fullie and directlie written a gainst the Real and corporal presence of Christ in the supper then S. Austen hath in sundrie places That Luther iudged otherwise it was his errour which he retained of his olde leauen wherewith in time of papistrie his iudgement was corrupted Hereof what argument can you frame against M. Iewell some thing would you faine saie but your words haue no pith of reason in them Saint Chrysostome you saie hath written six bookes of Priesthood pag. 168. and none of ministerhood verilie this is a verie poore argument for the sacrifice of your Masse If this reason holde from the authoritie of Chrysostome I trust the like will not be denied taken from the authority of the scriptures In the new Testament Ministers are named six and six times priests in your sense neuer therefore no Priesthood remaineth and so by consequence no sacrifice But concerning the name of Priest how it hath bene vsed of the auncient writers not in the proper and naturall sense but after the common custome of speach I haue alreadie before declared Thus haue you M. Rainolds vttered all your skill in confutation of the Bishop of Sarisburies chalenge Howbeit if D. Harding were aliue I suppose he would thinke you had deserued small thankes Medle no more M. Rainolds in this matter the more ye stirre the lesse ye preuaile your learning is not much your iudgement is lesse you are but a weake instrument to deale with him whom D. Harding could not match M. Iewells chalenge is prooued wise true learned to the praise of Gods trueth shame of papistrie and worthie commendation of that famous Bishop whose memorie is euerlasting and most honourable among the godlie CHAP. 8. Of Bezaes translating a place of scripture Act. 3. and of the Reall presence MAster Rainolds leaueth M. Iewell pag. 170. c. and proceedeth to maintaine a quarell of M. Martine against Bezaes traÌ„slation of certaine wordes vttered by the Apostle Saint Peter and recorded by S. Luke Act. 3. v. 21. It were a vanitie to spend manie words about so small a matter and therefore suffering this man that knoweth no measure either of speaking or holding his peace to talke his pleasure I will herein vse no more wordes then the thing requireth that is as few
the blood of the new testament and this blood is the new testament in my blood If it may be lawfull for you to alter and expound the words at your pleasure then can you help your selfes wel enough but your exposition must be squared according to the wordes not the words framed to your exposition Againe pag. 240. you say where Beza correcteth Saint Luke in the latter part of the sentence I raile at the first so that betweene Beza and me S. Luke hath neuer a word right wisely considered doubties The words are right your exposition is fond and wicked The cupp you make to be the blood of Christ whoe as yet was not crucified nor his blood shed If your doctrine be true Christes blood was shed alreadie and that reallie els it could not be in the cup reallie The papists teache that Christs blood was reallie in the cup before his passion But if Christs blood was shed sitting at the table whoe was he M.R. that shed it whoe made the wound whoe opened his side who thrust his weapon in his heart whoe pearced his hands and feete This must you tell if you maintaine that his blood was then reallie shed and powred forth into the cuppe But by the cuppe M.R. is ment the wine in the cuppe which is the newe testament that is a sacrament of the newe testament in Christs blood shed for vs on the crosse This is a true and plaine sense agreeable to all analogie of faith standing with the words themselues followed of the auncient fathers When at length will you make an end of this railing it is to vnseemelie to lothsome pag. 241. to odious Indeed M.R. it must needes appeare a great absurditie to all learned godly Christians whoe know rightlie esteeme the price of our redemption that to be shed for our sinnes which was in the cup. Christs blood was shed for our sinnes which neuer came in the cup but remained in his bodie vntil the time of his death And if Christs blood was in the cuppe when he gaue the cuppe to his Apostles then must it follow necessarilie that his bodie then was without blood it being shedde already and contained in the cup. In the cuppe was onelie wine a sacrament of his blood which he gaue in the same to his Apostles to drincke whereof he drancke him selfe and so the scriptures expressely call it wine If this were the thing that was shedde for your sinnes then was true and naturall wine the price of your redemption then are you saued by wine then haue you no part in Christs blood But the true Church beleeueth her sinnes to be washed away not by that which was really contained in the cuppe but by the true blood of Christ which issued out of his body nailed on the crosse and wounded with a speare Your absurditie therefore needeth not to be further discouered it is so openlie blasphemous against the blood of Iesus Christ which was shed once not in the cup but on the crosse for our redemption If you vrge S. Lukes words as they stand in grammaticall construction I answere that as the cup is called Christs blood Christs testament that is by a figure the sacrament of his blood and testament so is it also said to be shed for vs by a figure sacramentallie But all men of skill and iudgement maie soone see that in these wordes there is some change of grammaticall disposition vsuall in the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists Your discourse about Tautologies in the scriptures is altogether vaine and friuolous To S. Basils testimonie you aunswere much in words and nothing in matter pag. 244. For what cause haue you thus to reproch Beza for his translation of these words seing you cannot denie but S. Basil hath reported that text of S. Luke euen as Beza hath translated the same and you confesse that Saint Basil hath truelie deliuered the sense thereof so all that you haue said or can say spitefullie against Beza must appertaine to Saint Basil no lesse Basil in Ethic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whome yet you will not seeme to touch But the thing truelie and indifferentlie considered Beza is no more to be accused then S. Basil you tell vs of heretikes a long tale which is no better then waste paper Vse it your selfe or bestowe it at your pleasure Of such badde stuffe base account is to be made Whereas I spake a fewe words concerning figuratiue speaches pag. 251. which the aduersaries cannot abide to heare of in the sacrament I haue as it were opened at vnawares a flood-gate to M. Rainolds flowing vtterance Quâ data porta ruit The streame is so strong and runneth so violentlie carying all manner of baggage with it that vaine it were to resist it Let it therefore passe downe and doe what mischiefe it can great harme I trust it shall not doe Thus much you must confesse that in the sacrament figures are found and yet when we oppose against your monster of reall presence a most true and euident answere that the wordes were figuratiuelie spoken and must figuratiuelie be expounded you rage aboue all measure But quiet your selfe Master Rainolds and somewhat staie your intemperate affection neuer shall you prooue while papistrie hath a man liuing to speake in defense of it either by scripture or auncient writer that these words must figuratiuelie be vnderstoode This is my blood this cuppe is the new Testament in my blood more then these This cup is shed for you Leaue your babling Figuratiue speaches in the verie words of the supper by the Aduersaries confession and speake to purpose prooue this if you can Wherefore finding in the Euangelistes wordes such manifest figures what reason haue you to condemne vs for vsing the same being a moste common and familiar kinde of speach Because it standeth not with your reall presence Let your reall presence hardlie shift for it selfe we are not bound for cause and respect thereof to wrest the scriptures to forge monstrous interpretations to change the sacrament into a reall sacrifice of Christ which heathenish kinde of doctrine neuer anie but Antichrist and his ministers maintained The scriptures the olde fathers the auncient Church of Christ taught and beleeued otherwise as hath bene shewed and prooued inuinciblie to your faces Your pages following filled with rouing testimonies I pretermitt your contumelies being no lawfull arguments require no answere CHAP. 11. Concerning the translation of the English Bibles MAster Martins boke of Discouerie is aunswered long since from head to foote in euerie part pag. 262. you haue the answere amongst you saie to it what you can with truth and learning To bragge of your fellowes booke which being throughlie and soundlie disprooued you cannot with all your skill maintaine is a childish vanitie to acknowledge no Replie which you cannot but knowe or to make light account of it whereunto you cannot truelie reioine is wilfulnes and
so partelie by vntrue translation and partelie by misplasing of the wordes hath whollie corrupted the text In the 7. Chapter v. 19. Leuit. 7.19 the flesh that toucheth any vncleane thing is forbidden to be eaten and must be burnt with fire Then immediatelie it followeth thus in your translation the vncleane shal eat therof Iramundus Mundus of late for the vnclean in your reformed editions is put cleane So your translations affirme that either the vncleane or cleane shall eate of the flesh which god commaunded to be burnt and none to eate therof an euident corruption by râ—ason of a worde omitted in all your vulgare translations both olde and newe In the booke of Numbers Chapter 4. verse 46. Num. 4.46 your translation hath whome Moses and Aaron made by name Fecit Paekad in stead of this whome Moses and Aaron numbred In the margent indeed of your latter corrected editions there standeth the word to be reckoned Recenseri for no other purpose I think but to be a witnes of corruption against your translations For if that word must be supplied and if you see and confesse your selues so much as apprereth in that you print it in the margent why might you not wel receiue it into the text it selfe If it haue anie right to stand in the margent more right hath it to be admitted into the text In Deuteronomie Chapter 4. verse 33. is a like fault to this Deut. 4.33 but something worse in your latine translations Moses saith did euer people heare the voice of God speaking out of the middes of a fire as thou hast heard and liued Vajechi Et vidisti Et vixisti your translations all haue thus As thou hast heard and seene In some copies you haue giuen vs a marginall correction but that is not much truer then the corruption of the text saue that this speaketh of liuing and the other of seing So in the. 15. Chap. 10. v. in stead of these words God shal blesse thee in all thy workes Mahbaseca your translation hath God shal blesse thee at al times first taking time In omni tempore for workes then leuing out the affix thine In the. 33. Chap. 10. v. a worde of waightie and necessarie force is omitted by your translator in declaring the office of the Leuites which especiallie consisted in teaching the people the lawe of God and so saith the true text joru They shall teach Iacob thy iudgements Israel thy Law But in your latine bookes the worde that signifieth to teach which was moste to be respected and whereupon dependeth that which followeth is both in the text and margent of your translations wanting and thus stand the wordes They haue kepte thy worde and obserued thy couenant thy iudgments O Iacob and thy law O Israell Now I appeale to the conscience of all the learned whether this be not a notorious deprauing of Gods worde where it is prescribed that the Leuites should teach Iacob and Israell the iudgements and law of God to leaue out the worde whereby they were charged to teach and whereas the dutie of teaching Iacob Gods iudgements and Israell his lawe was laid vpon them to make therof an other sense so much repugnant that they haue obserued the iudgements of Iacob and the lawe of Israell Iudicia tua ô Iacob legem tuam ô Israel Ios 11.19 Harde it were for any man in translating so fewe wordes to make so many faultes In the booke of Iosue Chap. 11. v. 19. the holie ghost hath noted that not one Citie of all the land of Canaan made peace with the children of Israel hishlimah excepting those Hiuites that dwelt in Gibeon But your translation telleth an other tale as contrarie to this as can be tolde that there was not a Citie Quae se non tâ—ae deret which did not yeald it selfe to the children of Israel An other reading in your margent of late hath bene deuised and that neither agreeing in trueth with the text as by comparing the same together any man may perceiue In the booke of Iudges Chap. 15. v. 14. When the Philistines met Samson being bound Iud. 15.14 the scripture recordeth that the spirit of the Lord comming vpon him the cordes that were vpon his armes becam as flax that is burnt with fire Your translator in steade of flaxe hath put woode Ligna Odorem and for the heate of the fire or some such like worde he putteth the smell of the fire And yet that woode is so easilie consumed with the onelie smell of fire I thinke you wil not say for maintenance of your translation against the originall text What then remaineth but to confesse as needes you must that here hath beene and is a foule corruption In the 1. of Samuel Chap. 9. v. 25. these wordes are added to the text 1. Sam. 9.25 Strauitque Saul in solario dormiuit And Saul spred vpon the top of the house and slept there being nothing in the text either of spredding or sleeping or anie such matter If therfore you wl be tryed by either hebrew or Chaldee or sundrie exemplares of your latine translation you shall confesse a corruption in this place so in deed you do but will not yet amend it How be it better were it not to acknowledge a fault then acknowledging one still to retaine the same And in the 19. Chap. 24. v. the scripture telleth that Saull put of his cloathes prophecied before Samuel and fel downe naked all that daie and night So hath the Hebrewe so the Greeke and so your owne Masters confesse it should be Which notwithstanding as it were in open and presumptuous maintenance of your corruptions against the sinceritie of the text in your bookes you read thus Cociuit and he songe naked This came to passe by negligence in the writer mistaking one letter for another But why will ye not be brought in this cleare light of knowledge whereby such grosse faults are easilie espied to amend your bookes to remoue the fault to restore the right word to his place you see belike what daunger might ensue of mending anie thing if once you should beginne you wist not how to make an end and therefore you are determined to sturre nothing for feare you bring downe all vpon your heades In the second of Samuell Chap. 6. v. 12. a number of wordes are added together in your translation 2. Sam. 6.12 more then can be found in the true text that Dauid hearing how Obed edom had bene wonderfullie blessed by keeping the arke in his house Dixitque Dauid ibo reducam arcaÌ„ cum bene dictione in domum meam said I will goe and bring back the arke with a blessing into my house These wordes may seeme to be fitte for the place it may be supposed that so Dauid either spake or thought But what of that may
towards God indued with greater grace and spirit more voide of partialitie and affection then they Otherwise if you compare him with other translators although I knowe herein your iudgement is altogether partiall yet as this reason may aduance him to higher estimation then other translators so must it cast him down as much and more beneath the writers them selues in that they being chosen instruments of God for that purpose were moste plentifullie indued and assisted with al graces of the holie Ghost which can not be auouched of that translator how excellent otherwise soeuer he were Other surmises and geasses of corruptions in the originall texte more then in the translation as they are by you oft repeated by sundry impertinent testimonies of our writers idlelie enlarged so shal they neuer be trulie and substantiallie prooued whereby it might appeere that the latine translation is more to be alowed and esteemed generallie then the Greeke text To oppose some of our new translators against your olde pag. 375. c. were verelie an easie matter but thus should we slippe awaie from the question and fall to other discourses wherin the controuersie lieth not If we should attribute as much learning and diligence to your translator as such a man could haue and vse yet would you confesse I trust he were still far inferior to the Prophets Apostles and Euangelists whose writings remaine and are the holy canonicall scriptures of God These writinges do we oppose against your translation and these doe you wickedlie and shamfullie dishonour in preferring the translation of such a man before them This you are not hable either reasonably to defend or colourablie to excuse and therefore you runne another waie as though you chased your enemie whereas feare causeth your felfe to flie All this talke of Erasmus Luther Zuinglius Oecolampadius Castalion Caluine Beza and their translations is from the purpose We make no such account of anie of them as you doe of yours to allowe and receiue whatsoeuer they haue translated without examining their translations by the text we prefer whome we know to haue dealt in that worke moste faithfullie and if we find by skill and triall some ouersight in the translation as in the best some may be found we cleaue to the originall text of scripture and not after your preposterous manner to the corrupt translation Now of all translations set forth by Protestants of all countries sure I am you cannot shewe any so repugnant to the veritie of the Hebrewe and Greeke fountaines as I can shew and as it hath bene shewed that yours is That Luthers and Bezaes and the other seuerall translations haue bene by some in certaine places reprooued is true But what kinde of argument call you this because some errours haue bene noted in this or that translation therefore to conclude the wholl translation is nought or worse then yours Emserus a papist you say hath gathered out of Luthers translation fourteene hundred foule lies If I saide that this in him were a foule lie I should say truelie Luthers translation hath bene sufficientlie commended and maintained by men of greater wisdome and learning then Emserus That Zuinglius also misliked Luthers translation in some parts and Beza the Basill translation and that of Castalion and Molinaeus Calaines and Bezaes translations which matters are by you at large rehearsed as thouge they made somewhat to purpose I graunte and giue you leaue to make thereof what you can But if this seeme in your iudgement a thing so odious and slanderous to our translatious that thus they haue bene seuerallie charged by some what may we thinke and saie of you that not content to accuse our translations though far better then anie you haue of such impietie dare affirme the originall bookes them selues now extant to be so full of grosse and notorious corruptions which you shall neuer prooue that your vulgar translation knowne to be moste corrupt is purer then they what soeuer hath bene saied by any against our translations is in no respect of like hainousnes to this seeing that not onlie the bookes of scripture were written and set foorth at the first moste purelie but the meanes also haue euermore bene as great to keepe and continue them in the same puritie as anie translation whatsoeuer Your iudgement of our English Bibles is answerable to that spirit where with you are poffessed and of the abundance whereof you write Nothing els they are you saie but corrupt gutters flowing from corrupte and stinking lakes M. R. contumelies against the English translations of the scriptures the best containing wicked horrible and ethnicall errors A slaunder most wicked horrible ethnicall of all men to be detested neuer shal you prooue any word hereof true Gregorie Martine hath labored herein and performed nothing your skill is onelie in open railing other deed of moment can you do none against vs. If you finde faulte with vs for correcting our Bibles shew vs if you can that either it is vnlawfull to translate the Bible into our owne tongue or els after is hath bene translated to reforme the translation in such places wherein some errors haue escaped or to translate it ouer againe No translation of the scripture can at the first be so perfecte and sincere but it may be afterwardes amended as God shall reuele to his Church the faultes thereof Otherwise if it were any fault to amend a fault why hath your Councell of Trident taken order for the correction of your latine translation and for a better edition thereof to be published then heretofore hath bene yea why hath Pope Pius reformed your Psalters Breuiaries Offices and such other bookes as are with you in greatest vse and estimation If this seemed requisite why maie not we looke to our translations like wise amend the imperfefections set forth better But your griefe is that we haue translated the scriptures at all although I trust you will not now condemne the thing plainlie seeing your selues at length haue giuen vs an English translation of the new testament which if you thinke to be so absolute as it shall neuer neede any reformation your iudgement is to be pitied rather then confuted Twoe reasons are alledged pag. 387. whie you maie not translate the new testament after the Greeke The reasons why the Rhemists haue not translated the new testamenâ— according to the greeke first because you thinke your latine Testament to be truer then the common Greeke copies now extant Thus you tell vs what you thinke but reason or proofe of this so absurd a thought haue you none Let me answere you as Saint Ierome answereth Heluidius the heretike in this point Hâ—eron aduer Heluid tibi stultissimè persuasisti Graecos codices esse falsatos Thou hast perswaded thy self most foolishlie that the Greeke bookes of the new testamente are falsified and why may you not as well thinke that the latine testament is corrupt as the Greeke what argument
haue you more for the one then the other But your seconde reason is more absurde wherein you professe that although you had the true originals yet could you not make in these daies a better translation Wherefore could you not the thinge is not harde if you had simple and willing mindes But now may we see by this your protestation that whatsoeuer you speake against the corruption of the originall bookes in respecte where of you will seeme to preferre your common translation before them yet although you had as true originals as euer were or could be wished notwitstanding you woulde still make more account of your translation then of them That wherefoeuer we find faulte with your translation some one of our owne brethren standeth with you in defense of your translation is vntrue I haue shewed examples enowe of grosse and manifest corruptions in the translation of the olde testament which none our brethren as you call them euer went about to excuse Valla Erasmus Beza haue noted manie in your translation of the newe althoug I graunt that both Erasmus doth instlie reprooue Valla and Beza hath worthelie reprooued Erasmus in some places of their reprehensions And so maie it fall out to those that take paines in correcting a booke ful of corruptions as your latine translation is sometime to finde a fault where none is the latter corrector to dissent from the former Your Tridentine decree which you commend being set forth by so manie excellent godlie learned men as you saie were impietie to compare all the scattered synagogues of Lutherans with them hath bene tried and examined by more godlie and learned men then euer were in that synagogue assembled wherein neither godlines nor learning but Antichristian tyrannie preuailed One example I alledged of corruption in your latine Testament pag. 391. c. and that I might haue gathered manie moe is euident by that which hath bene declared before In the 1. Cor. 15. v. 54. these wordes are wanting in your translation when this corruptible hath put on incorruption which yet are found in all greeke copies now extant and were not onelie in the olde greeke testaments as appeereth by S. Chrysostome but also euen in the auncient latine translations thereof and that by your owne coâ—â—ession Hereunto you make long and friuolous answeres by distinctions of points First you saie there is no losse of anie parte of doctrine for the same thing is set downe in the next lines before A proper reason which giueth libertie to scrape out of the scriptures whatsoeuer is in other places repeated Secondlie you adde that some reason you haue to thinke that percel repeated not to be of the text As good haue you to thinke that these wordes when this mortall shall put on immortalitie are not of the text seing they are sett downe in the lines immediatlie going before Thirdlie that it was in some greeke copies as you reade Perhaps so but what then seing doubtles the moste and best read it other wise Fourthlie you thinke more reason to correct Chrysostome by Ierome then Ierome by Chrysostome Yet maie it seeme otherwise to indifferent men that Chrysostome and the Church of Constantinople had as true copies and as great varictie of bookes as Ierome could haue anie For where should Ierome seeke for true and faithfull copies of the new Testament but in the Greeke Church and in which more then in that and whoe liker to haue the truest then Chrysostome I think therefore no man of discretion can otherwise iudge but that it is much more likelie S. Chrysostomes reading to be true then S. Ieromes if they diffent especiallie other latine translations agreing wiht that text which S. Chrysostome followed And Saint Hierome manie times in his Epistles and treatisies reprehendeth the common latine reading The vulgare translation of the new testament reprooued indiuerse places by S. Ierome euen the same that is nowe currant in your latine testaments Whereby maie appeere that the same was not in his iugdement euerie where so entire as you affirme That Saint Chrysostome maketh against vs and approoueth your reading I wonder with what face you could auouch Let anie man read S. Chrysostome in Greeke and if he finde not the text in him set down as our Greeke testaments reade it both in the first and second place I am content to yeald the wholl to Master Rainolds And so likewise readeth Oecumenius this place I graunt S. Ambrose hath it onelie in the first place yet other latine fathers reade it according to the veritie of the Greeke as your selfe confesse which as much as I maintaine Fiftlie you thinke it enough for defense of your translation that the same wordes are added in the margent which is but a poore shift when you haue thrust the text of scripture out of his due and proper seate to giue it some roome in a corner And yet your English translation hath discharged it of that place also and wipte it cleane awaie both out of text and margent That not here onelie pag. 399. c. but in other manifolde places also you keepe the errors of the latine translation contrarie to the trueth of the Greeke copies is a thing that hath bene plentifullie prooued by manie and therefore to saie so was no bragge Aria Montanus how good a priest soeuer he be doubtles is not of your iudgement concerning the Hebrewe and greeke originals of scripture and therefore cannot alowe that wicked decree of the Tridentine Councell wherein the corrupt translation is confirmed and established for the Canonical word of God by general consent commaundement the true originall Canon of scriptures being there reiected and disgraced Now then whether in this and such other respects I had not iust cause to call you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iniurious to the Bible I referre to the iudgement of all godlie and wise readers For what greater iniurie or contumelie can be offered to the holie Bible then not onelie to approoue a translation that is full of corruptions in all partes thereof for the authenticall Bible and word of god but also to cast away the originall Bible it selfe as corrupte and to giue no further credit vnto it then it agreeth with your translation And therefore that you malitiouslie auouch of vs that we haue no Bibles maie moste truelie be saide of you that you haue willinglie refused the fountaines of Gods moste pure and blessed word and haue not amongst you in publike regarde and authoritie the true Bibles indeed which you haue wickedlie both contemned and condemned Your repetitions to the end of this Chapter full of outragious vntruthes and slaunders require no answere in this place you haue bene fullie answered before and the wholl world can testifie to Gods glorie and your confusion that not one tittle of Gods worde and scriptures is by vs denied CHAP. 14. Wherin Master R. laboreth to prooue that it is the verie waie to Atheisme and infidelitie
the English with the latine and all is right For he affirmeth and by some vnfitt examples would prooue that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to defend and Defendo signifieth to reuenge alledging also some Dictionaries for his opinion But to make a short replie let M. R. bring vs foorth any one example out of good author Greeke or Latine wherein the wordes are so vsed as he teacheth then shal we easilie yeald in this case By implication and consequence I graunt the one word maie perhaps be vsed sometime for the other but I appeale to all learned Grecians and Latinists in the worlde whether it be not true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properlie signifieth onelie to reuenge and not to defend and so likewise Defendo to defend and not to reuenge Therefore to translate the one for the other as it is altogether vnproper so is it moste daungerous in the scriptures because thereof may followe errors in iudgement and practise of life And it appeereth that Thomas of Aquine tooke the word Defendentes in the proper signification expounding it by Christs precept that if we be striken on the one cheeke we must be so farre of from defending our selues that we must be willing rather to turne the other also to him that smote vs and by Christs example who being buffeted on the face defended not him selfe Yet after he sheweth that some defense is lawfull by example of Saint Paule who procured him selfe to be defended from the Iewes that laie in waite for him Thus we maie see that your Saint Thomas vsed the worde simplie and properlie and thereby was faine to seeke some newe exposition which he nedd not to haue done had he bene as good a grammarian as you Master Rainolds are The other example is in S. Matthewe pag. 470. c. the 4. Chapter 16. verse wherein you haue also followed the Greeke rather then the latine translating not according to moste of your latine Testaments which I haue seene the people that walked in darknes but after the Greeke the people that sat in darknes A small matter in it felfe I graunt yet great enough to shew that you haue not so preciselie followed the latine translation as you would seeme which also in other places appeereth by comparing your translation with that For in the verie first Chapter of S. Matthew the 19. ver you haue omitted these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vir cius Her husband which your latine bookes haue truelie translated according to the greeke Wherof reason it were that you should be accountable for what cause you haue remooued those wordes cleane out of the text if they were not rather left out by ouersight For I trust you are not ashamed that Ioseph should be called the husband of the blessed virgine Marie Againe in the 13. to the Rom. v. 9. instauratur you translate is comprised by no grammar I am sure nor dictionary I think The sense I graunt is true and well agreeth with the Greeke but the latine worde is left If you listed not to translate is renewed or repared as the word signifieth you might haue kept the worde and according to your new found manner of translating and speaking haue translated instaurated Such examples are there in your translation manie moe if we should peruse the wholl which is not necessarie Neither haue I much blamed your translation in this respect Master Rainolds for not iumping alwaies with your latine as you haue vntruelie tould your reader but for leauing the Greeke and following the latine translating onely a bare I wil not speake as you doe a bald translation and for translating it after such a fashion as neuer scripture was translated nor any other booke I suppose and for applying the text moste absurdlie and violentlie to some colourable maintenance of your Antichristian Church and religion CHAP. 16. Of the faults found in the Annotations of the new testament FRom the translation which how vaine and childish it is hath bene declared now let vs proceed with you to the Annotations which are meet handmaides for such a maistres But before you come to speake of the particular faults that were found therein you discourse of many matters according to your common custome idlely and railingly whereunto it booteth not to make answere and therefore passing ouer what you haue written of M. Iewell M. Horne c. of Tower and Tiburne disputation of the Churches stabilitie of M. Foxes monuments of Luthers iudgement concerning the sacramentaries I will come to examine your defense of those faults that were noted and that as brieflie as I can reserning these causes to the large confutation of those Annotations which in conuenient time through Gods goodnes wil be I hope performed to Gods glorie defense of the trueth and disproofe of popishlies and heresies Three kindes of faults were obserued the first of errours in matters historicall the second of false conclusions and arguments the third of certaine blaspemies against the holie Apostle In the first order were reckened certaine traditions pag. 484. c. which hauing no ground in Gods word nor much differing from mere fables are in your Rhemish Annotations notwithstanding gloriouslie auouched as behouefull for all Christians to beleeue And first of the wisemen that came from the East to visite our sauiour Christ three things are affirmed first that they were kings secondlie that they were three Popish traditions full of fables and vanities and lastlie that their names were Gaspar Melchior and Baltasar as now commonlie they are called For the first Master R. demaundeth a reason why I should thinke they were no kinges himselfe not hable to shew any why he should saie they were kings But if reason may rule him for which he calleth as though he would yeelde vnto it if it were giuen him three reasons will I propounde wherebie I am mooued not to beleeue that these men were kings First because the Euangelist calleth them by noe such names The wise me that came to worshippe Christ said to be kinges against reason which yet he would not haue omitted if the truth had bene according to your tradition considering how this would haue made for the honour of Christ that so soone as he was borne kings should haue sought him far and done vnto him homage and worship And when you maintaine your opinion by this argument for that it is honorable to the person of our sauiour Christ that so we should thinke of them you charge therein the holy Euangelist for omitting somewhat that might haue greatlie aduanced the honor of Christ if he had truelie and fullie reported the same Secondlie it is not credible that Herods would haue admitted into his kingdome and chiefe Citie three Kings with their troupes especiallie there being enemity betwixt him and the kinges of Persia neither could they haue so secretlie come to our sauiour Christ and escaped out of the countrie againe but that being kings and therefore