that the body of our Lord is to be vvrapped not in gold pretious stones and silke but in pure linnen And so in the vvhole Church it is obserued by S. Siluesters constitutioÌ„ that the Corporal vvherevpon our Lordes body lieth on the altar must be pure and plaine linnen The vvomeÌ„ came to behold the sepulcher Ergo novv vve must goe in pilgrimage to the holy sepulcher If M.VV. enforce the word must as it seemeth we confesse the argument foloweth not and the argument so is of his owne deuising not of ours For we bind not nor enforce any man by this example but they that list may tary at home and take their ease Mary waying that dutie of visiting such holy places in it self without constrayning or binding any to it of necessitie then presupposing this to be wel done by these holy womeÌ„ the reason foloweth wel theÌ„ce to approue the like deuotion of Christian people now And this deduction is iustified by S. Hierom and the vniuersal consent of Christendome in his time The wordes of the note are The deuoute vvomen came to visite our Sauiours Sepulcher and for their deuotion first deserued to knovv the Resurrection and to see him risen The honour of vvhich Sepulcher and of the pilgrimage therevnto in the primitiue Church S. Hierom declareth in these vvordes The Iewes sometime honoured SaÌ„cta SanctoruÌ„ because there vvere the Cherubs the Propitiatorie and the Arke of the Testament Manna Aarons rodde the golden altar Doth not the Sepulcher of our lord seeme to thee more honorable vvhich as often as vve enter into so often do vve see our Sauiour lye in the sindon and stayng there a vvhile vve see the Angel againe sitte at his feete and at his head the napkin vvrapped together The glorie of vvhose Sepulcher vve knovv vvas long prophecied before Ioseph hevved it out by Esay sayng And his rest shal be honour to vvit because the place of our Lordes burial should be honoured of al men Aâ—d at this present notvvithstanding the Turkes dominion yet doe the religious Christian Catholike meâ—n by Gods mâ—ghtie prouidence keepe the holy Sepulcher vvhich is vvâ—thin a goodly Church and Christians come out of al the vvorld in Pilgrimage to it Christ appeared to the tvvo disciples in an other forme ergo he is in the sacrament in forme of bread This is of like qualitie vvith the fourth needeth no farther ansvvere The vvords are Christ though he haue but one corporal shape natural to his person yet by his omn potencie he may be in vvhatsoeuer forme and appeare in the likenesse of any other man or creature as he list Therefore eâ—et no man thinke it strange that he may be vnder the forme of bread in the B Sacrament Christ to the man domb and deafe sayd Ephpheta ergo exorcisme is to be vsed the same vvordes to be recited in baptisme This ergo is as wise as many of the rest for abâ—olutely no more necessarie it is to vse Ephpheta in baptisme because Christ so spake then it is to vse Eli Eli LaÌ„mazabachthani which Christ spake as wel as the other Argument we make none but only we note out of S. Ambrose that the auncient and primitiue Church which best knew which wordes actions of Christ were imitable which were not that Church retained this word other ceremonies vsed by our Sauiour As also the same Church vniuersally vsed Exorcisme as witnesseth S. Austin which he calleth Traditionem veâ—ustâ—ssâ—â—â—am antiquâ—ssimam undatissimam in Ecclesia toto orbe diffusa A tradition most olde and auncient and most grounded in the Church dispersed through the vvhole vvorld Our vvords are The Church doth most godly imitate vse thâ—se very vvordes and ceremonies of our Sauiour in the Exorcismes before baptismes to the healing of their soules that are to be baptised as Christ heare healed tho bodily infirmitie and the disease of the soule together Ambr lib. 1. de Sacram. ca. 1. Luke the Euangelist vsed a familiar preface ergo the author of the second booke of the Machabees might desire pardon and excuse his slendernes and yet his vvritings be Canonical This argument foloweth wel M.VV. wil make many worse before he make one better if he take and waâ—gh the word and reason as they are deliuered in the Annotation For it doth derogate as much froÌ„ the maiestie of the holy Ghost to vse humane helpes in searching out the truth as to craue pardon for the stile and maner of writing And if you wil applie this note to that argumeÌ„t made against the Machabees and so much vaunted of by your deerest brother in Christ M. VV. Charke in the Towre you shal finde the case to be like and both S. Luke and the Machabees touching your censure to staÌ„d vpon one grounde Thus vrgeth he there The vvriters of scripture aske not any pardon ether for the matter or for the maner Againe VVhatsoeuer is the vvord of the holy Ghost nether doth aske nor doth neede pardon in any respect Againe The holy Ghost neuer asketh pardon of man for any thing he doth for that vvere to bring God vnder man make the spirit of God subiect to the allovvance or disallovvance of sinful flesh And may not al this as wel be applied against S. Luke The holy Ghost is not ignorant so as he needeth to runne to sinful flesh thence to learne what Christ did The holy Ghost can of him self teach his Euangelistes and craueth not help of mortal maÌ„ c. And therfore S. Luke writeth not of the holy Ghost when he professeth him self to write by humane ayde diligence Much more these reasons take froÌ„ vs many entier epistles of S. Paule For what shal we iudge of the epistle to the Romanes Audacius autem scripsi vobis fratres ex parte I haue vvritten to you brethren more boldly in some part what is this but an excuse a very crauing of pardon So to the Corinthians And I vvas vvith you in infirmitie feare and much trembling Is the holy Ghost in infirmitie in fearer doth the holy Ghost tremble After he desireth them To beare vvith some litle of his folye That I speake I speake not according to God but as it vvere in foolishnes because many glorye according to the flesh I also vvil glorye Factus sum insipiens vos me coegistis I am become foolish you haue coÌ„pelled me Such places many we fynde in S. Paules epistles which if some man like M.W. and M Charke should applye to the holy Ghost and aske whether the holy Ghost could do this or that could glorye could bragge could speake not according to God could be foolish the partie so arguing should proue him self litle better then a foole yet the argument is a pithy and wise as this against the Machabees And I much muse whether it is not more against the honor oâ— the
by the same authoritie Euery man sayng publishing preaching teaching affirming declaring disputing arguing or holding opinion against the first of these articles is adiudged a manifest heretike c. misbeleuers in the other are with great rigor corrected and reformed This was the state of religion left by king Henry after whose death in the time of his sonne vpon very â—ight occasion was quite disanulled al this that the father had by parlament Actes and statutes so carefully established For streight vpon his fathers funerals king Edward saith M. Fox being but a child of nine or ten yere by the instinct of his vncle the Lord protector and Cranmer by consent of parlament did first abolish these six articles and then set forth a second booke of Reformation and after that a third as the religion had dayly more encrease more perfite then the first vnder the title and authoritie of his name After which sort the Zuinglian religion being placed with much dissension and alteration held out for the time of that Prince and was of the next with like authoritie of ParlameÌ„t reiected abolished But being restored againe in the beginning of the Q. Maiesties reigne from that tyme hetherto how the body of the realme hath more and more degenerated from that Zuinglianisme to Puritanisme which as D. Whitg wel proueth is the very next degree to Anabaptisme what infinite numbers in euery shyre as their owne writers record are ioyned to tâ—e Familie of loue which is a mere abnegation of Christianitie what swarmes of Atheistes haue sprung vp with which as D. Whig telleth vs their English congregation is râ—plenished this I leaue to the knowledge remembrance experience and eye sight of the discrete reader If I should note the varietie and difference betwene our Protestantes and the Protestantes of other nations as of Germany Polonia Zuitzerland and France I should neuer make an end because most true it is there is no one article of faith ether touching the blessed Trinitie Christes incarnation and passion resurrection ascensioÌ„ touching the person of the holy Ghost or touching his office there is no one sacrament as the Eucharist Baptisme Forgeuenes of sinnes in penance confession of sinnes to a priest Holy orders there is no one rite or ceremonie ether touching gouernement or diâ—cipline of the church wherein they disagree not These few examples which I haue brought conteining matters of such weight That princes are heads of the church and are not that baptisme remitteth sinnes and remitteth not that priuate baptisme is lawful and vnlawful Confirmation allowed and disallowed Christs descending into hel graunted and denied that he is God of his father and yet is God of him self that al kinds of Religions may for their conscience sake take armes against their prince yet Catholikes may not in any case or for any cause make supposal of such a matter that women are barred by the law of God from exercising authority ouer men euen in matters ciuil and agâ—ine that women by the law of God haue supremacy ouer the cleargy bishops and archbishops eueÌ„ in matters most diuine spiritual that copes and such like ornamentes are to be vsed in church seruice and are to be abolished and burned as monumentes of Idolatrie that by like authoritie of parlaments diuers and contrary faithes are confirmed and ratified These few examples I say al appearing manifestly in the practise and behauiour of one litle Iland and in the compasse of a few yeres al notoriously to be seene in perusing a few english bookes and writers declare sufficiently how true that is which D. Whiteg affâ—rmeth of the Puritans and we find as true in all sortes of Protestants that commonly such as once diuide them selues from the Church fal from errour to errour vvithout stâ—y they declare sufficiently how true that is which I affirme â—â—at these meÌ„ haue no certaintie or stabiliâ—ie of faith therfore hard it is foâ— vs to know what to refâ—â— or dispute aâ—aâ—nst whereas we find such continuâ—l chaunge and varietie Yet al this notwithstanding albeit they haue one faith for Germany an other for Engâ—and and in England one for the South an other for the North one for the fathers reigne an other for the sonnes one for the brother an other for the sister and vnder the â—ame Prince one for the beginning of her reigne an other for the time ensuing one for the nobilitie an other for the commonaltie one for the publike church another for their priuate houses one in their CoÌ„munion booke an other in their seueral writinges although they haue Annuas and menstruas sides as S. Hilary and S. Basil said of the Arrians euery yere and somtimes euery moneth a new faith yet gladly could we deuoure the paine to finde out and learne such their yerely monethly faithes that by refelling them we might saue those christian sowles which through the same monethly dayly and hourely perish euerlastingly had we not a far greater dâ—fficultie in learning out what maner of argumentes are of force and allowable amongst them for refuâ—ing of the same Among Catholikes in al scholes and Vniuersities in al bookes writings argumentes drawen from the scriptures of God from the Traditions of the Apostles from the Authoritie of the Catholike Church of general Councels of the auncient Doctors fathers of the supreme Pastors of the Church geuing sentence definitiue in any controuersie these al and singular are of such weight and estimation that ech one coÌ„uinceth the aduersarie part and no Catholike dare euer resist or oppose him self if he heare the voice and sentence of any one of al these and besides these other argumentes in diuinitie we can not possâ—bly deuise any Vse any of al these in disputation with the Protestant he careth not for them nether wil be bound to them farther then it liketh his owne lust and fansie Approue the Inuocation helpe of Angels by the authoritie of Tobias the free wil of man by the booke of Ecclesiasticus they answere Litle care vve for the example of Raphael the Angel mentioned in Tobie nether acknovvledge vve those seueÌ„ Angels vvhereof he speaketh As litle accompt make I of the place of Ecclesiasticus nether vvil I beleeue the freedom of mans vvil though he affirme it a hundred times And as for the Traditions of the Apostles besides the written word it is their very profession to contemne them and who is there of them al that euer wrote any booke of câ—mmon places who hath not a large treatise particularly against them Alleage against theÌ„ general Councels they answere If this be a sufficient profe to say such a CouÌ„cel decreed so such a doctor said so there is almost nothing so true but I can impugne nothing so false but I can make true and vvel assured I am that by theâ—r meanes the principal groundes of our faith may be
groundes of disputation such as are vsed ether in our church or in their owne and how far these men be groweÌ„ to a headstroÌ„g desperatnes beyond the maner of al the auÌ„cient heretikes For when S. Austin and the old fathers had to dispute with such as Donatistes ArriaÌ„s Manichees Pelagians and others they vrged them with the authoritie of Gods Church with the iudgement of the Sea Apostolike the Succession of bishops in the same with the determination of general Councels finally with the name Catholike and that which was so called of al men and the heretikes seemed to be moued therewith and acknowledge such maner of argument But the heretikes of our time conteÌ„ning impudently al these Church Sea Apostolike Succession of bishops general Councels and whatsoeuer els may be inuented are come so far that they now despise and treade vnder foote the name Catholike which the Apostles by diuine wisdome found out and by their Creede sanctified appropriated to true ChristiaÌ„s members of Christs only Catholike and Apostolike Church in so much that in the sinode holdeÌ„ at Altemburg betwene the Diuines of the Palsgraue of Rhene and the Duke of VVirtemberg when one part brought forth a text of Luther against the aduersaries they perusing the place at large and finding there the word Catholike streightwaies reiect the whole as corrupt and counterfaite because Luther was neuer vvont to vse that vvord Ista verba catholicè intellecta non sapiunt phrasin Lutheri say they and vpon this only reason conclude that booke not to haue bene made by him And yet would to God our aduersaries could be content to yelde to the very scriptures them selues such peeces I meane and bookes as they leaue vnto vs and hetherto with vs acknowledge for Canonical VVouâ—d to Gâ—d they could frame them selues humbly to admitte such scriptures when of theÌ„ selues they are playne for vs against them For so surely buâ—ldâ—d is the Catholike cause that by such helpe she is able sufficiently to defend her selfe and confound the aduersaries But whereas besides the reâ—usal of al the forenamed witnesses both of our church and of their owne as though none euer besydes them selues in particular no Saint or man ether in heaueÌ„ or earth had wit learning or grace whereas I say besides al this they expound the same scriptures by plaine partialitie fantasie frensye whereas they make them selues the only arbiters both what bookes are Canonical what Apocriphal and which is the true sense of them whereas in examining the sense they runne sometime from greeke to latin sometime from lâ—tin to greeke sometimes vrge one or other greeke example against innumerable latin sometimes prosse one or other fathers reading against al greeke commonly corrupt the sense both of latin and greeke sticke only to certaine heretical versions made by their maisters in fauour of their seueral heresies whereas they are groweÌ„ to such extreme folly hardnes impudency it may seeme nothing els but wast of vvords to deale vvith men whom contention pride ignorance malice and obstinacie against the Church and her pastors hath so pitifully blinded Novv if I may vvith the readers patience descend from this vvhich I speake generally of the English protestants to apply the same more specially vnto the party vvhose booke I haue to examine it shal both iustifie more clearly that which hetherto hath bene said touching their irreligion want of faith and withal set forth the practise of those proud and arrogant rules of answering which I before haue noted and besides shew what stuffe is contained in his booke of Antichrist wherein he so vainely and insolently triumpheth It hath bene an old disease of auncient heretikes first of al to inuade the cheefe pastors of the church that they being remoued from the gouernment them selues might more freely spoyle the flocke as witnesseth S. Cyprian And for like reason their maner hath bene more malitiously to barke at the Sea Apostolike as saith S. Austin In this as in many other mad partes the heretikes of our age haue not only matched but also far surmounted the heretikes of auncient time For when as vpon their first breach from the church spreading of this new heresie they were reproued by their cheefe pastor and gouernor vpon malice and spite and desire of reuenge they brast forth into this rayling to cal him Antichrist not meaning for al that to cal him Antichrist in such a seÌ„se as the church and faith of Christian men vnderstandeth vvhen vve speake of Antichrist vvhich shal come in the end of the vvorld and of vvhom S. Paule to the Thessalonians and the scriptures in some other places specially do meane but in such a general sense as S. Iohn intendeth wheÌ„ he saith that novv there are many Antichristes and vvho so denieth Christ to haue come in flesh he is Antichrist But the later Protestants going beyond their maisters as commonly it fareth in euery heresie to make their cause more plausible and iustifie their schismatical departure from the church more assuredly haue taken vp the proposition in the more extreme and desperate sense and now hold the Pope of Rome to be that singular Antichrist of whom S. Paule and some other of the Apostles fore-prophecied This wicked and shameles assertion being refuted at sundry times and of sundry men namely of D. Sanders not only as false vnprobable but also as heathenish vnpossible M. Whitaker hath now taken vpon him to make a reply against his argumentes and maintaine that former assertion of his brethren but after such a sort as partly argueth in him want of al religioÌ„ and conscience partly declareth him to haue deepely impressed in his harte a vvonderful pride and coÌ„tempt of al others a principal note and marke of Antichrist And to beginne vvith the later I vvil shortly runne ouer one or tvvo of the first demonstrations and M. W. ansvveres framed there vnto First of al D. Sanders disputeth that the succession of the Romane bishops can not be Antichrist because Antichrist is one man vvhich he confirmeth by sundrie good testmonies of scripture vvherevnto he ioyneth the vniuersal consent of al the auncient fathers His vvordes are Denique omnes sancti patres Graeci Latini Syri quiper tot saecula vel in Oriente vel in Occidente vel in Aquilone vel in Meridie vixerunt secundùm fidem traditionem ab Apostolâ—s acceptaÌ„ de Antichristo locuti sunt velut de homâ—ne vno Briefly al the holy fathers Greeke Latin Syrian vvho for so many ages liued ether in the East or VVest or North or South according to the faith and tradition receaued from the Apostles haue spoken of Antichrist as of one man VVhat is M. VV. answere to this After certaine cauils made to the places of scripture thus at a clappe he dischargeth the fathers writing according to the faith
into the right way as is the dutie of Christians but only to keepe mens heads in musing expectation of new bookes to make them mispend their time to keepe the printers occupied and as it were to walke and talke on a stage for no other purpose but to passe away the time This is truly to be Carnifex papiri A murderer of paper as Illyricus cōmonly calleth the Zuinglians this is in deede to be Miserabilis librifex A miserable bookevvright as Luther malapertly nameth king Henry a learned prince and of famous memory This is thoroughly to approue and iustifie that which Luther in the beginning sentenced against Zuinglius and Oecolampadius the fathers of the Sacramentarie Gospel vvhich frō thē as it may seeme hath descended to their posteritie Isti boni spiritus saith he si parū admodū rethoricantur c. These good sacramētarie sprites if they can a litle play the Rhetocians though they touch not any one argument yet thinke they of them selues that they haue ansvvered the matter passing vvel sayd much to the purpose et putant causam suam consistere in scriptione multorum librorū et in cōmaculatione pap ri and they suppose that their cause stādeth in vvriting of many bookes blotting of much paper And no doubt it proceeded of some like crafte that M.W. against vs our English translation of the Testament wrote his reprehension in latin to the end pardy that nether our common countrimen vnderstanding only the English should know those faultes which he reproueth in latin nor straūgers vnderstāding only his latin know how iustly he refelleth that which was written in English Whereby notwithstanding he might obtayne thus much that both sortes should heare tel of some errors noted and refuted but what they were and how wel how truly and substantially the refutation was made nether the one nor the other should be able to examine much lesse to iudge the rest that vnderstand both tonges vvho only may espie his vniust accusations defaultes and ignorances being not so many nor alwaies so diligent nor at any time so free as to compare his latin pretensed reprofe vvith the truth set dovvne in English For so much as the aduersaries novv against their old pretense of honoring and allovving holy scriptures cruelly punish the readers and keepers of them spoile men of the nevv Testament it self the translation and notes vvhereof they shal neuer be able to reproue as vve inuincibly to the eternal shame of heresie haue reproued theirs And yet these men that vvil not suffer our translation to be read of such as vnderstand it with fayned hypocrisie protest that it nothing harmeth their cause and wish that straungers could reade it also These Christian reader are the false fleightes of lying of dissembling of bragging of remouing groundes of disputation of denying sundry principal partes of faith of continual altering their faith of preferring thē selues before al men of taking to them selues in particular the supreme iudgement both of al scriptures the true sense thereof these be the difficulties which may dissuade and withdraw any man from writing or disputing against such sophistical wranglers yet because we may not vpō any loth somnes in our owne behalfe or lost labour in respect of thē omit to do good to others whō we may any waye profite here thou hast so much as appertaineth to the defence of the Discouerie of the Translation and Annotations of the new testament The rest shal folow hereafter if those who haue the regiment of my life studies shal thinke the tyme not euil spent in refelling so vnseemely so vnprobable and vnchristian an argument AN ADVERTISMENT TO THE READER WHEREAS of late in the Tower disputations we haue seene that learned and holy man F. Campian so much disgraced both in priuate speach and publike writing because in citing a place of Luther touching S. Iames epistle he missed the print wherin the place was to be founde the later editions of his workes differing notably from the former which chopping chaunging is cōmon to the most heretical writers of our time for feare of like inconuenience I haue thought it good amongst many to note the print of certaine bookes which in this treatise are oftē times alleaged Know thou therefore Christiā reader that in citing Luther I alwaies meane the print of Wittēberg set forth by Melanch in diuers yeres the second Tome the yere 1551. the fift 1554. the seuenth 1557. In citing Zuinglius I meane his workes as they were set forth after his death by his sonne in law Rodolphus without name of place or printer M. Foxes Actes and Monumentes I vnderstād as they were printed the yere 1563 by Iohn Day Bezaes notes vpon the new testament I meane as they were printed at Geneua the yere 1556. Sleidan I cite after the printe of Strasburg the yere 1566. Castalios bible after the printe of Basile the yere 1556. Caluins Institutions as he last of al digested them into bookes and chapters and printed them at Geneua Thus generally except I note otherwise in the margent Other bookes which haue not so much varietie although some be in more prints then one be they latin or english I commonly note not only according to the chapter but also according to the page or leafe as I do also the forenamed that thou maist with so much the more facilitie finde out the places quoted and so better iudge of the matter rreated Next whereas some are offended with vs for that in writing or speaking of them we vse the names of Sacramentaries Zuinglians or Caluinistes Puritanes and Parlament Protestantes which they say are odious nicknames found out of vs and therefore one of their writers of late chargeth vs in speaking of them to vse no other names then Christians and Catholikes for our discharge herein thus much I must signifie vnto thee that if ether truth learning would beare vs vsing such termes as they require or any reader ether Catholike or Protestant vnderstand vs we would most gladly for loue of the truth and their contentation so speake and write But now consider thou how intolerably such speaches would soūd in the eares of any indifferent reader I haue occasion sometimes to produce Luther writing Contra fanaticos Sacramētariorū spiritus against the fanatical spirites of the Sacramentaries sometimes Contra Zuinglium et discipulos eius against Zuinglius his disciples sometime D. Whitgift against the Puritanes for so he calleth them sometimes the Puritanes against him and such as maintaine the Cōmunion booke and religion of England in such sort and so far forth as is approued by Acte of parlament Now citing these writers how can we cite them without a lie if we cited them in other wordes then themselues vse If I said Luther in his booke against the fanatical spirites of the Christians Catholikes or D. VVhitg in his Defense against the
Chap. IX Wherein is refelled M.W. answere to certaine places of S. Chrysostom touching the real presence and sacrifice Pag. 203. Chap. X. Of the place in S. Lukes Gospel cap. 22. corrupted by Beza Pag. 231. Chap. XI M.W. general answere to the booke of Discouerie and of the notable impietie committed by the translators of the English Bibles Pag. 260. Chap. XII M. W. reasons against the latin bible are answered and the same bible is proued to be in sundrie places more pure sincere then the hebrue now extant Pag. 280. Chap. XIII Of the puritie of our latin testament in respect of the greeke copies now extant Item a comparison of our translator with other of this age with an answere to those obiections which M. W. deuiseth against him Pag. 360. Chap. XIIII That to leaue the ordinarie translation of the bible appointed by the Church and to appeale to the hebrue greeke and such new diuers translations as the protestants haue made is the very way to Atheisme and Infidelitie Pag. 406. Chap. XV. How M.W. inueigheth against the new testament lately set forth in this college with a cleare refutation of such faultes as he findeth in the translation thereof Pag. 443. Chap. XVI A defence of such faultes as are found in the Annotations of the new testament Pag. 474. Chap. XVII Of certaine blasphemies contained in the Annotations pag. 527. The Conclusion Pag. 548. A REFVTATION OF M. WHITAKERS REPREHENSION OF THE LATE ENGLISH TRANSLAtiō and Catholike Annotations of the new Testament and of the booke of Discouery of hereticall corruptions CHAP. 1. Of Luthers contemning S. Iames his Epistle and callinge it STRAMINEAM AMONG sundrie cōtrouersies raysed by the Protestants in our dayes one and that of greate weyght and consequence is the Canon of holy Scriptures that is what bookes are to be admitted into diuine and supreme authoritye and as certaynlye wrytten by inspiration of the holy Ghoste to be receaued without any doubte or contradiction In examininge which question the behauiour of our aduersaries deserueth diligent consideration For as in the beginning they much praysed the Fathers Church Councels of the firste fiue hundred yeares not for any respecte or reuerence they bare vnto them but by so doinge to discountenance and thrust out of credite the Fathers Church and Councels of the later thowsand by whom they saw most euidently their heresies to haue bene condemned so not long after for lyke purpose they made vaūt of the scriptures agaynst those very first and moste auncient Fathers not for any iuste honor or regarde which they had of the scriptures but by that meanes to disgrace the Fathers and ease them selues of answering their authoritye when soeuer they should be pressed therewith For that in deede they accompte not of the very scriptures more then of the Fathers but turne them ouer for vs to defende no lesse then the Fathers time and experience hath shewed their publike wrytinges professe as by that which hereafter ensueth shall manifestly appeare and M. Whitaker though in worde he would fayne dissemble the matter yet in facte and truth playnly declareth so much which being so let the Christian Reader as in other things so in this especially note the proceeding of that which these men call the gospell the grosse impietie wherevnto it tendeth and in to what open profession of infidelitie in a shorte space it is likely to breake out which in the compasse of so few yeares is growen to such a head that now already they dare as boldly call in question and deny partes of the holy scriptures as not long sithence they made the like quarels against the wrytings of the auncient Fathers Let the Christian Reader note I say not their wordes but their doinges not their coūterfeit dissimulatiō in speach pulpit sometyme vsed but their euident practise reasons asseuerations published in bookes confirmed by arguments deduced by necessarie coherence from their doctrine and many wayes expressed by them selues in sundry their Cōferences Institutions and disputations and he shall easely perceaue our aduersaries after denyall of the Fathers Councels Tradition and the authoritie of the Church Catholike now at this present to stand vpon lyke deniall of the written worde the Apostles Prophets so as they leaue no one ground whereupon a christian man can rest his fayth or stay him selfe Thus much I gather not onely by the writinges of sundry other Protestants whereof some I shall touch hereafter but euen of M. Whitakers discourse in defence of Luther about S. Iames Epistle whose words and reasons for this purpose and the Readers better intelligence I will sett downe and prosequute somewhat the more at large And firste of all concerning S. Iames his Epistle M. Martin reproueth M. Whitaker for denyinge that Luther called that Epistle stramincam and in so cleare a case charged Father Campian with a notorius lye It is easie to gesse sayth M.W. vvhat a fellovv vve shall fynde you in the reste vvho are not ashamed in the very beginning to lye so egregiously When F. Campian replyed that it was in some one of Luthers first editions though otherwyse altered in the later nether so sayth M.W. Praefationem illam purgatam esse dixisti quam tamen constat nullo vnquam verbo mutatam esse You saye that preface vvas corrected vvhereas it is certayne that there vvas neuer anye vvorde changed in it Now this being the faulte which M. Martin layeth to M. W. see how wel he defendeth himselfe First because after he had read ouer all Luthers prefaces vpon the new Testament as he sayth he found none such there of he inferreth He is not to be accounted impudent as you call me vvho denieth that to be true vvhich he knovveth not to be true but he that to deceaue others defendeth that as false vvhich he knovveth to be most true but I am so farre from acknovvledging this to be true that I neuer thought it to be more false then I thinke it novv I will not wrangle vpon the definition of impudency but whether this dealing be not moste shamelesse and detestable in a Christian let any man of indifferencie iudge First it can not be excused of grosse and insolente boldnesse and rashnesse vpon the vew of one onely edition to deny so peremptorily a thing obiected so often by so many learned men of name and for ought I coulde yet reade or heare neuer denyed by the Lutherans especially whereas withall nothing is more notorious then the manifold alteratiōs which Melanchton and those of VVittenberge haue made in Luthers works corrupting deprauing putting in and taking out so much and so far forth as pleased their chāgeable humor where of the zealous Lutherans in a synode holden at Altemburg by procurement of the Duke of Wirtemberg and Palsgraue of Rhene lamentably complayne Electorales say they Lutheri scripta enormiter quám faedissimé deprauant ita vt post obitū Lutheri c. The
Diuines of the Prince Elector do most filthely and beyonde all measure depraue Luthers vvrytings so as since Luthers death there haue not bene more foule corrupters of Luthers bookes In the same Councel many times they fal into this argumēt and each side in most spitefull termes obiecte to others this faulte as may be seene if you liste to peruse the pages here noted in the margent And in fine there is promise made as a matter of great importance and one of Hercules labours that the Duke of Saxonie will cause Luthers workes to be printed without corruption Illustrissimus Dux Saxoniae curabit tomos Lutheri sine deprauatione typis excudi which notwithstāding is perhaps a harder thing thē the Duke of Saxonie can perfourme though his power were much greater then it is What speake I of the Lutherans with whom Luthers wordes be autenticall and litle inferior to scripture whereas the very Caluinists and that in Geneua where Caluin is all in all yet notwithstanding haue in their prints corrupted Luthers works whereof Ioachim VVestphalus a Lutheran thus wryteth in his Apologie against the slanders of Caluin I Marueil much sayeth he that Caluin keeping such a doe about this one vvord could not see the most filthy mutations and corruptions of the diuine commentarie of D. Luther vpon the epistle to the Galatians and translated into French and printed at Geneua In one place some vvordes are taken avvay in an other many mo some vvhere vvhole paragraphs are lopte of in the exposition of the sixte chapter tvvo pages and an halfe are lefte out vvhere Luther doth reproue the Sacramentaries there especially those falsifiers tooke to them selues libertie to mutilate to take avvay to blotte out and change some vvhere they remoue the name of Sacramentaries at other tymes they haue put in vvordes such as pleased them and that this vvas done at Geneua vvithout Caluins knovvledge it is not very lykely And touching this very place wherof we treate when Coclaeus obiected it to Bullinger as now M. Martin did to M. W. he answered not denyinge that which was so publyke and notorious but Guperem Lutherum sobrié magis modestaus circumspectius c. I vvoulde to God Luther had iudged and geuen his sentence more soberlye discreetelye and circumspectly of Sainte Iames his Epistle and the Apocalips of Sainte Iohn and certayne other Add we herevnto M. W. owne confession set downe in this preface I confesse sayth he that Luther hath vvritten in a certen place that Iames his Epistle is not to be compared vvith the Epistles of Peter and Paule and that in comparison of them it may be iudged an epistle made of stravv Which a man would thinke were sufficiente to cleare M. Martin and M. Campian and to condemne Luther and M. Whitaker For how or in what comparison coulde Luther so speake but onely to disgrace that epistle in respect of other scripture to make it light and contemptible that is not to make it scripture at all For if he thought it to proceede from the holy Ghost as did the bookes of the Prophets the Gospels and Epistles of Sainte Paule how coulde he without intollerable iniurye done to the holy Ghost so debase that wryting which he beleeued to proceede from his diuine inspiration But M. Whitaker replyeth That vvorde albeit I defende not yet iustly may I say that Luther is iniuried vvhen he is accused to haue reiected as made of stravv that epistle and playnely and simply to haue named it so vvhereas he called it so in comparison especially vvhereas these vvordes are not founde in the bookes of later printes and excepte I by chaunce had happened vpon a most auncient edition I might haue sought long inough in the later Confesse you then that there hath bene such choppinge and changinge in Luthers workes that the one differ so far from the other namely in this very point How standeth this now with your former bold asseueration It is certaine there vvas neuer any one vvorde changed therein And what reason haue you better to credit these later printes sett furth by Luthers scholers then the auncient set furth by the maister and author Luther him selfe But to end this matter may it please you to reade Father Duraeus there shall you be informed in what print and edition of Luther these wordes are to be reade to wit not in the later of VVittēberg corrected and corrupted by the ciuill Lutherans but in the more auncient of Iena a Citie in religion lutherish to but yet after a more exacte and precise order then are those other There may you finde that Pomerane a greate Euangelist among the lutherans touchinge S. Iames Epistle wryteth thus Fayth vvas reputed to Abraham for iustice by this place thou mayest note the error of the epistle of Iames vvherein thou feest a vvicked argument besides that he concludeth ridiculously he citeth scripture against scripture vvhich thing the holy Ghost can not abyde vvherefore that epistle may not be numbred amongest other bookes vvhich set foorth the iustice of fayth There may you finde Vitus Theodorus preacher of Norimberg in hye Germanie wryting thus The epistle of Iames and Apocalips of Iohn vve haue of set purpose lefte out because the epistle of Iames is not onely in certayne places reprouable vvhere be to much aduaunceth vvorkes agaynst fayth but also his doctrine through out is patched together of dyuers peeces vvhereof no one agreeth vvith an other Vnto these you may add for your better satisfaction the iudgement of the Centuries noted by F. Campian though not touched by you They say that the epistle of Iames much svvarueth from the analogie of the Apostolicall doctrine vvhereas it ascribeth iustification not to onely fayth but to vvorks and calleth the lavv a lavv of libertie And in the next booke Against Paule and against all scriptures the epistle of Iames attributeth iustice to vvorkes and peruerteth as it vvere of set purpose that vvhich Paule disputeth Rom. 4. out of Genes 15. that Abraham vvas iustified by onely fayth vvithout vvorkes and affirmeth that Abraham obteyned iustice by vvorkes You may add Luther him selfe in his commentarie vpon S. Peter ep 1. ca. 1. fol. 439.440 in the common edition of Wittemberg where after he hath geuen many rules taken from his owne licentious doctrine wherby to discerne the true and canonicall scriptures from false and Apocriphal of them al thus he concludeth pa. 442. Atque inde etiam facile discitur epistolam D. Iacobi nomine inscriptam handquaquam Apostolicam esse epistolam nullum enim prope elementum in ea de his rebus legis Hereby vve easely learne that it is no Apostolical Epistle vvhich goeth in S. Iames his name for there is in it no letter or title of these matters that is of onely fayth confidence resurrection c. whereby we must esteeme of true
is and must be deduced to wit the cause why the Englishe congregatioÌ„ admittinge S. Iames hath reiected those other and we shall straightwaies finde not only that he ouerthroweth himself which is a comoÌ„ tricke amoÌ„gst such good writers but also concludeth the contrarie of that which here he preteÌ„deth The Church readeth the bookes of Iudith Tobie and the Machabees saith S. Hierome but reckeneth them not amongst the Canonicall scriptures In that the Church at solemne times read them it is a great argumente that she much honoured them although she admitted them not as then vniuersallie into that highest roome of supreme authoritye But of S. Iames we heare not so much but contrariwise Eusebius directlie affirmeth if M. VV. saie true and iudgeth wold all other men so to iudge that that epistle of S. Iames is a false and bastard epistle and Hierome a prieste after the order of the Romane Church and not a minister after the fashion of the English congregation is brought to proue the same Who seeth not now what greate difference there is betweene these two verdits geuen in by these auncient fathers the first being read in the Church had a degree to Canonicall scriptures the later had no such Of the first he bringeth in S. Hierome saynge onlie that as then it was not acknowledged for Canonical he bringeth in S. Hierome to saie as much of the second and for a surcharge he ioyneth Eusebius directlie affirming it to be a bastard epistle and withall wishinge all men so to iudge of it him self inferreth that Luther in his rashnes which we condemne folowed the iudgement and testimonie of the auncieÌ„t primitiue Church he affirmeth farther as a general principle namely treatinge of this epistle Quod principio statim non habet diuinam authoritatem non potest tempore hominum approbatione fieri diuinum That vvhich at the first hath not presentlie diuine or canonicall authoritye as in their opinion S. Iames had not can not be made canonicall by the approbation of men yet now of these he wold haue vs learne this distinction that the primitiue Church vniuersallie reiected the bookes of Iudith Tobie the Machabees some onlie and those without iust cause refused S. Iames epistle and therefore that the English congregation hath done verie discretelie to authorize the one disauthorize the others let him not playe to much the Sophister but answere as becoÌ„meth a Diuine saue him self in this froÌ„ opeÌ„ folie contradiction he shall shew more wisedome learning theÌ„ hetherto he hath geuen vs occasion to deeme in him And that he may the better waye the veritie and substance of his aunswere and the reader haue occasion to consider what a variable tottering gospel these men preache and how iustlie we obiect to them that at their pleasure they make hauocke of scripture I will laye to M.VV. reasoning the effecte of the late disputation had in the Tower with F. Campian touching this pointe This they make the mayne grounde of their whole argameÌ„t Those bookes vvhich olde fathers and Councels haue not receaued for canonical bookes to ground our faith vpon them can not nevâ— meâ— nor the Tridentine Councel make canonical This proposition standâ—ng for good which they so confidentlie vrge and M.VV. thinketh yâ— moste assured let vs see vppoÌ„ this rule what waste they make of the sacred bookes vppon that ground thus they buylde or rather pull downe Aug. li. 2. cap. 8. de doct Christiana leaueth out Baruch and the tvvo last bookes of Esdras Hierom in his preface vppon the booke of Kinges saith that Sapientia Salomonis Iesus the sonne of Sirach Iudith and Tobias are not in the Canon Eusebius in his sicâ—e booke and 18. chapiter it is the 19. leaueth out the third and fourth of Esdras Tobias Iudith Baruch Sapientia Ecclesiasticus and the bookes of Machabees and concerning the epistle to the Hebrevves though him selfe say plainly it is S. Paules yet he confesseth that many haue doubted thereof also coÌ„cerning the second epistle of S. Peter he saith it vvas doubted of many so of some vvere the last tvvo epistles of Iohn The same Eusebius li. 4. ca. 26. it is 25. speaketh of Melito bishop of Sardis vvho reckening vp the volumes of the old testament omitteth Esdras Tobie Hester Iudith Baruch VVisdome Sirach the bookes of Machabees And the CouÌ„cel of Laodicea omitteth Lukes gospel the Apocalyps you see therefore that these olde Fathers haue leaste these books out of the canon yet vvere not called heretikes nor blasphemers Thus farre they Afterwards they define those to be not Canonical but Apocriphal that are not in the auncient Canon receaued and allovved to haue proceeded vndoubtedly from the holy Ghost and those Apocriphal are forbid to be read and though they may be read for moral lessons yet not for matters of religion Afterward the same argument is resumed againe and especially that parte vrged that the Councel of Laodicea leaueth out those former bookes in the olde Testament Tobias Iudith the booke of vvisdome Ecclesiasticus and in the nevv Testament Luke and the Apocalyps And when F. Campian answered that that Councel was but particuler reply was made that the Councel vvas prouincial and farther confirmed by the sixte general Councel holden in Trullo Constantine being presideÌ„t as Bartholomeus CaraÌ„za vvriteth fol. 71. And therefore vve may leaue out of the canon Tobie Iudith c. vvhich your Councel of Trent thrust in as autentical Hetherto your brethren in the fourth dayes conference In the first day vpon like warrant they recken amongst Apocryphal bookes that which you labour so much to saue S. Iames which there is called a counterfeit or bastard epistle by iudgement of Eusebius Item the epistle of Iude the later of Peter the second and thirde of Iohn And against these they alleage Eusebius Hierome Epiphanius and the Councell of Laodicea confirmed as they say there againe by the general Councel holden in Trullo And yet such is their inconstancie in the same place some of these in worde they professe to receaue but only as at pleasure of curtesie and liberalitie not as of fayth dutie and necessitie For the summe of all commeth to this and it is the effect of that disputation Such bookes as of olde haue bene doubted of we are not bound to admit for Canonical but may refuse now These particuler bookes here named haue bene doubted of in olde time ergo these bookes we are not bouÌ„d to admit for Canonical but may refuse them now This being your reason and the same so manifestly approued by them and you out of the same for our presente purpose against you this I note First how iustly we accuse you for defacing and renting out so many parcels and whole bookes of scripture In the olde Testament Tobias Iudith Hester Baruch The booke of Wisdome Ecclesiasticus The two bookes of the Machabees
In the nevv Testament S. Lukes Gospel The Epistle to the Hebrewes The Epistle of Saint Iames. The 2. of S. Peter The 2. 3. of S. Iohn S. Iude. The Apocalyps Vnto these partly your selues in your common bibles partly your brethren ioyne certayne other peeces both of the olde Testament and of the new as The prayer of Manasses Paralip lib. 2. The songe of the three children The story of Bel. Canticum canticorum and a parte of S. Iohns Gospel some of these held for canonicall these fiftene hundred yeares some these twelue hundred all aboue a thousand Nexte your distinction of the vvhole Church and some of the Church were it true as it is most false is vtterly refuted by these your owne doctors for by their sentence whatsoeuer hath bene doubted of not onely in the whole Church but in a part for they goe not about to proue that these were doubted of in the whole Church and leaste of all S. Lukes Gospell that may you doubte of and number amongst the bookes Apocriphal and both you and they proue as substantially that S. Iames was doubted of as you proue the same of Iudith Hester the Machabees or any other sauing that they fowly ouerreach them selues when they affirme that S. Lukes Gospell with those other was leaft out and not receaued for Canonical in the Prouincial Councel of Laodicea and the same confirmed by a general Councel afterward Then commeth to my remembrāce your profoūd argumēt against M. Campian in defence of Luther Luther despiseth S. Iames his epistle saith M. Campian you answere Bene habet crimen hoc omne Iacobi epistolam attingit c. That goeth vvell All this fault toucheth only Iames epistle Luther doth not in a vvorde violate Matthevv Marke Luke or Iohn nor Paule nor Peter only he somevvhat shaketh vppe Iames epistle A deepe reason as though S. Iames beinge canonical scripture were not to be esteemed as honorably and violated as litle as S. Peter or any of the other and as though he in so writing and you in so defendinge doe not lay the way open to shake of and violate all the reste as wel as that For now if a man burden you with the refusal of S. Luke your defence is already prouided bene habet al goeth vvel Al this faulte toucheth only S. Luke Our doctors doe not in a vvorde violate Matthevv Marke Iohn nor Paule nor Peter only vve somevvhat shake vp Lukes Gospel and so peece-meale til none be leafte you may and will shake out one after an other stil Bene habet all goeth vvell vntill you fall to open profession of Atheisme in the broade way whereof you are farre wel gone already Fourthlye because in the end of your preface yow bragge so much of your forefathers that they haue euer vāquished ours here you put vs in mind what forefathers those are Hetherto your forefathers were knowen to be Aerius in denying prayer sacrifice for the dead Vigilantius of whom yow learned to condemne the inuocatiō of Saintes honor done to them in the Church Iouinian in breaking vowes of chastitie deliberatelye made to God and making the state of matrimonye touching merite equal in the sight of God with the state of virginitie continentie Which men notwithstanding were forced to yeld to our forefathers S. Epiphanius S. Hierom and S. Augustine as hetherto al Christendom is witnes and therefore were not such victorious capitaynes as you woulde make them In this place as though your purpose were to ouerbeare vs with number and make your armye so much the more stronge you multiplye and set in ranke againste vs more fathers For whereas you so blasphemouslye speake of the booke of Iudith that it is far vnvvorthy to be called scripture and yet match S. Luke and the Apocalyps with it whereas you saye most plainlye of these and al the forenamed bookes that yow are not bound to admit them but may refuse them that they be read for moral lessons not for matters of religion you simplye disallow for canonical those two bookes And who are your fathers herein but those auncient Archheretikes Marcion and Cerdon those other for ther brutishnes called Alogi or Bruti In which your doinge as the reader may easely perceaue how yow trotte forwarde to playne Apostasie from Christe by callinge now the verye Gospel into questiō so why we should number you amongest those olde Brutishe heretikes your selues yeald vs more abūdāt reasō thē our fathers had in calling them by that name For your self M.VV. cōfesse and proue your doctors and maisters to be the most sensles and brutishe creatures that euer wēt on the earth For to auoide directe answeringe to the question proposed you hovv you knovv the bookes vvhich you call scripture to be heauenlye and penned by diuine inspiration that is by vvhat testimonie you knovv those vvritinges to be canonical or holye vvhich be so called you say and I vvith as good reason vvill demaund of you hovv you knovve the sunne to be the sunne or hovv you assure your self that God is God for vve knovv as assuredlye that these are the holy scriptures cōmēded by God to his Church vvritten by the Prophetes and Apostles and deliuered by diuine authorytie as vve knovv the moone to be the moone or at a vvord any other thinge vvhatsoeuer vve comprehend by most certaine knovvledge and this ansvvere Caluine also geueth you And this answere I admitte from you and Caluine and hereof I conclude that you are more trulye called Alogi and brutishe then were those other auncient heretikes For was there euer in the worlde any so notable a Choraebus or Grillus hauinge the shape of man that fell at brawlinge disputinge with his friēdes whether the sunne which we see were the sūne or the moone the moone as you do against Luther your churches against the Lutheranes whether S. Iames epistle be canonical then yf you thinke right as I truste you wil speake wel of your selfe with the same breath you condemne your father Luther and your brethren the Lutheranes for the veriest sottes and stockes that euer liued for they know not the moone they know not the sunne which to you shineth so bright cleare And to oppose your self vnto your brethrē at home and to your owne self how say you to S. Luke to the epistles of S. Peter Iude Iohn the Apocalyps be they canonical or no yf you say yea as I thinke you will or at the lest that was your opinion in September laste as your booke sheweth then your doctors now denyinge the same you see what is to be concluded that one parte of you is as wise as those former who know not the sunne from the moone Yf you denie and be of their iudgmente as it may be very wel your faith beinge as mutable as is the moone yet so you proue your self
no wiser then they who in so shorte space haue falleÌ„ out with your self altered your iudgmeÌ„te and now esteeme that for apocriphal which then was to yow canonical that is now iugde that to be the moone which then you thought to be the sunne Our lorde geue his people grace to thinke of you as you proue your selues that is so fantastical inconstant that you know not what to say and whyles you seeke to keepe your selfe aloofe from the Catholike churche the sure piller grouÌ„de of truâ—he you plunge your selues ouerhead and eares in such foule absurdities as neuer did heretikes before you For what is the reason of al this because besydes the written word or scripture yow wil not acknowledge any traditioÌ„ of the Church wherevnto by this question yow are enforced of necessitie For if we are bound to beleeue certaine bookes as for example the Gospel of S. Matthew S. Marke S. Iohn and S. Paules Epistles to be Canonical that is heaueÌ„ly and peÌ„ned by diuine inspiration and yet the same can not be proued by scripture theÌ„ cleare it is that we are bound to beleeue somewhat which by scripture caÌ„ not be proued and so the tradition of the Church is established And marueyle it is that yow perceaue not how grosly yow ouerthwart your self and plainly refel that which yow would seeme most earnestly to confirme For if yow march your beleefe of scripture with knowledg of the Sunne and Moone and such like as are knowen by only sense the light of nature then you deny it to be any article of your faith For these two are directly opposite and the apostle confirmeth this reason wheÌ„ he defineth faith to come by hearing and hearing by the vvord of God ergo fides ex auditu auditus per verbuÌ„ Dei And therefore if you beleeue not with humaine faith as yow beleeue Tusculanes questions to haue bene written by Cicero but with Christian diuine faith as yow beleeue Christ to be your sauiour if thus you beleeue the Gospel which beareth S. Matthews name as likewise that of S. Marke and S. Iohn to haue bene written by them then yow beleeue so because so yovv haue heard it preached and so yovv haue receaued and consequently by the Apostles authoritie that verie matter so preached vnto yow is the vvord of God which word of God whereas yow find not in the scriptures hereof it foloweth manifestly that somewhat is the vvord of God which is not scripture and therefore yow and your fellowes beleeuing only scripture beleeue not al the vvord of God but only a peece thereof and so did the worste heretikes that euer were yea so do at this day the verie Turkes and Mahometanes But to end this special matter with yow M. VV. touching your distinction betweene S. Iames and Tobias Iudith the Machabees c. where you make this to be the difference that S. Iames vvas refused but of a fevv and the other generally of the vvhole Churche tota Ecclesia repudiauit say you for declaration of your truth herein I referre you to the moste euident testimonies of the same auncient Churche S. Augustine setting downe the Canonicall scriptures as they were read and beleeued in his time placeth S. Iames I coÌ„fesse in order with the Gospels Pauls epistles yet not excludiÌ„g those other but in the selfe same place numbringe Tobie Iudith and the Machabees with the bookes of Moses and the Prophetes his saith he 44. libris veteris testameÌ„ti terminatur authoritas In these fourtie and foure bookes is concluded the authoritie of the old testament Likewise the Councel of Carthage approueth for Canonicall S. Iames but in the same CanoÌ„ it approueth as far the other forenamed and teacheth of them as directlie as of the other that they are Canonicall scriptures Somewhat before S. Augustines daies they were not by publike decree of the Church receaued as appeareth by S. Hierome and the Councel of Laodicea but then when there was as greate doubte of S. Iames epistle S. Paule to the Hebrewes and the Apocalyps touchinge the first it is manifest by that which hath bene said by you and your felowes Of the secoÌ„d there was more question then of the first and S. Hierome seldome citeth it but he geueth a note signifyinge that it was not in his time taken for Canonical In the Epistle to the Hebrevves vvhich the custome of the Latine Church receaueth not saith he it is thus vvritten Againe the blessed Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrevves although the custome of the Latin Church receaueth it not amongst Canonicall scriptures Againe this authoritie the Apostle Paule vsed or vvhosoeuer he vvere that vvrote that Epistle In catalogo he saith that euen vnto his time it vvas not accounted the vvritinge of Paule and that Caius an auncient writer denyeth it to be his and in his epistle to Paulinus sette before the Bible he saith that a plaerisque extra numerum ponitur of the more part it is put out of the nuÌ„ber of Paules vvritinges The like might be declared by S. CipriaÌ„ Lactantius Tertullian Arnobius and S. Austine if it were needefull and the Apocalyps was yet more doubtful then ether of these two as wee see by the Councel of Laodicea leafte oute of the rolle of Canonicall writinges when both the other of S. Iames and S. Paule were put in Wherefore as false that is which M.VV. constantlie auoucheth of the auncient Church touchinge the seueringe of these sacred volumes so hath he not yet nor euer shalbe able with reason to satisfie M. Martins demaund why they of England haue coÌ„desceÌ„ded to admit the one rather then the other And here the reader may consider esteeme as it deserueth of that glorious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in fine he singeth to him self settinge the crowne of triumphe vppon his owne head and his felowes Nothing saith he is novv more vulgar then the Papists arguments against vs. Quicquid afferri a quoquam potuit vidimus diluimus protriuimus vvhat so euer could be said of anie of them al vve haue seene it refelled it and trode it vnder foote he may consider I saie how like this man and his companions are to worke such maisteries who as yet knowe not what those weapons are which they should vse in atchiuing such conquests For whereas they vaunt to doe this by the written worde yet are not resolued amoÌ„gest them selues what that written word is and how farre it extendeth it is as fantastical a parte to bragge of victorie as if a mad man should ruÌ„ne into the field to slea his enemie and when he commeth there knoweth not with what weapon to begin the fight Wherefore wel may he and his felowes heare and see the Catholike doctrine as Esai speaketh of the Iewes concerninge the doctrine of Christ hearing shal you heare shall not vnderstand and seeing shal yovv
see and yovv shall not see and wel may they treade it vnder theire feete as our Sauiour parabolically forespake that heretikes wold doe when he said Nolite proiicere margaritas ante porcos ne forte conculceÌ„t eas pedibus suis but to refel confute suppresse it that is no more possible then that Christ should be false of his worde and promisse that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it And whereas it hath coÌ„tinued by the protestaÌ„ts coÌ„mon grauÌ„t aboue a thousand yeares in truth euer since Christ his passion against other maner of tempests then these are heretikes of excelleÌ„t learning heresies of maruelous subtilitie most mightie Emperours rulers of the worlde now to imagine that it maie be vanquished of these grosse and contrarie heresies fortified with no maner of learning wherof manie are so base that men eueÌ„ by the light of nature abhorre theÌ„ hauing nothing to mainteine theÌ„ selues but onlie a vaine challeÌ„ginge of the Spirite and bold crakinge of the vvord of the Lord which a parrat caÌ„ doe with a litle instruction as well as they thus I saie to talke were more fit for Pasquillus Estaticus or a sicke man wheÌ„ he raueth than a sober Diuine that wayeth what he speaketh CHAP. III. Hovv M. VV. defendeth Luther preferring his priuate iudgment before all auncient fathers and Doctors NEXT commeth in againe frier Luther whoÌ„ M. Martin accused for saynge that he esteemed not a thousande Augustines CipriaÌ„s Churches wheÌ„ they are against him That the reader may better carie awaie the matter I wil first put downe Luthers wordes where vpon this controuersie standeth after it shal be easier to iudge how aptlie M. VV. defence is framed The wordes of Luther are in his booke written against King Henrie the eight her Maiesties father and are these But I saith he against the saynges of fathers of men of Angels of deuels set not old custome not multitude of men but the vvord of the onlie eternall maiestie the Gospel here I stand here I sit here I glorie here I triumphe here I insult ouer Papists Thomists Henricists Sophists and all the gates of hell much more ouer the saynges of men be they neuer so holie Gods vvorde is aboue al the diuine maiesty maketh for me so as I passe not if a thousaÌ„d Austines a thousand Ciprians a thousand Kinge-Harrie Churches stoode against me God can not erre or deceaue Austine Ciprian and likevvise all other elect might erre they haue erred here ansvvere maister Harrie here plaie the maÌ„ I coÌ„tene thy lies I feare not thy threates here thovv staÌ„dest astonished like a stock c. These are the wordes with which M. Martin findeth faulte M.VV. defendeth them thus If Luther had preferred him self before all fathers Churches he vvere not to be borne vvithal but this Luther neuer challenged to himself But in some causes Luther might esteeme more his ovvne iudgement then the authoritie of Austine or Ciprian or a thousand Churches For if that vvhich Luther taught vvere agreable to Gods vvord Luthers iudgment vvas to be preferred before all the contrary iudgments of all men liuinge Before I enter into the examination of this answere let me demaunde this one thinge in courtesie of you M.W. what the reason is whie you so busilie and eagerlie defende Luther be his wordes neuer so strange or fanatical or whie is the Pope Antichrist for resisting your Gospel whereas Luther you aduaunce if not into the place of Christ yet at least amonge the number of his Apostles Did the Pope of Rome euer persequute your zuinglian gospel with more deadly hatred then did that pope of Saxonie Did he not from the verie beginning to his later breath holde you and your brethren for most damnable wretches and professed enemies of the eternall testament of Christ Are you ignorant how for this cause he wrote whole volumes agaynst your first Apostle Zuinglius Read you neuer the Confession of your brethreÌ„ of the Tigurine church where thus they complaine Lutherus statim ab initio mâ—rdere furere conuitiari bacchari coepit c. Luther presently at the beginning began to byte to play the mad man to raile and rage and besides this he filled his bookes vvith the horrible names of Deuils Sectaries Sprites mad men and vvhatsoeuer slaunders came to his minde he cast them out agaynst vs outragiously Complaine they not in the preface of that Confession that he inueigheth against them as against obstinate heretikes and such as are guiltye to themselues of all impietie as prophaners of the Sacraments and the most vyle and pestilent men that goe on the ground He proscribeth and condemneth first of al the faithful doctors and ministers of God Oecolampadius Zuinglius and their disciples vvheresoeuer they be all frindship and communion vvith vs he compteth vvicked abominable and vvhat soeuer commeth froÌ„ vs be it letters be it bookes be it salutations be it benedictions he vvill not only not reade but he vvill not so much as vouchsafe to looke vppon them or heare them spoken of so farre forth that when Eroschouerus the zuinglian printer of zuricke sent him a bible traÌ„slated by the diuines there Luther sent it him backe againe with this greetinge that he should not send him anie thinge that proceeded from the ministers of the Tigurine church for he vvould haue no dealinge vvith them nether vvoulde he receaue or reade their bookes for the churches of God could not communicate vvith theÌ„ Yea he protesteth that he had rather susteine a hundred seueral deathes then to become of your opinion or shew any couÌ„tenance of bearing fauour to it The Lord defend sayth he that I vvittingly and vvillingly by the authority of my name should couer or confirme the verie least error of the fanatical SacrameÌ„taries Nam vel centies laniari aut igne comburi malleÌ„ c. For I had rather be torne in peeces or burnt vvith fier a huÌ„dred times theÌ„ to folovv the opinion and agree in doctrine vvith zvvinglius Oecolampadius the rest of those miserable vnfortunate fanatical men Finally know you not M. W. that thus he began thus he went foreward thus he continued thus he ended his daies dyinge such a mortal enemye to you that he seemed to make his hâ—tred and detestation of your church and gospel a peece of his iustificatioÌ„ before Christe as in his last Confession made a litle before his death and recorded in the foresaid Confession of Zurake it appeareth Ego qui iam sepulchro vicitus obambulo hoc testimoniam et hanc gloriam ad Christi saluatoris tribunal perferam c. I saith he that novv vvalke nye to my graue vvill carie this testimonie and this glorie to the tribunal seate of Christ my Sauiour that I haue vvith all earnestnes condemned and auoyded those fanaticall men and enemies of the Sacrament Zuinglius OEcolampadius
epistle nameth him selfe the bishop of the vniuersal Apostolike church and vvilleth others to appeale to the Apostolike Sea as to the head These are the first and most auncient that M. Iewel findeth of whom he learned his heresie against the primacie of the Romane church and verie aunciēt they are in deede the one being the fourth the other the eight in order frō S. Peter But Christian reader was he not a good scholer that of these maisters could gather such doctrine of such flowers could sucke out such poyson or can we marueyle if they haue a feate to peruert any thing be it neuer so plainelie and trulye spoken who can crie out vpon such fathers speaking so roundly say O Xistus O Anacletus you taught vs these heresies you taught vs that the bishop of Rome for challenging primacie ouer the church is the precursor of Antichrist But you wil answere as M. Iewel teacheth you that these epistles be not the epistles of Anacletus or Xistus but counterfeit and set forth by some other in their names But what vncredible peruersitie and contradiction and impudencie is this or how can he so say for saw he euer any other bookes of theirs besides these epistles could he for him selfe or you for him pretēd any such knowledge most certaine it is you can not and therefore learning ought against the Romane Sea from Xistus and Anacletus he must needes learne it hence and so ether this maketh against the Romane Sea which thing by Illyricus and other your owne writers is at large refuted and who hauinge the forehead of a man can say otherwyse or M. Iewel in naming these two Popes at Paules crosse for his maisters in that heresie may be an example of a more dissolute man and more rechles in lying and abusing his audience then euer before or perhaps euer sithence occupied that place Let vs trie some other of his maisters S. Gregorie and S. Leo vpon whom first in like maner he exclameth and the protestants them selues those that be farthest gone in bold deniall of any thinge yet denie not but the bookes and epistles extant in their names were truly made and leaft vnto vs by them And did they trow you teach him these heresies let vs heare vvhat they say and that in no other vvordes and sense then those forenamed your owne doctors make them to speake and point you to the bookes epistles and chapters vvhere you shal find that vvhich they vvrite The bishops of Rome that liued in this fift age vvithin 500 yeres after Christ affirme that the Romane church is chiefe of al others so doth Leo in his sermon de anniuersario assumptionis et epistola 89. ad episcopos per prouinciam Viēnensem The bishops that gouerned the Romane church in that age required of other Archbishops that they should make relation to them if there fell any matter of controuersie so Leo vvriteth in his 46. epistle to Anatolius Archbishop of Constātinople If there be any thing that doth require consultation vvith speede let relation therof be made vnto me that after I haue examined the matter my diligence may apoint vvhat is to be done Againe epist 62. he requireth of Maximus Archbishop of Antioche that he acknovvledge the priuileges of the third Sea and oftē tymes vvrite to the Sea Apostolike hovv the churches there increase Also they tooke to thē this authoritie to reproue other bishops if they did ought amisse they prescribed vnto them vvhat they should do and apointed them orders in ceremonies so Leo epist 86. reprehēdeth Nicetas patriarch of Aquileia because he receaued to communiō the Pelagians before they had condemned their error He reprehendeth also the Africane bishops in the prouince of Mauritania Caesariensis for making bishops certaine persōs vnlavvfully epist 87. and he rebuketh the bishops of Germanie Fraunce for contemning the order of their felovvbishops epis 88. And vvheras Anatolius bishop of Constantinople seemed not to beleeue rightly of the incarnation of the sonne of God Leo chargeth him to put his faith in vvriting and send it to the bishop of Rome and therein to protest openly that he vvil excommunicate that man vvho so euer beleeueth or teacheth of the incarnation of Christ othervvise then is the professiō of the Catholikes and of the bishop of Rome epist 33. So Proterius Archbishop of Alexandria is reported to haue sent letters touching his faith to Leo. epist 68. And Leo epist 69. signifieth to the Emperour Marcianus that Proterius is a Catholike They also confirmed bishops in their bishopriks so Leo confirmed Maximus patriarch of Antioche in his bishoprike though he vvere made in the Councel of Ephesus of vvhich Councel al other acts vvere abrogated act 7. Concil Chalced. and that the same Leo confirmed to Proterius bishop of Alexandria the old rights of that Sea according to the Canons and aūcient priuileges it is noted epist 68. Leonis ad Iulianū et 69. ad Imperatorem Marcianum Leo in his 33. epistle to Theodosius requireth that he take order that the bishop of Constantinople send to him a vvriting vvherin he professe to embrace the true doctrine and to condemne al that dissent from the same Also they sent abrode legates vvho in far distant prouinces tooke notice of the errors of heretikes and corrected them so Leo sent his legates to Cōstantinople to vvithdravv Eutiches from his error as appeareth epist 11. ca. 6. ad Flauianum so he sent legates to the Emperour epist 34. to Ephesus that they taking vnto them the Archbishop of Constantinople should absolue those that had bene deceaued by Dioscorus and vvere novv content to do penance epist 44. 46. In like maner epist. 87. sending legates in to Africa he cōmaundeth that Donatus a Nouatian be receaued to communion if he send to Rome a vvritinge touching the condemnation of that error They required also of Archbishops that if of themselues they could not determine any thing they should send it to the Sea Apostolike vvithal they charged thē to receaue and obserue their decrees made against heretikes so Leo epist 84. cap. 7. prescribeth this order to the bishop of Thessalonica in Thracia that tvvo prouincial Councels be held euery yere if there fal out any hard matter and it be not decided by the iudgement of the bishop of Thessalonica that it be referred to the bishop of Rome and cap. 11. he vvilleth that the contentions risinge among the bishops be referred to him vvith a declaration of things done in such matters The same Leo cōmaundeth Nicetas patriarch of Aquileia that he cause al his bishops priestes clearks openly to cōdemne certaine heresies and their authors and to approue al synodal decrees vvhich the authoritie of the Apostolike Sea had confirmed for the rooting out of heresie that they testifie so much by their subscriptions epist 86. Many things Christian reader of good weight importāce I passe ouer
of my opinion and thinke the sense which I geue to be the onely true and yours to be the false shal he be so bold to shut out yours and thrust in his owne with like necessitie restraynt as you haue done if so then you know the Lutherans thinke as I say For thus writeth Illyricus and he writeth as it may seeme directlie against your Beza Some vnderstand this place that Christ is receaued or coÌ„teyned of the heauen vvhich sentence is against the scope of the Apostle and should set forth rather the infirmitie then the glorie povver of Christ For so of angels yea of deuils it may be sayd that they are receaued or coÌ„teyned of heaueÌ„ because the vvorde coeluÌ„ sometime in the scripture signifieth the ayer A goodlie matter he vvho by vvitnes â—o the scripture filleth al thinges vve vvil say is receaued or conteyned in a certen place almost as it vvere in a prison Secondarily what wicked and vncoÌ„scionable dealing is this in spending so many wordes not to speake any one worde to the purpose whereunto you should speake al or els hold your peace speake nothing Was not that the point of his reprehension not because you gaue a passiue for an actiue or deponent but because you did it in this place and did it to this end that so you might seeme by scripture to exclude Christ froÌ„ the sacrament For this reason Beza geueth and for this reason M. Martin reproueth Beza Bezaes corruption and of this M.W. speaketh not a worde or if he do it is a manifest falsitie For if M. Whit. sayng that Beza did it for that only cause to auoyde doubtful speach oppose him selfe to M. Martin in this it can not be excused froÌ„ a playne lye for so much as in Bezaes behalfe he auoucheth that to be true which Beza him selfe protesteth to be false They so conclude Christ in heaueÌ„ saith M. Martin that he can not be on the altar and Beza protesteth that he so translateth of purpose to kepe Christes presence thence Yet a third faulte you haue committed besides in iustifying this smal demie sentence and that is whereas M. Martin for the better strengthning of his reason against you ioyned to it the authoritie of Illyricus and Caluin you omit them bothe This translation of Beza is so far from the Greke saith M. Martin that not onely Illyricus the Lutherane but Caluin him selfe doth not like it Which wodes if you had ioyned to the rest if you had but named those men your slender reasoÌ„s in the eyes of your reader would forthwith haue appeared contemptible And wel he might haue marueyled how you durst defend such a translation which not only Illyricus a famous LutheraÌ„ but also Caluin a prince amongst the ZuingliaÌ„s in plaine speach reprehendeth whereby a man may see that you seeke not for truth but only to talke on and serue the tyme abuse the reader And yet once againe vnder preteÌ„ce of a litle simplicitie and most rude and simple sophistrie a fourth fault haue you made worse then the former running first from one sense to an other and then from one worde to an other and so in fine whiles you would seeme to make S. Peter speake clearly and plainly you make him speake falsly heretically whereof forthwith I shal haue occasion to treate The place which you cite out of Nazianzene oportet Christum a coelo recipi maketh no more for you then doth the article of our Creede ascendit ad coelos or sedet ad dexteram patris and I marueile what Catholike beleeueth the contrarie and therefore I let it passe As ye proceede the reason beginneth to appeare why you would so fayne haue that forged interpretation of Beza to stand for good For now you beginne to frame against the real presence argumeÌ„ts drawen from natural and mathematical conditions of a bodie whereby the reader may learne the more to detest and abhorre the whole race of your heretical translators For as our Sauiour saith in the field of his Catholike church in the night vvhen men vvere a slepe his enemie came and ouersovved cockle among the vvheate and vvent his vvay and some time passed before the cockle thus sowen appeared in like maner these feedemen of the same aduersarie wicked corrupters of the good feede and worde of Christ first fall a traÌ„slating of the scripture with many goodlie and plausible pretenses of gods honor the peoples commoditie and publishing gods blessed booke c. And so while no man thinketh amisse of them as it were in the night and darknes being espied of none among the good seede of god they mingle sow their owne wicked and abhommable darnel which at first is not seene but in tyme sheweth it selfe For when M.W. so smoothly went away with the matter and found fault with M. Martins ignorance for dislyking so plaine a thing when he told vs of actiues and passiues that there was no difference betwene the first quem oportet coelum capere and this second quem oportet coelo capi but that this later is more cleare and perspicuous who would haue supposed any great mischeefe to haue bene hidden therein But now euen thereof he frameth his principal argument to spoyle the church of Christes real presence VVith like sinceritie translate the Lutherans for their Lutherish the Brentians for their Vbiquitarie the Trinitaries of Pole for their Arian and Sebastianus Castalio for his Academical heresie sprinkling heare and there many drops of poyson with which symple soules are daungerously infected before the mischeuous practyse be of many discouered But let vs heare M. W. argument drawen as he would haue vs suppose from the former falsified text of scripture but in deede from Aristotle and Euclide If Christes body sayth he be natural and of the same substance that ours is then can it be conteyned but in one place and if it be in heauen it is not in the sacrament But Christs body is such a body consubstantial to ours in al things sauing glorie and immortalitie and that body of Christ is novv conteyned in heauen as Peter saith therefore it is not in the Sacrament much lesse in infinite Sacraments This argument feareth not your forces For if Christs body be together in heauen and in the sacrament then Christ hath a double body or rather infinite bodies but this is false ergo that Furthermore if Christs bodie be circumscribed vvith some certaine place in heauen and reteyneth all properties of a true body the selfe same in the sacrament be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incircumscript inuisible c. then contradictories maye be verified of the same bodye But this can not be therefore the other is vnpossible Of this kinde of reasoning which may be enlarged as far and amplified by as many circumstances as ether Geometrie or Philosophie or any sense seing hearing tasting handling or humaine reason or
Next let him note that this his argument is the very shipwracke of Christian religion roote of al Paganisme destroyng our redemption destroyng our resurrection confounding and destroyng al the articles of our faith although it pretend the honor of god as wel writeth Caluin of Seruetus and the Anabaptists For what is the first corner-stone of the Seruetan and Anabaptistical buylding against Christes Incarnation Euen that which M. W. here tendereth them and was squared before to their handes by Zuinglius the Sacramentaries The Anabaptists I say vrging the selfe same Philosophical and Phisical rules obiect that the Papistes beleefe of Christes IncarnatioÌ„ of the Virgin besides that it is base and attributeth to much honor to that woman besides this is also against the rules of Phisicke and Philosophie and implieth a contradiction For ex arte medica Philosophia out of Philosophie and Physicke rules they fynd that vvomen are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore to say that Christe had a true humaine body as is ours and yet of a virgin without the seede of man was to saye he had a true humaine bodie in worde denie it in deed And if M.W. waygh the matter well he shal find their argument better then his and that it toucheth more intrinsecally the essence and origin of our nature to be conceaued of the seede of man that to be formed of a virgin is much more repugnant to nature and sith the beginning of the world hath bene wrought more seeldoÌ„ theÌ„ a body to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof he talketh so peremptorily or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which others of his secte vrge is more to the purpose that is not circumscript nor visible nor local where of the first was practised in the self same body in his natiuitye resurrection ascension and in S. Peter Actorum 12. The second is more common and was not only in our Sauiour wheÌ„ the Iewes meante to haue throvven him dovvne headlong from the hill and he passing through the middes of them went his waye but also in Elizeus when the hoste of the King of Syria hauing him in the middes of them yet saw him not in S. Felix a martir priest of the citie of Nola of whom S. Paulinus bishop of the same citie writeth that in time of persequutioÌ„ when the citizens such as were infidels wel acquainted with him would haue appreheÌ„ded him they could not see or discerne him being in the middes of them although which is more straunge the faithful at the same instant saw him knew him and perceaued in him no difference or chaunge at al. So that at one and the self same time he was visible and inuisible knowen and vnknowen endued with his accustomed figure proportion and lineaments yet altered chaunged and so forth subiect to other such maruelous accidentes as M.W. fondly and falsly nameth contradictions The third is so far beneath the omnipotency of God that by the vulgar opinion of Philosophers the first heauen being a perfect natural body is notwithstaÌ„ding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in no place and therefore much more may we yeld this prerogatiue to Christ the Lord of heauen and earth whose worde wil is the very rule squyre of nature And let M.W. see how vrging so vehemently his proposition Chriâ—tes body is per omnia nostris corporibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sauing glory and immortalitye and he hath all the propertyes of a true and humaine bodye how he will free him self from the filthy and wicked heresies of the Ebionites Nestorians Who vpon this general proposition may must inferre their opinions that Christ was begotten betwene our Lady Ioseph as other men are they may and must infer that Christ assumpted as wel the person as the nature of man the personalitie being a thing much more nylie and essentially ioyned to the nature theÌ„ are these accidental qualities of visible and circumscript which here are obiected Thirdly I answere that this absurdity was forseene by the auÌ„cient fathers who for al that were neuer induced to inueÌ„t this distinctioÌ„ that you haue fouÌ„d out that is to deny the verity of Christes presence Let vs euermore beleeue God saith S. Chrisostom albeit it seeme absurd to our sense cogitation that vvhich he saith albeit his vvords surpasse our sense and reason Thus as in al things vve ought to doe so especially in the sacramentes not beholding those thinges vvhich lie before our eyes but holding fast his vvordes For in his vvordes vve can not be beguiled but our sense is easely deceaued Therefore sith he said This is my body let vs beleeue it vvithout casting any doubt and vvith the eyes of our vnderstanding conceaue the same The lyke is vsed by diuers other fathers which they neuer needed to haue spoken nether could haue spoken with reason had their faith bene so agreable to the rules of Philosophie as you would now make it Fourthly I say that your owne brethren and maisters though in other heresies they agreed with you yet in this kind of argument detested and abhorred you So the Historiographers of Magdeburg in their fourth Centurie where they proue by many authorities of S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Hilary S. Epiphanius S. Nazianzen S. Basil and others the verity of Christes presence dedicating the same to the Quenes Maiestie thus they speake vnto her And this most excellent Quene is not to be ouerpassed that vvhereas novv there grovv euery vvhere diuers as it vvere factions of opinions amonge vvhich some flatly by Philosophical reasons make voyd and frustrate the testament of our lord so as they take avvay the body bloud of Christ touching his presence and communication according to the most cleare most euident most true and most puissant vvordes of Christe and deceaue men vvith marueilous aequiuocation of speach principally your maiestie hath to prouide that the sacramentes may be restored vvithout such pharisaical leaueÌ„ c. And MelanchthoÌ„ whom Peter Martyr maketh equal for learning and godlines with S. Austin S. Hierom S. Leo the auncient fathers debating this matter with Oecolampadius There is no care saith he that hath more troubled my mynde then this of the Eucharist And not only my self haue vvayghed vvhat might be said on ether syde but I haue also sought out the iudgemeÌ„t of the old vvriters touching the same And vvhen I haue laid al together I find no good reason that may satisfye a coÌ„science departing from the propriety of Christes vvordes You gather many absurdities vvhich folovv this opinion as here we see in M.W. but absurdities vvill not trouble him vvho remembreth that vve must iudge of diuine matters according to Gods vvorde not according to Geometrie And not far after in the same booke I find no reason hovv I may depart from this opinion touching the real
to his disciple but the sonne of God ascending leaft to vs his flesh And Elias did so but him selfe being depriued of his cloke but Christ both leaft it vnto vs ascended hauing the selfe same vvith him Therefore let vs not fainte in courage For he that hath not refused to shed his bloud for vs all and hath communâ—cated vnto vs his flesh and the self same bloud againe he vvill refuse nothing for our saluation These are S. Chrisost wordes which tende to set forth not a similitude but an opposition not an equalitye but a supereminent excellencie in our Sauiour I wil shew you an other maner of thing saith this holy father far greater then that of Elias And how so and wherein standeth that so great and singuler difference In this That Elias leaft his cloke but the sonne of God his flesh which none but the sonne of God could doe Againe Elias leauing his cloke loste it and so was bereaft of it but Christ the sonne of God as a worke proper to his diuine maiestie both leaft his flesh with vs in the world and yet lost it not but caried the same flesh with him in to heauen Furthermore Elias tooke some paynes for the sauing of his people but neuer shed his bloud for them much lesse could he impart to them the same for this was aboue the compasse or reach of humaine imbecillitie But Christ both shed his bloud for our redemption and againe imparted vnto vs the self same bloud as the same doctor sayth elswhere Quod est in calice id est quod fluxit è latere et illius sumus participes That vvhich is in the chalice is that vvhich gushed out of his side and vve are partakers thereof This is the most euident speach and sense of S. Chisostome and no man I suppose can be so simple but he may forthwith see how well this matcheth with the doctrine of the catholike church how dissonant it is from the preaching of your congregation especially if he know your doctrine a right and be not deceaued with your fantastical painted words which you sometymes vse to beguile simple sowles seeming to aduaunce that very hyghly and magnifically which in deed your selues esteeme most basely coÌ„temptibly For thinke you of your CoÌ„munion otherwise then as of common bread and wine withouâ— al grace vertue or sanctificatioÌ„ with a bare figure of Christ absent which figure your selues caÌ„ not explicate nor shal be euer able to geue reasoÌ„ but you haue or may haue as good figures at your common breakfastes diners and suppers This is your faith in that poynt yf you be Zuinglians and beleeue as the church of Geneua The Eucharist saith Zuinglius or communion or lordes supper is nothing els but a coÌ„memoration in the vvhich they that firmely beleeue them selues to be reconciled to god the father by Christes death bloud sett forth his liuely death that is praise it geue thankes and preach And when Luther obiected to him that he and his felow heretikes were diuided amongst them selues he answered thus vvhereas thou sayst Luther that there are sectes amongest vs it is false both I Carolostadius OecolaÌ„padius and the rest auouch that the bread and vvine be only figures mary vve shift the vvords of Christ after a diuers maner verba diuersimodè expedimus And in an other booke against Luther It is to be noted saith he that Paule 1. Cor. 11. after the vvordes of the institution calleth it no othervvise then bread and the cuppe For he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is this bread of the supper or that bread hunc hunc paneÌ„ qui praeter panem non est quicquam amplius this bread this bread I say vvhich is nothing els but bread Al which he there expresseth by a playne similitude in this sort Behold this is the sacramental presence of Christ in this supper as the Emperour or the King of Fraunce are said to be in the kingdome of Naples because their banners or signes be there vvhereas in the meane season the one of them liueth in Spaine the other in FrauÌ„ce But the bread and vvine are no more one and the same thinge vvith Christes body and bloud then those kinges banners be the very kinges them selues because they note vnto vs the maiestie and povver of the kinges And that you cauill not that this is not the faith of your Geneuian church so shrowde your selfe in your ordinarie cloude of wordes whereby you seeme to speake honorably of this sacrament heare you what Theodore Beza writeth whom you extoll so highly Dico impudeÌ„tes esse calumniatores c. I say they are impudent slauÌ„derers vvho imagine that there vvas euer any coÌ„trariety betvvene the doctrine of these most excellent men Zuinglius OecolaÌ„padius and Caluine touching the sacramentes I say also that the selfe same faith in euerie respecte is proposed and defended in the Churches of Suizzerlande Sauoy and Fraunce in the Flemmish Scottish and as I thinke in the English churches also Wherefore this being your faith that in the Sacrament there is nothing but bread in such sort as hath bene declared I say with Zuinglius panis panis nihil amplius bread bread and nothing els now compare your faith with S. Chrisostome and see how handsomlie you can patch it together thus you must needes say Elias departing out of this worlde leaft his cloke but Christe leaft a thing of greater power and miracle for he leaft vs breade and wine Elias leaft his cloke and so loste it for he caried it not with him but Christ ascending leaft vs bread and wine and tooke vp bread and wine to heauen with him Againe where in Elias hath no part of coÌ„parison the bloud which Christ shed for our redemption that he imparted vnto vs in the chalice Here you must helpe me thorough for I know not what you wil say but sure I am one of these two it must needes be ether that Christ redeemed the worlde by wine which is the bloud of the grape and so coÌ„municated such wine and bread with vs and this standeth iumpe with your figuratiue supper Communion or that he redeemed the worlde with his owne pretious bloud and so communicated the same with vs in the B. Sacrament which is our faith mary you will none of that In conclusion aduise your selfe better what you write and thinke not with such balde toies to shake of such graue authoritie Regarde the wordes meaning and scope of the author so except you be to dul you can not be ignoraÌ„t but that you cleane peruert this father turne him quite vpside downe For whereas he would infinitely preferre that facte of Christ leauinge the sacrament of his body to his Christians before the facte of Elias leauinge his cloke to Elizeus for of our coÌ„uersinge with Christ in heauen by faith and vnderstanding here is no
the cuppe or chalice vvhich he speaketh presupposing his heresie to be true therefore I haue made this alteration sayth he That he neuer found among all his auncient copies latin or greeke any one reading as he translateth himselfe also confesseth Omnes tamen vetusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant Albeit I thus translate yet all our old auncient bookes had it othervvise that is so vvritten as it is commonly read and as the papistes vvould haue it Wherefore this beinge his fault that vpon priuate fansie to serue his peculiar heresie he hath altered the very letter and text of the Gospel is he a Christian is he a common heretike nay is he not worse then a Iew then a Turke then the worst kinde of Paganes that pretendinge the name of a Christian will defende suche a vile caitife and monster directly against the sacred Euangelist our blessed Sauiour him selfe and yet forsooth because this man is not only a great piller but also for some great parte a very coyner of this nevv Gospel as it vvere their very Euangelist for much of their text is made by him he must needes be defended though the old Euangelistes go to vvracke for it Pardon me ChristiaÌ„ reader if I seeme somevvhat vehement their dealing being such that if men held their peace the very infaÌ„tes yea the very stones vvould speake as saith our Sauiour And vvithal consider thou vvhen they vvil geue ouer those barbarous Paradoxes of feminine primacie of baptisme not remitting sinnes of their tropical bread c. vvherein they staÌ„de only against the Catholiks or at the most against vs and their brethren the Lutherans when as they wil not geue ouer but continevv and mainteyne their trayterous and Satanicall action commenced against our blessed Sauiour But if vve may vvithout sinne spend time in hearing what they haue to say against him let vs attend M. Whitaker and waygh what he dareth vtter in that behalfe Thus he disputeth The vvordes of Luke are This cuppe is the nevv testament in my bloud that is if vve folovv M. Martins interpretation This bloud is the nevv testameÌ„t in my bloud vvhich is shedd for you vvhat sense is there of these vvords M. Martin and vvhat doubte bloud is this See you not here a manifest repetition of the same thing rising of your interpretation VVherefore seing your sentence is plainely absurde vvho vvil not rather vvith Beza say there is a faulte in the vvordes or vvith Basil reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First of all to beginne you somewhat misreporte M. Martin in sayng that he interpreteth Hic sanguis est nouum testamentum in sanguine meo this bloud is the nevv testament in my bloud For though he deduce that by necessarie consequence yet is it an other thing to say he interpreteth it so The interpretation he geueth you precisely out of S. Chrysostome hoc quod est in calice illud est quod fluxit de latere that vvhich is in the chalice is that vvhich flovved out of Christs syde which also S. Leo the greate very diuinelye expresseth Fudit sanguinem instum qui reconciliando mundo et pretium esset et poculuÌ„ he shed the iust bloud vvhich should be both the price the cuppe to reconcile the vvorlde the one in his passion on the crosse the other in the sacrameÌ„t at his last supper whereof though you may truly infer that the bloud of Christ in the chalice is the selfe same bloud that flowed out of the syde of Christ as here S. Leo doth yet talking exactly of propositions you may finde a greate difference As if a man pointing to you should saye this man is a Caluinist or heretike he sayth in deed this Caluinist is a Caluinist yet can you not deny but there is a greate difference in the proposition VVherefore we holde you to the wordes and sense of the Euangelist as your greate Rabbine setteth them doune hoc est sanguis mens noui testamenti This cuppe is my bloud of the nevv testament which is the selfe same without any the least difference which M. Martin geueth you out of S. Chrysostome Now what haue you against it Oh say you it is tautologia an absurd repetition of the selfe same thinge for vvhat double bloud is this First why lye you so grossly and intolerably as to say here is mention of double bloud If I say this Christ is Christ the sonne of God this Messias is the Messias Sauiour of the world this God is God of heauen and earth finde you mentioned a double Christ a double Messias a double God as here you finde double bloud if we say this bloud is the bloud of the new testament Againe lett the reader see if you be not possessed vvith a sprite of giddines and what a miserable surgeon you are who going about to cure Bezaes wounde wouÌ„de your selfe as deepely and whiles you endeuour to excuse his Atheisme and impietie runne headlonge on the same rocke your selfe For what is Bezaes faulte this that to helpe forth his Zuinglian heresie he corrected S. Luke in the later parte of the sentence shedde for you and altered that accordinge to his fansie How doth M. W. mende this by rayling at the first parte This cuppe is the bloud of the nevv Testament for this saith he is tautologia here is double bloud here is an absurd sentence So that now betwene you and Beza S. Luke hath neuer a worde right Beza reprouing and mending the later parte and you being as saucie with the former Is not this well defended Now graunt we al these faults of â—autâ— ogia an absurde sentence an idle repetition c. where lie these faults doubtlesse not so much in the Euangelist who wrote them as in our Sauiour who spake them Suppose I say it seeme harde to your delicate and Ciceronian eares must therefore Christ be sett to schole to learne his lesson of that fierbrande of sedition that sinke gulfe of iniquitie Theodore Beza and what is the absurditie you find in these words mary that that vvhich vvas in the chalice vvas shedde for our sinnes and therefore consequently it was the real bloud of our Sauiour which is plaine Papistrye and against our Communion booke Is it so Then to hell with your Communion booke and you to if that be so opposite to the Gospel of Christ you dare mainteyne it by open checking and controling Christ the eternall wisdome of God And see what rouel we shal haue in scripture if this vnchristian diuinitie go forward And alwayes I desyre the reader to remember that I am by force constrayned to remaine in this base kinde of talkinge in so plaine a matter against these enemies of Christ that seeme to haue lost the common senses of men S. Iohn the Baptist beholding Christ saith Ecce agnus dei ecce quitollit peccata mundi Behold the lambe of God Behold the lambe
supper vvithout them is described vsed and practised fully and perfitly and no man can shevv any reason or necessitie vvhy they should be there This is the proceeding of the Zuingliā gospel that which their eternal enemie spake in scorne and derision as a thing so ridiculous absurd that they would neuer admitte for shame that haue these good felowes without shame now receaued in good sooth sadnes Wherfore to help them forward if M. W. will take a litle paynes in searching old copies perhaps he may finde some one or other at lest some aunciēt father that readeth as Luther wisheth thē to reade And to geue him an entrance let him looke in S. Basil the next chapiter to that which he citeth and he shall find him to reade thus Caenantibus illis accepit Iesus panē c. vvhiles they vvere at supper Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake gaue it to his disciples And then leauing out the rest putteth next et hymno dicto exierunt in montem oliuarum and hauing sayd an hymne they vvent forth to mount Oliuet And perhaps if Beza liue to sette forth his testamēt once againe well it may be with some good aduise of such brethrē he wil leaue the words cleane out of the booke or put in one syllable more non and so mende all as he hathe done in some other places vpon as smale reason as this as writeth Gabriel Fabricius whose words to cōclude withall I wil sett downe in latin because you shal perceaue that some man hath written against him whose tonge Beza vnderstandeth wel inough The booke is intituled Gabriel is Fabricii Responsio ad Bezam Vezeliam Eceboliam printed at Paris an 1567. In that booke amōgst many other notable things thus he writeth Id agis haec verba toties repetita hoc est corpus meum perinde accipiēda esse ac si dictum scriptūquè esset hoc non est corpus meum Et fortasse vt tandem te expedias et tot commentariorum plaustra facessere iubeas recurres ad talem emendationem Et quia nostri correctores dicunt in ipsis etiā Pandectis Florentinis saepe deesse negationem tu tali artificio statim te liberes et aduersariis os obstruas praesertim cum alios multos euangeliorum locos similiter scilicet emendaueris partim ex coniectura partim ex manuscriptis vt ais exemplaribus You labour to shevve that those vvords so oftē repeated this is my body are to be taken as though it had bene spoken and vvritten this is not my body perhaps at length that you may ridde your selfe and dispatch out of the vvay these cart-loades of commentaries you vvill flye to such a kinde of correction And because our correctors saye that in the very lavv bookes of Florence oftentymes there vvanteth a negatiue particle you also vvill vse such a shift to stoppe the mouth of your aduersaries especially vvhereas you haue already corrected in like sort very learnedly many places of the gospels partly by coniecture partly by hand-vvritten copies as you tell vs. Some such corrected copies if M. W. cā finde against the next time it wil ease him of much labour put vs to much trouble In the meane season this I dare promise him he shall neuer scoure his coate cleane from those spottes with which in this defence of Beza he hath fouly stayned and soyled him selfe so longe as the old copies of S. Lukes gospell stande in force CHAP. XI M.VV. general ansvvere to the booke of Discouerie and of the notable impietie committed by the translatours of the English Bibles AFTer these particular controuersies and reprehēsions M. W. commeth now to make a general answere vnto M. Martyns Discouery which although it be verie short yet is it verie sweete to the singular commendation of their English trāslations The summe is that al is wel nothing amisse euery word standeth right so as he marueleth that M. Mart. was not ashamed so notably to publish his owne ignorance vnskilfulnes to all the world Thus he writeth Albeit heretofore I liked vvell our translations yet novv I loue them much more vvhereas I see so fevv faultes those so smale trifling can be found out and reproued euē of our enemies For vvhat aduersary vvas there euer so blynded with malice that can not perceaue our translations to be disallovved of you vvithout iudgment learning or reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vve translate sometimes instructions sometimes ordināces sometimes preceptes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 images 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 congregation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an elder 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to amend our liues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 misterie or secrete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thankesgeuing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freely be loued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 god is not tempted vvith euil He must take and allow in like maner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 carcas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 graue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 table c. VVhat is there here that a man can find fault vvithall as not translated vvel and truly and vvho vvil not iudge him a reprehender to vvicked importune vvho vvhen he can finde no greater thing for these faults vvhich are none at al pronounceth that al the vulgar trāslations of our churches are to be reiected condemned Haec et ist iusmodi nugae nostra crimina sunt These the like trifles are our faultes This is M.W. defence of their English translatiōs or rather a frendly assertiō that al things in thē are very wel therefore the whole booke of the Discouerie is a peeuish deuise of M. Martin proceeding only of malice without iudgment learning or reason To shew the falsitie and malitious wickednes of the heretikes in translating these verie wordes so were to make an other booke and it is so well done by M. Martin touching euery particular notwithstanding any replye yet made that to hādle the same againe were to cast water into the Terns or light a candel at noone daye Only this will I say in general and proue it that M. Whitaker in affirming thus much sheweth him selfe not only to be voide of wit learning and common sense but also to be void of shame and modestie that he litle differeth from an Atheist or Sadducee that he is more hard-faced then the most reprobate heretikes of this age the worst of his owne brethren And first what wit or learning will allow him amonge Christians to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an image or amonge Pagans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carcas more then minister talking of the English ministers a slaue or homo a dog He wil say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his primitiue signification and deriuation may so signifie Doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so signifie a carcas But leaue we the second talke we of the first and in that of al other where is like reason I wil not enter in to any
new or serious disputatiō touching this vsing or abusing of wordes when by what authoritie and how far such mutation is necessarie or allowable Only resting my self vpon the Protestants common and vulgar kind of disputing that is vpon the first and original deriuation and signification of Ecclesiastical words I wil by manifest and plaine examples taken from their vse and practise shew how absurd and vnreasonable their dealing is in this behalfe Vpon this ground 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say you is wel translated image and hereupon because we geue reuerence to images which reuerence is wel expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the distinction betwene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing saith M. D. Humfrey and he refuteth it at large in his booke of M. Iuels life the rest of the protestants of that secte commonly are of the same iudgement therefore we are condēned of you iustly as Idololatrae Idolaters for geuing honour reuerēce to sacred images which in greeke are called Idols Let vs note now whether this Idolatrie turne not on your owne head Honor not you the Quene in her images in her cloth chayre of estate in her maces in her seales and letters in keeping holie her Natiuitie Assumption to the crowne I somewhat disaduantage my selfe for perhaps this in deede draweth neere to true Idolatrie But let it passe with the rest The Protestantes geue honour to the images of the Quene Images and idols are al one ergo the Protestantes are idolaters Or more briefelie and plainelie thus Euerie prince in his realme is an image of the true god that is and idol of the true god Ergo the Protestantes in that they worship serue their princes worship serue idols and so by M.W. iudgment are Idolaters Againe church you saie is vvel expressed by congregation What is congregatiō in greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvhich being a vvord made English by custome as vvel as congregation it can not be any error to vse that in place of congregation and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke is superintendent or ouerseer in English both these translations are vsed iustified by your English bibles Novv if your knovvledge be so good in the English as I take it you can not be ignorant that an ouerseer is as properlie and vsuallie expressed in our language by this word surueyer which commeth directly from supra videre to ouersee And vvhat of al this Forsooth that it is no error vvhen vve talke of the byshops of the English church or congregation to vvhom you dedicated your latin translation of M. Ievvel if vve say you dedicated it to the most reuerend surueyers of the English synagoge Euangelium the gospel in greeke you wot vvel vvhat it signifieth good nevves or tidinges and testamentum in hebrevv and greeke is in English and latin couenant foedus as Beza commōly trāslateth it inscribing both his Testaments the greater and lesser printed the yeare 1565 Iesu Christi nouum Testamentum siue foedus as properly a bible is nothing els but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a booke for it is the selfe same vvord If so then vvhen one commeth to you and bringeth you good nevves and tidings that a benefice is befallen yovv yovv may say he bringeth you the gospel of a benefice or vvhen your farmer receaueth of you a lease vvith a nevv couenant he receaueth a lease vvith a nevv testament and Lucians Dialogues because they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore they are a bible almost as good as yours But in one example to shevv hovv voyde of sense vnderstanding yovv proue your selfe in this discourse by like reason in euery respect as you can iustifie the aforesaid vvordes you may and must iustifie the translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvashing as wel as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thankesgeuing the vse of Baal for dominus lord for it signifieth so precisely in the hebrevv whence commeth Baalzebub the idol of Accaron called in contempt yet according to the true original and primitiue signification of the vvord dominus muscae lord of a flye 4. Reg. 1. And vvhat signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diabolus in greeke vvord for vvord calumniator a slaunderer And angeli 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 messēgers as you translate it Heb. 1. v. 7. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvynde translated likewise so by yow Ioan. 3. v. 8. and Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the anointed both in greeke and hebrew vsed so by yow in sundrie places of the bible These being all alike so as you can not find any exception to disproue any sillable and so al approued by your English translations which now you loue more then euer you did because they are found to be without al fault let vs suppose in our grandfathers time some Catholike priest or Byshop in our realme to haue exhorted his people to charitie deuotion reformation of their liues Suppose he spake vnto them in this sorte I that am your priest bishop placed in this church by the holy Ghost for the feeding of your sovvles do denounce vnto you in the name of Christ our Lord that except you with more deuotion come to receaue the B. Sacrament and performe better your promise made to God in baptisme you shal be bodie and sovvle condemned to hell your portion shal be with the deuils I say with Beelzebub and his angels The meaning of this euery Christian doth know and no doubt it might and I thinke would moue a Christian audience Let vs now after your translations turne the same into the phrase and stile of the new gospel and see how it wil sound Let vs suppose some of your youthful ministers or superintēdēts to make the same exhortatiō Thē thus must it rūne I that am your elder or surueyer and superintendent placed in this synagoge by the holy vvynd for the feeding of your carcasses do denounce vnto you in the name of the Anointed our Baal that except yow with more deuotion come to receaue the thankesgeuing and performe better your promise made to God in vvashing you shal be condemned bodie and carcas to the graue with the slaunderers I say with the Lord of a flye and his messengers How deepely this would sinke into the hartes of your Euangelical auditorie let their owne conscience be iudge But touching you if you continue as you here begin and say al this goeth wel there is no fault in it I appeale to common sense whether you haue not as litle wit and capacitie as euer man that bare the name of a Christian Diuine I say consequently that hereof it foloweth you haue no shame nor modestie For vvhat Christian had he ether of these would not at the first warning reuoke or moderate so grosse filthie absurdity whereby must needes folow the contempt and plaine euacuation of the whole Church of the sacramēts
him self and his brethren more then against vs. For vvhereas they pretend to translate after the greeke and hebrue as vve do not and yet in sundrie places svvarue from the greeke hebrue this his long idle talke conuinceth vs of no faulte but it condemneth him and his brethren of greate and inexcusable corruption vvho pretending reuerence to the greeke and hebrevv yet at their pleasure depart frō both And this is that vvhereof M. Mar. reproueth them in a great part of his Discouerie Example vvhereof see thou in his preface Num. 16.17.18.23.43.44.45.46.47.48.49.50 51. and after in euerie chapter of the booke vvelnie and so much M. Mar. protested to them in the beginning in plaine termes sayng And if they folovv sincerely their greeke and hebrevv text vvhich they professe to folovv and vvhich they esteeme the only autentical text so far vve accuse them not of heretical corruption but if it shal be euidently proued that they shrinke from that also and translate an other thing and that vvilfully and of intention to countenance their false religion and vvicked opinions making the scriptures speake as they list then vve trust c. And of this first riseth a second note which I wish likewise to be remembred that their deflecting from the greeke is alwaies in matter of controuersie and so discrieth their malicious wilfulnes If there be any in the latin it is no such thing but in matters for any cōtrouersie mere indifferent and so quiteth the translatour of malice and euil meaning and iustifieth his vpright and plaine sinceritie And hereof ensueth the third touching our simple and plaine dealing in folowing the latin that we decline not from the greeke or hebrue because it more harmeth our cause then the latin as the aduersaries gladly pretend and M. W. verie confidently auoucheth but only in respect of the truth it self And thus much also was he told in the preface of the new testament to wit that as for other causes vve prefer the latin so in this respect of making for vs or against vs vve allovv the greeke as much as the latin yea in sundrie places more then the latin being assured that they haue not one and that vve haue many aduantages in the greeke more then in the latin And this is there manifested by sundrie and verie euident examples touching traditions priesthode iustification by workes the real presence fasting freewil the mystical sacrifice and against their only faith and assurance of saluation wherein the greeke is more pregnant for vs then the latin Contrarywise let M. VV. frame against the Catholike religion or any part thereof one argument out of the scriptures which we refuse to stand vnto vpon this pretence because it is in the greeke and not in the latin and I am content to excuse him here of a lye Otherwise he can neuer saue him self from a lye and a lye in sight to obiect that vnto vs which nether he nor any of his can proue and we before hand haue in precise termes warned him of it and professed and proued the contrarie And therefore although in truth reader whatsoeuer he saith a great deale more is answered verie sufficiently and abundantly alreadie in the preface of the Testament as thow wilt confesse if it shal please thee with diligence to pervse it and I accompt it a peece of our miserie in this time to be matched with such blunt aduersaries whose maner of writing is now to cloy vs with crābe recocta cole vvorts tvvise yea tē times sodden nether thē selues can bring any new stuffe nor scoure more brightlie or otherwise mend vp their old nor refel our answeres confutations made to them but dissembling any such matter as though it had neuer bene treated of before vse to runne idelly and ministerlike vpon a cōmon place as M. VV. doth here which is more against them selues then against vs yet because it is my lotte to deale with him now the first time and therefore am loth to pretermit any thing wherein him self seemeth to put any force I wil take his argumētes as new and suppose that he neuer read the preface of the Testament against which he writeth and therefore will likewise hereafter borow some part of my answere thence Two argumentes he maketh against our latin translation and consequently against vs for folowing the same in our English The first is that the fountaines vz the greeke and hebrew are more pure thē the latin which he proueth by certaine sentences of S. Hierō S. Austin and S. Ambrose The other is one particular fault wherein as he sayth the vulgar translation is vniuersallie false the greeke contrarie is true Before his arguments he premitteth certaine interrogatories wherein he seemeth to auouch if I vnderstand him that only to be the word of god which is written in the lāguage wherein first the holy Ghost by the Prophets and Apostles vttered it That I misreporte him not I will set downe his wordes Thus he opposeth vs. Quid interpretandum suscepistis nonne scripturas Quaenam vero sunt scripturae quis nescit dei verbum scriptum illud esse c. VVhat tooke you in hand to interprete not the scriptures and vvhat are the scriptures vvho is ignorant but that is the vvritten vvord of god vvhich the lord committed to his church in bookes and letters and those oracles of god vvere they vttered by the holy Ghost in latin or can they better or more diuinely be declared in any tonge then that vvhich the holy Ghost vvould vse where vnto I answere that if his questions haue such meaning sense as the wordes beare and may stand ful wel with his skil and knowledge then are they not so much fantastical as phrenetical For accounteth he nothing the vvritten vvord of god but that vvhich is in hebrevv and greeke and vvas vvritten by the prophetes and Apostles in that language Then vvhat meaneth he and the rest of his Euāgelical confraternitie so perpetuallie to brag that they haue geuen vs nothing but the pure vvord of the lord vvho haue geuen vs nothing but their ovvne contaminated translations in English French Flēmish Dutch and such vulgar languages Is this the word of God M. W vttered the holy Ghost his oracles euer in Flēmish or English why inscribe yow your English testamente The testamente of our Lord Iesus Christ if nothing but the greeke or hebrue be the written word and testament of god But let this passe for an example of his singular foolishnes speaking he knoweth not what See we herein an other example of his notable impietie Our Sauiour Christ the Euangelistes and Apostles when they cited places of the old testament not according to the fountaines hebrue but according to the Septuaginta cited they not scripture In omnem terram saith the apostle Paule exiuit sonus eorum Their sound is gone forth in to al the vvorld whereas in the hebrew
they I shal I doubt neuer be vvorthie to be named scholers example vvhereof take thou Charkes scornful abusing of Father Campian in the Tower for ignorance in such trifles as these are or were I disposed to disgrace the fountaines and originals which I am not but honour them as I may and sauing the euident truth and faith of Christ which standeth fast and vnmoueable though heauen and earth fall much more though the Iewish Pharisees and Scribes write their text amisse this cause faith I say foreprised I esteeme of them as of things deseruing much studie and reuerence because how soeuer some grosse errors partly of malice partly of ignorance haue crept in yet commonly and for the most part the text I hold to be true and sincere And againe I suppose this kinde of writing can not be but tedious to the English reader whose profit I principally intend and therefore will go from these particularities so far as I may to talke of a few resonable the same general arguments and questions wherein M.W. if he haue some part of that wit intelligence and modestie which a scholer diuine should haue wil not I hope much stande against me And first gladly would I learne of him what reason he and his fellowes haue why they should thinke the hebrew text to be so inuiolate so sincere and vpright is it because of Gods promise and prouidence or of mans circuÌ„spection and wisdome if because of Gods promise where finde they any such how many examples in the scriptures haue they to the contrarie whole bookes of the prophetes are perished bookes of singular coÌ„moditie made by Gods owne appointment and they perished then in that time of the sinagoge when Iacob vvas the peculiar people of God and Israel the lot of his inheritance when of al nations they vvere to God a holy nation a kingly priesthode when al other people vvere suffered to go their ovvne vvaies the Iewes only were in Gods special protection For touching the bookes of the auncient prophets somtime extant and now not appearing we reade coÌ„monly in the old testameÌ„t as of Liber bellorum domini The booke of the vvarres of our Lord The booke of the iust men The booke of Iehu the sonne of Hanani The bookes of Semeias the prophete and Addo and Samuel vvrote in a booke the lavv of the kingdome hovv kings ought to rule laid it vp before our lorde and the vvorkes of Salomon vvere vvritten in the vvordes of Nathan the Prophete and in the bookes of Ahias the Silonite and in the visioÌ„ of Addo the Seer and many other which were to long to rehearse VVhich entier bookes of the warres of our lord of the iust of those excellent prophets of Iehu of Semeias of Addo of Samuel of Nathan of Ahias and others are quite perished and perished then when the Iewes were so chosen a people such a kingdome in such order gouernment of Kings and princes and Senate ecclesiastical regiment And now when they are no people haue no gouernment no king no Priest no comparable regiment may we reasonably thinke their diuine and ecclesiasticall bookes to haue bene so warelie kept that euerie parte is safe euerie parcel sound no points letters or titles lost al sincere perfit and absolute If the protestaÌ„ts will claime this to them by mans wisdome and policie see how notably they contradicte themselues Al the bishops and princes and states of Christendome were not wise inough by the protestants opinioÌ„ these thousande yeres past to keepe them selues in the true religion and Gospell of Christ But whereas vntil 600. yeres as we learne by M. Iewels chalenge they were protestants and enemies of the Masse of the Real presence of the Pope of Rome and as M. W. telleth vs here vniuersally protestaÌ„ts quo ad praecipuas religionis partes in the principall parts of religion they fell from that pure protestant-Gospel to serue Antichrist to worship bread and wine for God to adore Images which is most grosse idolatrie in steed of a true bible and word of God to haue our coÌ„mon translation which is most impure fullest of corruptioÌ„ Al this M.W. telleth vs and he telleth vs in this booke and it is the common songe of them al. And therefore how is it credible that al this while the Iewes should be so wise so prudent so politike and circuÌ„specte that they admitted no faults kept their bible so sincere and immaculate that there only the water of life was reserued and the minde meaning of the holie Ghost vvas to be found no-vvhere so assuredly as there what is this but to make the Christians al this while more brutish then beastes and the Iewes almost equal to Angels Againe so great likenes and similitude is there betwene some hebrew letters that excellent learned men haue bene deceaued by mistaking one for an other as appeareth by comparing the olde translations of the bible with the later and S. Hierom affirmeth the same of the Septuaginta This if a man would declare by examples I thinke he might gather some hundreds out of the psalter I wil note only one verse of a short psalme which also may serue for a higher pointe In the psalme 109 after our translation thus we reade with the Septuaginta Tecum principium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanctorum ex vtero ante luciferum genuite The ProtestaÌ„ts for the more parte as we see by Marlorate folowing therein Bucere Musculus Caluine and Pomerane translate it thus Populus tuus cum voluntariis oblationibus in die exercitus tui in pulchritudine sanctitatis ex vtero ab aurora tibiros adolescentiae tuae The english bible of the last edition differing notably both froÌ„ olde and new from vs and the Protestants translate thus Thy people shal come vvillingly all the time of assembâ—ing thine armie in holie beauty the youth of thy vvoÌ„be shal be as the morning devv which translation is farthest from the hebrew farthest from al sense and reason for who would make youth to rule vvombe and ioyne them together being sundred so far and the bible geuen out two yeres before hath scant one worde like and touching the later part is cleane opposite for thus it translateth In the day of thy pâ—vvâ—r shal the people offer thee free-vvil offeringes the devv of thy birth is of the vvombe of the morning there is youth of the vvombe and devv of the morning here is devv of the birth or youth for that is one word in hebrew and vvombe of the morning If a man would translate it precisely vsing only the libertie to make choise of diuers significations which the hebrew words yelde and drawe it so far as the hebrew wil beare to the sense of the Septuaginta which I take to be the best then word for word thus it should
stand Tecum principatus in die poteÌ„tiae tuae in decoribus sanctitatis ab vterâ— Ã Lucifero tibi ros natiuitatis tuae How euer it be framed great difference wil rise of necessitie amongst diuers interpreters And whence proceedeth that one great cause is the diuers significatioÌ„ of one word The first which the 70. turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tecum vvith thee others populus tuâ—s thy people is in the hebrew one word with so smale a difference of one point as is possible The next expressed of the 70. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principatus may be as well signified by the hebrew as spontanea oblatio The third which the 70. turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Hierom fortitudinis the Protestants exercitus may truely signifie them al povver vertue strength liberalitâ—e and armie and so aurora or Lucifer is the same word But that which chiefely I note in this sentence whatsoeuer other difference was betweene the old hebrew text and the new is the diuersitie of sense rising through diuersitie of reading vpon occasion of similitude in the hebrew letters as for example The Septuaginta read in spâ—endoribus or decoribus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in brightnes whom commonly al the Protestants folow S. Hier. in mentibus in mountaines the difference commeth of the likenes of two hebrew letters daleth and resâ—h The last word the 70. rendered by genuite I haue begotten thee Which word of how great strength force it is in this place may be perceaued by vew of the Apostle Paules argument who out of that verse word proueth the eternal diuinitie of our Sauiour S. Hierom translated that word adolescentiae tuae as commonly do the Protestants What is the occasion of this difference the great likelines of two wordes the Septuaginta read the first S. Hierom the second The printes now vsed though in sense folow S. Hierom yet misse one of his letters and therefore come nearer to the reading of the 70. And this verse letter vau for iod hath certainly made disagreemeÌ„t in some other places As where the Septuaginta read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fortitudinem meam ad te custodiam my strength vvill I kepe to thee and so S. Hierom read and translated now it is in the hebrew fortitudineÌ„ eius his strength vvil I keepe to thee to the great peruerting of the whole sense and sentence A like error to that Genes 3. if it be an error as many verie probably rather thinke it is none ipsa conteret caput tuum for ipse or ipsum about which the Protestants keepe such a stur But what should I rehearse examples of such smale errors committed by learned men by Rabbines by S. Hierom by the Septuaginta vvhereas the protestants sticke not to charge directly the verie Apostle S. Paule with error in this kind For whereas S. Paule writeth That nether eye hath seene nor eare heard nether hath it entred in to the hart of man vvhat God hath prepared for those that loue him iis qui diligunt illum whereby we proue that heauen is prepared as a reward for charitie and the workes thereof and so refel their mathematical solifidian fansie many pretie answeres they geue vs as that S. Paule doth after his fashioÌ„ very finely writhe the place So Luther Paulus sententiam commodè detorsit Illyricus That to loue is as much as to beleeue and so charitie as much as faith and then to be saued by only faith why may we not interprete it To be saued by only charitie Qui diligunt saith he pâ—nitur pro iis qui ad eum supplices fide confugiunt Fides per effectum suum dilectionem declaratur Those that loue him that is those that by faith humbly flye vnto him Faith is noted by his effect that is charitie But Peter Martyr goeth an other way to worke and thinketh that the Apostle read not right Thus writeth he Diligentibus se habet Apostolus Propheta vero dixit expectantibus et diserimen agnoscitur prouenisse a magna similitudine duorum elementorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Apostle hath the vvord louing the Prophet hath trusting or expecting and it is vvel knovven that this difference grevve from the great similitude of tvvo hebrevv letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so much as among the hebrevves the same verbe vvritten vvith one letter signifieth to trust or expect vvith the other to loue vehemently vvhich Paule folovved In which censure Christian reader besides his sacrilegious contempt in diuinitie wherein thou maist learne to care the lesse for their condemning and railing at the fathers when they are so sawcie with this singular Apostle besides this prophane wickednes in diuinitie I say he fowly belieth the Apostle against al humanity For the secoÌ„d word which he obiecteth hath no such significatioÌ„ if he meant some other word somewhat reseÌ„bling the first as other of his brethreÌ„ gesse yet nether caÌ„ they serue his turne for so much as the graÌ„matical rules wil not beare such construction as against Erasmus and him Beza hath truely noted But graunt we to P. Martir that which he would haue let S. Paule I wil not say indued with the holy Ghost so abundantly Paule that piller foundation of the Church so directed by God as he could not erre but only Paule brought vp from his infancy in the law of Moyses in coÌ„tinual studie of the law and Prophetes at the feete of Gamaliel so noble a scholemaister let this Paule be deceaued in reading the Hebrew then how intolerable is their peruersitie who wil not suffer so much to be iudged of the common base vulgar ignorant scribes so malitiously bent against Christ and al Christianitie as before is noted But hovvsoeuer M. W. speaketh of his fountaynes and originâ—ls knovv thou Christian reader that other of his side far more skilfull then he without any contradiction acknovvledge vvhat soeuer I say Sebastianus Castalio by occasion defending him self agaynst such a one as M. W. seemeth to be writeth thus Videtur esse in ea opinione sicut et plerique omnes Iudaei et noÌ„nulli hac in parte Iudaizantes Christiani vt in hebraicis bibliis nullum vsque mendum irrepisse putet c. This good felovv seemeth to be of that opinion as in maner all Ievves are and some Christians dravving to Iudaisme in this respect that they thinke no error euer to haue creapt into the hebrevv bibles that God vvould neuer suffer that any vvord should be corrupted in those holie bookes as though the bookes of the old testament vvere more holie then those of the nevv in the vvhich nevv so many diuers readinges are founde in so many places or as though it vvere credible that God had more regarde of one or other litle vvord or
sanctus in omnibus operibus suis Which verse in hebrew should haue begun with that letter which of al the alphabete only misseth So as most certaine it is that the hebrew is faultie And thus to end this matter of the hebrew fountaines originals I wil gather that which I haue said in to a fevv conclusions vvithal ansvvere M.VV. allegations The first is that this opinion of the Protestants detracting so much from the latin bibles and yelding so much to the hebrevv is Iudaical iniurious to the Church to the holy Ghost and state of the nevv testameÌ„t as vvhereby they professe to thinke more religioÌ„ care of Gods word to haue bene resident in the Iewish synagoge theÌ„ in al the Kingdomes Princes Pastors Prouinces of Christianitie for these thovvsaÌ„d yeres The second that albeit S. Hierom in his tyme so soone after the great persecutions the Church being troubled vvith that most busye terrible and potent heresie of the Arrians against the diuinitie of Christ and the holy Ghost vvhen as yet the Canon it selfe comprehending the sacred bookes of scriptures by general authoritie vvas not confirmed and receaued vvheÌ„ as saith S. Austin there vvas inâ—umerable varietie of latin traÌ„slations Qui ex hebraeâ— lingua scripturas in graecam verterunt numerari possunt latini autem interpretes nullo modo and they infinitely differing among them selues as in the same place he noteth when for these causes there vvas not nor vvel could be any one vniforme translation approued although at this tyme S. Hierom might iustly appeale from them al to the hebrew as in coÌ„parison being most pure incorrupt yet nether then were the hebrew copies simpliciter faultles as hath bene shevved by playne examples and demonstrations by the very ProtestaÌ„te bibles and by confession of the best learnedst among them and S. Hâ—erom though M. W. seeme to ground him self most vpoÌ„ him acknovvledgeth so much For examining tvvo places of Deuteronomie vrged by the Apostle S. Paule in his epistles both differing in that point vvhich he most presseth froÌ„ the hebrew bibles extant in S. Hieroms daies he resolueth in fine that the hebrew vvas corrupted othervvise then the Apostle read it The one place is Scriptum est Maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno It is vvritten Cursed is euerie one that hangeth on tree in vvhich short place compared vvith the original in Deuteronomie there is somevvhat to much and somevvhat to litle To much because here is omnis euery one and in ligno on tree which are not now found in the Hebrew though both in the Greeke of the Septuaginta To litle because there is in the hebrew Elohim which wanteth in S. Paule maledictus Deo or Dei cursed of God is euerie one so hanged S. Hierom answereth thus My iudgement herein is this ether that the old bookes of the Hebrevves had othervvise then they haue novv or that the Apostle put the sense of the scripture not the vvordes or vvhich I rather suppose after the passion of Christ both in the Hebrevv and in our bookes the name of God vvas added by some maÌ„ that he might make vs more infamous vvho beleeue in Christ accursed of God The other place is this Scriptum est Maledictus omnis qui noÌ„ permanserit in omnibus quae scripta sunâ— in libro legis vt faciat ea Cursed is euerie one that abideth not in al thinges vvhich are vvritten in the booke of the lavv to do them Where the Apostles argument hanging principally vpon the two wordes omnis and in omnibus euerie one and in al thinges both which are in the Septuaginta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nether in the hebrew he thus answereth the matter I am vncertayne vvhether the Septuaginta added omnis homo and in omnibus or vvhether it vvere so in the old hebrevv and aftervvard put out by the Ievves Thus tâ— suppose I am moued for this reason because the vvordes omnis and in omnibus al and in al as necessary to proue that they be al accuâ—sed vvho are of the vvorkes of the lavv the Apostle skilful in the hebrevv tonge and mâ—st cunning in the lavv vvould neuer haue so sett dovvne had it not bene so in the hebrevv VVherefore I perusing the hebrevv volumes of the Samaritanes found there vvritten the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much to say as omnis siue omnibus al or in al and so that to agree vvith the Septuaginta In vayne therefore haue the Ievves razed that out lest they should seeme to be accursed vvhereas the more auncient examples of an other nation testifie that it vvas vvritten so Thus S. Hierom. Thirdly this I gather that since S. Hieroms time much more haue the hebrew bookes bene corrupted and that not in smale indâ—fferent matters which might better be borne but in very hye pointes touching the diuinitie and humanitie of our Sauiour touching his passion and the redemption of the world And therefore when S. Hierom speaking of the puritie of the bibles before his birth is applied to iustifie the copies written so many ages after his death and so consequently to iustifie al their new English FleÌ„mish and Germane interpretations made according to some hebrew copies as they pretend this is as iust as Germanes lippes according to our english prouerbe whose hartes mindes religions we see to differre infinitely This is to answere of chalke when the question is proposed of cheese Next this we see that the condition of the hebrew tonge is such that errors are very soone coÌ„mitted therein by reasoÌ„ of smale points of distinctioÌ„s of letters so nighly resembling one an other Wherevnto ioyne we the malice of the Rabbines their hatred of the Christians and Christian religion whom Luther confesseth to be as very crucifiers of the word of Christ especially such places as most appertaine to him as they were of Christ him selfe and that they employe their studie herevnto And if we consider withal how in time of the law thorough their default they lost whole bookes volumes of their diuine Prophetes we shal fynde smal reason to moue vs to beleeue that since Christ they should become so holy and deuout watchful circumspect as M.VV. by commending their fountaines and originals would make them Finally al this hath bene declared not only by plaine reasons factes examples demonstrations but also by plaine confession of those whom our aduersaries principally reuerence and honour and in this matter were most skilful by Munster by Pellicane by Sebastianus Castalio by Luther and such others And hereof may the reader easely learne an answer to that questioÌ„ which many frame as a matter of intricate difficultie wheÌ„ these corruptions should come in to the hebrew bibles whether before Christs time or betwene that and S. Hieroms or from S. Hieroms time to vs. Not the first say they because
then the greeke if our latin be framed exactly though not to the vulgar greeke examples now vsual yet to more auncient and perfect examples as Beza hath obserued if the greeke testaments haue in them many faultes errors corruptions as Beza in word auoucheth and by manifold examples sheweth if this be so true that our english translators them selues at their pleasure leaue the greeke and folow our latin with what face reason or conscience can M.W. crie vpon the pure and vncorrupt originals which him self and his masters proue to be so impure and contaminated With what honestie can he cal vs to the greeke from which them selues depart so licentiously Vnto these I wil ioyne only three short obseruations which the diligent reader perhaps may amplifie by verie many particular examples and so wil come to confer our translator with our aduersaries The first may be the difference of our greeke copies now from the old whereof let this be an example Beza reiecteth the whole storie of the adulterous womaÌ„ whereof mentioÌ„ is made in the eight of S. Ihon. His reason is because the old fathers did so and it was not in the old greeke testaments which he proueth by the authoritie of S. Chrysostom of Theophilact of Nonnus and S. Hierom. and amongst 17 old copies of Henrie Stephen one vvanted it the rest had it but so that in their reading there vvas maruelous varietie whereof he inferrteh TaÌ„ta varietas lectionis facit vt de totius istius narrationis fide dubitem This great varietie of reading maketh me to doubt of the truth of the vvhole matter Yet notwithstanding this coÌ„trarie practise of the old greekes and greeke testaments and infinite varietie in the copies the new printes haue it for ought I can find vniuersally and agreably and in al our english testaments traÌ„slated after the greeke it is as canonical as any other part of S. Iohns gospel So that herein appeareth a great diuersitie betwene the old greeke testaments and the new and therefore daungerous it is to folowe these new if we can not do it but with condeÌ„nation of the old yet as daungerous is it to folow the old if we can not do it without condeÌ„nation of that which the church holdeth for a part of S. Iohns gospel The like noteth thae same writer in the epistle to the Ephes the 3. chap. a parcel whereof in S. HieroÌ„s time VVas not in the greeke bookes but only in the latin but saith Beza In omnibus veteribus libris et scholiis quoque graecis haec particula additur Novv it is added in al the old greeke copies scholies also A second obseruation may be the rash vnconsiderate additions which haue bene made in the greeke text an example whereof may be taken from the same Euangelist and the ende of the same chapter where in the greeke is added this peece Exiuit e templo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transiens per medium illorum et sic praeteriit touching vvhich thus writeth Beza These vvords are found in verie auncient copies but I thinke as doth Erasmus that the first part is taken out of Luke the 4. v. 30. and creapt into the text by fault of the vvriters vvho found that vvritten in the margeÌ„t and that the later part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvas added to make this chapter ioyne vvel vvith the next And thus to thinke I am moued not only because nether Chrysostome nether Augustine make any mention of this peece but also because it seemeth not to haÌ„g together very probably for if he withdrew him selfe out of their sight hovv vvent he through the middest of theÌ„ etc. so forth disputeth against this parte as altogether vnprobable not likely to be true Yet is it now generally in most greeke copies how beit the english translators leaue it out of their testaments The reason I take to be because howsoeuer they bragge of their greeke and hebrew originals the truth is they translate nether the one nor the other except sometimes some few words for a shew but only take that which Beza in latin deliuereth vnto them And yet whereof I marueil the freshest translation which professeth to folowe Beza inscribeth the booke thus The Testament of our Lorde Iesus Christ translated out of greeke by Theodore Beza and Englished by L. T. putteth this in which Beza leaueth out and against vvhich Beza disputeth so earnestly that it can not be scripture as being contrarie to it self But for excuse of the English translator it may be and true it is that Beza one yere thought thus an other yere thought otherwise And so in one Testament of his held that for false Apocryphal which in an other Testament he gaue out autorized as sacred Canonical Vnto this place thou maist referre that peece which the ProtestaÌ„ts so gloriously sing and say in the ende of the Lords praier For thine is the Kingdome the povver and glorie for euer and euer Amen which as Erasmus disliketh confessing it notwithstanding to be In omnibus graecis exemplaribus nulla latino In al greeke testaments and no one Latin so Bullinger himself counteth it to be a mere patch sowed to the rest by I knowe not whoÌ„ and alloweth wel of Erasmus iudgmeÌ„t reprouing Laurentius Valla for finding fault with the latin editioÌ„ because that lacketh it Non est saith he quod Laurentius Valla stomachetur c. There is no reason vvhy Laurence Valla should take the matter so hotely as though a great part of the Lordes praier vvere cut a vvay Rather their rasâ—nes was to be reproued who durst presume to peece on their toyes vnto the Lords praier A third obseruation may be that the greeke testaments omit vpon light occasions often times that which they should not and which the latin retaineth for autentical canonical Example where of may be the place before noted of the incarnatioÌ„ Quod nascetur ex te sanctum vocabitur filius dei That saith the Archâ—ngel to our blessed ladie vvhich of thee shal be borne holy shal be called the sonne of God In which sentence the two syllables ex te 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what force they cary against the Anabaptists hath bene declared Now consider the generâ—l corruption of the greeke copâ—es in that behalf Of them thus writeth Carolus Molineus a great Protestant in his new testament I haue read exte in most auÌ„cient bibles of vvhich one copie I haue printed at Lions the yere 1479. and that is the old vndoubted reading for so reade the old and nevv Breuiaries and Romane offices But Erasmus vvhom Bucer and Bullinger folovv seemeth only to haue fallen vpon a copie in this part vnpâ—rfite the error vvhereof is spread a broade in many copies both greeke and latin printed at Basil Zuricke Paris and Lions you and at Geneua also in the ordinarie
disâ—greing from the mind of the holy Ghost Wil you vvishe vs rather to take Castalio vvhom D. Humfrey matcheth vvith the best and praiseth his bible as most painfull most diligent most thorougly conferred examined sifted and polished and Conradus Gesnerus simply preferreth it before al as the best that vvas euer yet set out by the Protestants Vertit biblia saith he ita diligenter ac suÌ„ma fide ad hebraica graeca exemplaria c. vt omnes omnium versiones hactenus aeditas longo post se interuallo reliquisse videatur Cast alio bath translated the bible so diligently and vvith so singular fidelitie according to the hebrevv and greeke that he seemeth far to haue surpassed al traÌ„slations of al meÌ„ vvhat so euer haue hetherto bene set forth Yet this notvvithstanding vve can not possibly so esteeme of it considering that Beza in so many places of his notes condeÌ„neth it not only for false corrupt peruerse but also for pestileÌ„t sacrilegious Ethnical Turkish such a one as coÌ„taineth the very seede laieth open the high vvay to manifest Apostasie froÌ„ Christ To come neerer home Caluin I suppose by M. W. iudgment should succede in place of our olde but so should vve make as euil a chaunge as if vve tooke any yet mencioned For Caluin vvhatsoeuer grace or good qualitie othervvise he had vvas as savvcie and malapert in altering the text of scripture as any of his felovv sectaries so vvriteth of him his ovvne brother Carolus Molineus Caluinus in sua harmonia textum euangelicum desuitare facit sursum versum vt res ipsa indicat vim infert literae euangelicae et illam in mul tis locis transponit et insuper addit literae Caluin in his harmony which is the very letter of his translation maketh the text of the gospel to leape vp and dovvne as the thing it self shevveth He vseth violence to the letter of the gospel and in many places cleane transposeth it and besides this he addeth to the text that is he geueth vs a text of his ovvne making What remaineth for vs to do now but to sticke to our old seing the Protestants them selues thus disswade vs from taking any new But there remaineth yet one sure felow whom I suppose M. W. could be content to substitute in place not only of our auncient edition but of Luther Occolampadus Castalio yea and Caluin him self that is Theodore Beza whom the english congregation seeme most to folow But he must tel vs what testament of what yere of what date because certaine it is that the first editions dâ—ffer notoriously from the middle and the middle from the later as hath bene touched before of al testameÌ„ts set forth by any herâ—tâ—ke no one hath bene more refuted coÌ„uinced of fowle and wilfull corrâ—ptions and that by the verâ—e heretikes them selues then those of Bezaes witnesses whereof are besides Catholike vvriters noted before Selneccerus the Germane and the Vniuâ—rsitie of Iena Seâ—astianus Castaâ—io in a vvhole booke and Carolus Molineus in vâ—rie many places of his notâ—s vpon the nevv testament vvhich he set forth VVhere often times he reprehendeth Caluin and Beza often times of Beza he saieth that he de facto mutat textum Altereth the text not only in sense but in the verie word and letter Againe Theod. Beza Mat. 10. v. 10. Luc. 9 3. defacto muâ—at textum vt hos ita conciliet Sed non pâ—acet mutari textum qui ab omnibus et antiquis et receÌ„tioribus doctâ—ribus retinetur quum sacile coÌ„ciliari possint Beza in S. Matthevv chap. 10. v. 10. and S. Luke chap. 9. v. 3. actually changeth the text so to make a reconciliation betvvene the euangelists But I like not that so to change the text vvhich is retained of al doctors both old and nevv and othervvise they may vvel be recoÌ„ciled and whether they may or may not surely that is a very mad way of reconciliation And commonly that writer preferreth our vulgar editioÌ„ before Erasmus Bucer Bullinger Brentius the Tigurine traÌ„slation Pagnines etiam Iohannis Caluini et omnibus aliis yea befâ—re Iohn Caluins to and all other And in the same place Here Erasmus did vvel to folovv the old edition and it had bene better for Beza to haue done so to And againe Peccat Beza antiquam versionem mutans IohaÌ„nis 3. v. 19 et 43. And the like is very common in Castalio Beza malè reprehendit veterem interpretem Melius transtulerat vetus interpres Iniustè reprehendit veterem interpretem c. vniustly and vvith out cause Beza reprehendeth the old interpreter The old interpreter had translated it better before And touching Beza he saith that to note al his errors committed in translating the new testament Opus esset nimis magno lâ—bro It vvould require a very great booke And hauing noted certaine faultes of Beza committed only in the first ten chapters of S. Matthew thus he concludeth In his decem Matthaei capitibus in quibus tameÌ„ plurimae quae merito repreheÌ„dere potuissem praetermisi quam prolixum passem c. I trust I haue shevved sufficiently by these ten chapters of S. Matthevv in vvhich notvvithstanding I haue omitted very many things vvhich iustly I might haue reprehended vvhat a long register of his errors I could gather out of his vvhole vvorke For this is true that oft times he erreth not only in vvords vvhich is not so daungerous and might be tolerated but also in things and the same most vvaightie and oft times he enforceth by vvrithing not the sentences only but also the vvords of the holy vvriters to serue his error So Iohn 1. v. 12. he corrupteth a most not able place and of greatest moment touching freevvil c. And in fevv to speake al for I should vvrite out vvhole treatises bookes if I vvould shew the vile abusing of scripture committed by that vvretch of damnable memorie vvhom our english Protestantes cheefely extolle as by M. VV. vve learne thus much Castalio noteth and shevveth by manifolde examples that Beza then principally laboureth in peruerting the scripture vvheÌ„ it appertaineth most to the benefite vertue of Christs passion and our redemption Thus he vvriteth vpon the 6. chapter to the Romanes and these vvordes of our latin text Vt destruatur corpus peccati in the english translation That the body of sinne may be destroyed both agreing exactly with the greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza saith Castalio turneth the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eneruetur may bevveakened and reprehendeth the old interpreter Erasmus and me for translating may be destroyed for this honest man vvil not haue sinne to be distroyed by Christ but only weakened vvherein he doth plainely diminish the benefite bestovved vpon vs by Christ Id quod multis aliis in locis eum facere animaduerti
of our latin translation affirme that howsoeuer some smale fault may be found in it absolutely it hath no error ether touching doctrine or touching maners For vvhy should I not so gather when as I see the aduersarie being so eager yet with al his search and studie findeth one only fault in it whiche I wil set downe in his owne wordes because I wil not diminish the force of his argument Very absurdly haue you done saith he vvhen in translating the testament in to English you had rather folâ—vv the latin translation then the greeke original and that so obstinatly that although al the greeke examples reade othervvise then is in your vulgar editioÌ„ yet you prefer that before them al. I vvil geue you one example In 1. Cor. 15. v. 54. Paule saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This parcel in your translation is omitted for vvhat reason because it is not in the latin vulgar edition as they cal it But it is in the greeke exemplars in the most auncient edition Siriake and vvhat if Hierom read it not yet Chrysostome and Ambrose him self read it vvhich men vvhereas they liued vvith Hierom hereof it folovveth assuredly ether that HieroÌ„ dealt not faithfully here or that his version vvas corrupted aftervvards vnto which thus I answere First that this omissâ—on if it be any could not proceede of malice or set purpose for so much as there is no losse or hinderance to any part of doctrine by reading as we reade for the self same thing is most clearely set downe in the verie next lines before for thus stande the wordes This corruptible must doe on incorruption and this mortal immortalitie And vvhen this corruptible hath done on incorruption and this mortal hath done on immortalitie where thou seest the words which I haue put downe inclosed within the parenthesis to be contained most expressely in the sentence going before which is in al our testaments so that there is no harme or dauÌ„ger ether to faith doctrine or maners if it be omitted Secondarely if we prefer our latin edition before the greeke and thinke that peece repeated not to be of the text what reason we haue so to do hath bene shewed in part and Beza by his example iustifieth our doing For so him self doth more theÌ„ once vpon S. Luke he thus writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Omnia quae vidi exemplaria ita scriptum habent Al the greeke examples vvhich I haue seene reade so But the old interpreter readeth othervvise et rectius vt opinor and better as I suppose Againe in the same gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haec verba deerant in omnibus vetustis codâ—cibus quae tamen prorsus videntur requiri These vvordes vvanted in al the old greeke bookes vvhich for al that seeme necessarie And therefore he supplieth his text vvith them out of our translatioÌ„ and so do the english translators who seldome depart froÌ„ him but like good scholers turne in to english his latin Thirdly that it was of old in some greeke copies as we reade is plaine by S. Hier. who translated thus And why should M. W. suspect any vnfaithfulnes in him seing he put the self same wordes and sense in the next line immediatly going before and that it was not corrupted since appeareth by the common reading of most men in al later ages And how vnlearnedly argueth he against S. Hierom from the authoritie of S. Ambrose and S. Chrysosâ—oÌ„ reading otherwise Must therefore S. Hierom be vnfaithful or the Church after him because S. Chrysostom or S. Ambrose haue those few vvordes more then he vvhy may he not far more reasonably more like a logician and like an honest man to inuent an other part and make a better diuision that ether S. Hierom dealt not faithfully or els his greeke copies had not that peece repeated vvhich I thinke to be most true certaine Againe vvhy should he rather correct S. Hierom by S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose then contraryvvise thâ—m by S. Hierom vvhereas by common intendement and probabilitie S. Hierom framing a publike translation for the Church by supreme authoritie had more varietie of copies and examined the same more narrowly then doth ordinarily any other vvho expoundeth the scripture ether by vvay of homelies to the people as doth S. Chrysostome or by vvay of commentarie as doth S. Ambrose And truely writeth Beza that whosoeuer by such authoritie of one or other father would go about to alter the ordinary traÌ„slation except he vse an other maner of iudgment wisdome and diligence then we see vsed by our aduersaries he wil rather corrupt the scripture then correct it And his reason is very good pregnant Neque enim saith he scriptores illos seu graecos seu latinos existimandum est quoties locum aliquem citarint toties vel libros inspexisse vel singula verba numerasse For it is not to be supposed that those vvriters ether greeke or latin vvhen they had to cite a place alvvaies ether vevved the booke or numbred the vvords For this had bene a matter of infinite labour not necessarie c. To which infinite labour notwithstanding and vewing the booke numbring the words S. Hier. in his translatioÌ„ was of necessitie bouÌ„d as was nether S. Ambâ—n or S. Chrisost And yet S. Chrysostome maketh litle for you if you compare wel his owne discourse and text together Nay he maketh cleane against you and approueth our reading For though he haue those wordes in the second place yet he hath them not in the first and repeateth them not but only once readeth them in his text according to our latin And therunto agreeth his commeÌ„tarie therfore quâ—te ouerthroweth â—l that you vvould build vpon his credite Thus they stande in him For this corruptible must do on incorruption And vvhen this corruptible shal do on incorruptioÌ„ this mortal immortalitie theÌ„ shal be fulfilled c. And whereas you adde that S. Ambrose readeth as you do you must pardon me if I beleeue mine owne eyes better then your reporte Certâ—inely S. Ambrose in his commentarie vppon that place readeth as we do So readeth S. Austin de ciuitate Dei cited by S. Bede in his commentarie vpon the same chapter though S. Austin reade also as M. VV. would haue it according to the greeke And with S. Bede and after S. Bede so reade the rest of the Catholike interpreters and doctors Haymo Anselmus c. Farthermore in this verie place as I thinke most appeareth the sinceritie of our latin translatioÌ„ For as we keepe our text according as S. Hierom and the Church then deliuered it so notwithstanding because the words obâ—octed by M. W. are in the auncient greeke example whereof the church hath due regarde the same particle is added commonly in the margent of euerie latin testameÌ„t which the Church vseth as may be seene in diuers prints of
Lutheran an Anabaptist a Suinkseldian say the like with as good countenance against other partes of scripture which stand as plainly against their conceaued heresies Is Beza to be allowed pronouncing peremptorily touching the storie of the aduouterous woman in the 8. of S. Iohn vpon the diuersitie which is in the greeke writers and testaments that so great difference he found in that narration that he doubteth altogether of the vvhole storie which is as much as to take from it vtterly al authoritie Canonical and is not euerie man els to be allovved vpon like vvarrant geuing like censure vpon other partes of scriptures Reade S. Hierom vvriting to Edibia and see vvhether a part of S. Markes gospel may not by like reason be called in question yea reade Bezaes notes vpon the sixt chapter the 18. and 19. of S. Iohn and 22. of S. Luke see vvhether that diuine sermon of our Sauiour and his very passion by such argument ought not so to be cut out of the testament The like is to be said of verie many places of S. Matthew and S. Paules epistles Then iudge thou Christian reader whether these meÌ„ be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bible-beaters or rather in deede bible murtherers For the first presupposeth the hauing of a bible whereas they haue none For that which they cal their bible and word of God is in deede no word of God no bible at al. For how can a maÌ„ cal that the bible and word of God vvhich hath in it so many foule and filthie corruptions so many vvicked Ethnical and Iudaical errors as I before haue noted in their bible by confessionâ— of their ovvne brethren Is that the bible of God vvhich hath in it so many places maliciously peruerted against the eternal truth and testameÌ„t of God Can vve call him a man vvhom vve see to lacke head hand foote hart and other principal and essential partes of humane nature and hovv then is that a bible that lacketh for canonical the vvritinges of so many Prophetes Apostles and Euangelistes S. Luke S. Paule S. Iames S. Peter S. Iohn S. Iude some of which no bible euer vvanted since Christs time nor can vvant remaining a bible The rest vvere euer true scriptures though not euer in al places so accouÌ„ted as nether was the Godhead of our Sauiour the dignitie and office of his Apostles of al and alwaies at first acknowledged But al haue bene so accounted for these thousand yeres and more by general prouincial councels the great and Apostolike councel of Nice of Laodicea of Carthage by the supreme pastors of Christs church by the general consent of the same Catholike Church in most times ages These meÌ„ therefore good reader folowing the steppes of their old fathers Marcion Cerdon Carpocrates the Arrians and Manichees despising and reiecting so many bookes of sctipture are in deede not beaters but maÌ„glers and defacers and extreme murtherers of the bible And that not only for this plaine and euident reason now geuen but also for their prophane irreligious varietie of translations whereof now in the last part I haue to speake CHAP. XIIII That to leaue the ordinarie translation of the Bible appointed by the Church to appeale to the hebrevv greeke and such nevv diuers translations as the protestants haue made is the very vvay to Atheisme Infidelitie IN this later parte this haue I to shew that whosoeuer taketh to him self that libertie which the heretiks geue here M.W. most busily striueth for that is to refuse the latin and appeale to the greeke and hebrew and these new translations which as they beare vs in hand are framed according to the greeke and hebrew he taketh the high way to denial of al faith to Apostasie from Christ and plaine Atheisme This to do the fittest way were historically to declare how certaine knowen Sects of the Protestants principally vpon this very reason of pretending the greeke and hebrew veritie and therefore running to infinite varietie of diuers translations and resting in no one haue fallen to despise al Bibles Scriptures and concluded as a most assured Euangelical veritie that nothing is certaine but euerie man is to be left to his owne fansie to beleeue as he list Such is the sect of the Swinkfeldians Anabaptists and Academikes and it is the very drifte of Castalio so much commended of many in the preface of his Bible to King Edvvarde the sixte although he beate pretily vpon an other point much of like effect vz that the Messias promised in the law is not yet come but vvil come hereafter according to the Iewes expectation Thus vvriteth he Profecto si verum fateri volumus est adhuc nostrum soeculum in profundis ignorantiae tenebris demersum cuius rei certissimuÌ„ testimonium sunt tam graues tam pertinaces taÌ„ perniciosae dissensiones tam multi et irriti coÌ„uentus de hisce controuersiis c. Truely if vve vvil confesse the truth this our age is as yet drowned in extreme darknes ignoraÌ„ce a most assured proofe vvhereof are these so greuous so obstinate and so pernicious dissensions so many and the same so vnprofitable meetinges about these controuersies so great number of bookes euery day sett out and the same differing one from an other so far as heauen differeth from earth And prosecuting this his plaine and irrefutable argument vvhereby he proueth the Protestants notvvithstanding al their latin greeke and hebrevv to be most ignorant in true diuinitie and matters spiritual thus he addeth For if the spirit of God be one truth one it must of necessitie folovv in vvhoÌ„ that one spirite one truth is that they also be one amoÌ„g theÌ„ selues of one iudgment in matters spiritual And if the day of the most cleare truth of the gospel shined vnto vs vve vvould neuer lighten so many darkesome obscure candles of bookes and vvritinges The vvhich reason concluding this euangelical state and age to be ful of ignorance grosse grosse againe Crassa crassa inquaÌ„ saecuâ—um tenet ignorantia and that there is no certaine vvay to find out the truth and come to an end of these controuersies hereof he inferreth that euery man is to be leaft to his ovvne iudgement suffered to beleeue as he list Thus he speaketh addressing his wordes to the king Cum haec it a sint o rex et cum aetas nostra in tanta adhuc ignorantiae caligine caecutiat c. VVhereas these things are so O king vvhereas our age as yet is blinded in so great darkenes of ignorance I thinke vve ought to vse maruelous diligence lest by error vve offend And if there be any controuersies in the case of religion as there are verie many in these I thinke it good that vve folovv the exaÌ„ple of Iudas Machabeus his felovves vvho vvhen they knevv not vvhat to determine touching the altar
many new testameÌ„ts hath he perused and conferred with ours I trow not verie many And of the third and fourth thowsande yeres vnder the Prophets hath he seene any more or were there then extant any such testaments to conferre in comparison of which ours is so far abased by his amplification it should seeme yea yet of his wisedome I trust he wil say no except he list to shew him self as learned as his felow Iohn Keltridge preacher of the vvord in London who referreth vs for the true reading sense of the Aâ—e maria to the translation of the 70. But suppose he meant of the time since Christ what a mad kinde of spech is this as if two frindes who by some occasioÌ„ were separated some few yeres after by good hap meeting the one should thus gratulate that good day Blessed be God frind that now I see you whom I haue not seene these 5000 yeres whereas they perhaps had not liued one quarter of so many weekes Now let vs allow for good that Ab orbe condito since the creatioÌ„ of the vvorld may signify 4000 yeres after that is since the incarnatioÌ„ of Christ how many translatioÌ„s of the first thousand yeres after Christ caÌ„ he produce wherevpon he may colour this lying how many of the next 500 how many vntil this later 80 yeres wherein euery Sectmaster hath falleÌ„ in hand with tossing turning the scriptures But amoÌ„gest theÌ„ is there none worse then ours none set forth by the Trinitarians Seruetans Arians Anabaptistes Academiks How say you by such a traÌ„slation as abuseth the word of scripture against al auncient faith and religion against Catholikes against the Lutherans against the learnedst Caluinists agaâ—nst Caluin him self against the literal sense of the word whole drift of the place al this to make God the author and worker of sinne that is by Caluins expresse iudgment in his booke against the Libertines To transforme God into a deuil to make vs ChristiaÌ„s worship in steede of god an idol and such an idol Quod nobis execrabilius esse debet omnibus gentiuÌ„ idolis VVhich ought to seeme to vs Christians more abominable then al the idols of the Gentiles vvhat say you to such a translation And such translations of the new testament haue bene set forth within these 5000 yeres yea some within these 5 yeres that in EnglaÌ„d and that with authoritie yea with the Princes priuilege except the printers lye S. Peter saith of the Iewes that Christ is to them Petra scandali qui offendunt verbo nec credunt in quo et posti sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the english testament of king Edward and the first of the Q. raigne translate it thus They beleeue not that vvhereon they vvere set This is vvel to be marked saith Illyricus least a man imagine that God him self did put them and as one he meaneth Beza against the nature of the greeke vvord doth traÌ„slate interprete it that God did create theÌ„ for this purpose that they should vvithstand him Erasmus Caluin referring this vvord to that vvhich goeth before interprete it not amisse that the Ievves vvere made or ordeined to beleeue the vvord of God and their Messias but yet that they vvould not beleeue him For to theÌ„ belonged the promises the testaments and the Messias him self as S. Peter saith Act. 2. et 3. and Paule Rom. 9. and to them vvere committed the oracles of God by vvitnes of the same Paule Rom. 3. thus Illyricus Here is geueÌ„ the true sense of this place according to the signification of the greeke word the same is proued by scripture by S. Peter and S. Paule The same is confirmed by Caluin and Erasmus and by Luther in his commentaries vpon this place more at large by Castalio in his annotatioÌ„s of the new testameÌ„t Only Beza against al these translateth it thus Sunt immorigeri ad quod etiam conditi fueruÌ„t They are rebellious vvhere vnto also they vvere created which wordes in his note therevpon he explicateth That men are made or fashioned framed sturred vp created or ordained not of them selues for that is absurd but of God to be scaÌ„dalized at him and his sonne our Sauiour Christus est eis offendiculo prout etiam ad hoc ipsum a Deo sunt conditi and discourseth at large bringeth many textes to proue this sense this translation which error being of such coÌ„sequence as Caluin graunteth that it maketh God no God but an idol and a deuil any man may boldly ptonounce of such a testament that it is the testament rather of Satan then of Christ So here is at least one translation worse then ours are there no more looke vpon your testaments of the later translators al in maner apes of Beza in one thus you reade Being disobediente vnto the vvhich thing they vvere ordeined in the next Being disobedieÌ„t vnto the vvhich thing they vvere euen ordeined this is a litle worse and with this word for word agreeth the later testament of the yere 1580 and the Scottish bible and this is altogether the first Geneua translation whom the French Geneua bible foloweth Sont rebelles a quoy aussi ils ont estè ordonneâ— They are rebels against Christ vvherevnto also they vvere ordayned Atqui si deus creauit aliquos ad contumaciam omnino author est eorum contumaciae quemadmodum si quos â—reâ—uit ad obedientiam omnino author est eoruÌ„ obedientiae saith Castalio against Beza But if God haue created some men to rebellion or disobedience he is author of their disobedience as if he haue created some to obedience he is truely author of their obedience And so by verdicte not only of catholikes but also of your owne great doctors such as are Luther Castalio Caluin c. and in deede by manifest reason here haue you 7. translations of the new testamente within these 500 yea within these 50 yeres worse then ours For finde your any one so wilful and horrible an Atheisme in ours and hardly set a fier on them al. Many moe examples could I geue but I wil not be troublesome nor enter new discourses For conuincing this so grosse and impudente a lye let the testimonie of that excellent man Beza so commended by M. W. suffice who accounteth our latine better then that of Luther then that of Basile then that of Erasmus then that of Castalio then any that euer he saw and consequently our english framed altogether according to that by M. W. owne iudgment can not be the worst The next three faultes are obiected only in wordes and proued by no example reason or coniecture or least argument in the world Mary that he his felowes are most guilty of them al both in the Discouerie and annotations of the testament it is in many places declared And iudge thou reader
whether we or they loue vnaccustomed and monstruous noueltie of words we who striue so much as we may to retaine the auncient words left to vs by our Apostles and founders Masse Bishop Priest Baptisme Church the very names of meÌ„ Isaie Amos Iuda Hierusalem Ezechias Ozias or they who haue turned these in to the Supper or the Thankes-geuing Superintendent Minister or Elder VVashing Congregation who vpon most childish affectation to seeme somwhat skilful in the hebrew reduce al sacred names to the old Iudaical sound As for example one of their greatest Euangelists thus beginneth his translation of Esaie The vision of Iesaaiahu the sonne of Amoz vvhich he savv vpon Iehudah and vpon Hierusalam in the daies of Yziiahu Iotham Ahhaz Iehhizkiiahu Kinges of Iehudah And this is the common veyne of their preachers if they know a litle especially in that lanâ—â—nge as though Petrus Ioannes Iacobus Stephanus howsoeuer they be vttered in any other tonge Hebrew Greeke Latin Spanish FreÌ„ch or ItaliaÌ„ were not truly exactly expressed in English by Peter Iohn Iames Steuin but must needes be pronouÌ„ced as they are in the first laÌ„guage froÌ„ which originally they are deriued as though a maÌ„ translating some storie out of French or Spanish into English translated not wel if he said FrauÌ„cis the French King in his warres against the Spaniards but must needes say Fransois King of the Fransois in his warres against the Espanioulx or los EspanÌ„oles in such a victorie against los Franceses in steede of The Spaniards in such a victorie against the Frenchmen And why then do they not in the new testament vse like noueltie why for Christ vse they not Ieschua for our Lady MiriaÌ„ for S. Peter Cepha for S. Iohn Iochanan and so in the rest of the Apostles whereas they know that thus were they called in their proper language as at this preseÌ„t we see in S. Matthewes hebrevv Gospel If their ovvne eares abhor this wanton curiositie and their ovvne iudgment tel theÌ„ it is apish arrogancie peevish affectation of popular praise let them confesse the like in pronouncing Beltshazzar Nebucadnezzar Iehuda Iehhizkiiahu for Baltasar Nabugodonosor Iuda Ezechias for the case is al one Much more haue they committed this monstruous noueltie in the things them selues in taking away the sacrifice of the new testament like the forerunners of Antichrist in yelding to women and children the headship and supreme gouernement of the Church in al Ecclesiastical spiritual matters in abrogating fiue or six sacramentes of seauen in deuising such a kind of faith as before their time was neuer heard of and is more fit for the schole of Epicure then of Christ and so forth in the rest of their negatiue irreligion And as for mocking and contemning the word of God this was neuer so proper peculiar to any heretikes before as it is to them For who are they that mocke at the booke of Iudith that compare the booke of Machabees to Robin Hoode or Beauis of Hampton that cal the Prophete Baruch a peeuish ape of Ieremie Simia est non admodum saeâ—ix Ieremiae that accounte the epistle to the Hebrewes Pro stipulis as stubble that reiecte S. Iames epistle as made of stravve that contemne S. Lukes gospel that mangle many other partes of the scriptures and thereby teach the contempt of them al al standing vpoÌ„ like ground Who doe this VVe or they Catholikes or Gospellers to speake briefly what is their whole maner of writing preaching teaching and liuing but a very mockerie of the gospel of Christ such filthie application of holy write as sheweth them to vse it for no other purpose but for colour and shrowd of their filthines Rebuke a leacherous monke for his incest which he calleth Matrimonie ô saith he Better it is to mary then to burne Require of him that he chastise his body with fasting and discipline for repressing of his beastly concupisceÌ„ce that is against Gods word saith he For nemo carnem suam odio habuit No man hateth his ovvne flesh but loueth cherisheth it when such an Apostata is promoted amongst you to be a superintendeÌ„t and then spoileth his tenants wasteth his woods pulleth downe his housâ—â—â— neuer built by him or for him or any of his religion selleth away lead tile stone and maketh mony of al reproue him for this oppression and rauin he hath his text ready He that prouideth not for his ovvne and namely for them of his hovvsehold he is vvorse then an Infidel These interpretations vvorse then these very many shal you finde in Peter Martyrs booke De votis et caelibatu And at this present what is the vniuersal preaching of the ministers for the most part but a very mockery ridiculous abuse of scripture what other is their coÌ„mon writing and M.VV. in the next chapt wil shew himself in this kinde as very a scorner as the worst And whereas after al this he saith Truely so far of is it that I thinke your translatioÌ„ vvil any vvayes harme our cause that I vvish the copies thereof vvere multiplied and other men might be partakers thereof This is as fowle a figure of hypocrisie as any hitherto touched For if they thinke it wil no wayes hinder their cause but rather benefite it why make they such busie inquirie after it why burne they such as fal in to their hands are they such witles babes as â—ain not suffer that which doth them good CoÌ„pare good reader their doinges their preachings their searchings inquiries with this speach and thou shal sensibly perceaue that it is nought els but a very desperat facing out of a lye and setting a bold countenance on that which in deede pincheth them at the very hart roote With like phrase character of shamelesse vauÌ„ting wrote M. Iewel to D. Harding vve neuer suppressed any of your books M. Harding as you knovve but are very vvel content to see them so common that as novv children may play vvith them in the streetes Thus his face serued him to write then when in the self same Defence he suppressed by leauing out the very substance of that booke which he then pretended to answere when by helpe of his felow-Superintendents and other frends euery corner of the realme was searched for those bookes when the portes were layed for them Paules crosse is witnes of burning many of them the Princes proclamation was procured against them in the Vniuersities by soueraigne authoritie Colleges chambers studies closets coffers and deskes were ransackt for them when not only children were forbid to play with them but auncient mâ—â—â— and students of Diuinitie were imprisoned for hauing of them So that al this can be nought els but a plaine example of palpable dissimulation affected lying Ad populum phaleras when intrinsecally they feare and labour and sweate and by exterior signes declare thus much and
euery day more and more misdoubt the ruine of their Atheistical gospel which dayly the more it is knovven the more it grovveth in horror and execration amonge honest natures not only such as are directed by the spirit of God but euen such as are somevvhat holpen vvith the assistance of natural wisedome and honest inclination But come vve to the particular crymes layde against vs and vvherevpon this dreadful inuectiue is properly builded vvhich is our corrupting the text or departing from our latin testament For as vve in examining their testament framed according to the greeke as they pretended reproued them not in their translation nor could so doe reasonably so long as precisely they kept them selues to their greeke for vvhether the greeke â—aâ—ere so to be folovved is an other question in like maner vve proposing to translate the latin vvhich to vs is as autentical as the greeke to them can not reasonabâ—y be blamed as false and corrupt translators but vvhere vve haue gone aside and leaft that original which vve pretended to translate And if herein vve haue erred vve gladly vvil acknovvledge our ouersight and are ready to ameÌ„d the same And here Reader hast thou specially to marke by what argument he verifieth that which he obiecteth Our prophane corruptions our outragâ—ous boldnes our more violence vsed to the holy testameÌ„t of Christ then euer vvas vsed by any kinde of heretike so notorious that al the world may iudge that our intent was To make the peopâ—e scorne and contemne the vvord of God how iustifieth â—e al this by what proofe for hitherto we haue wordes and nothing but wordes such as euery grammar-boy can picke out of the booke which he readeth and ioyne together But from M. W. the Q. Maiesties reader his auditors looke for sounder stuffe then such childish grammatical declaiming Many places saith he haue I noted vvherein you haue manifestly erred from that your vulgar latin edition that vvil I declare by one example the like vvhere of I could bring forth many Surely this is very weake to maintaine the greatnes of the accusation thundered out before And whereas you promise one example and geue vs two the reader may assure him self you would haue spared vs three if you had bene able But belyke these one or two are horrible monstrous faults and touch matters of maruelous great height Christs Diuinitie Humanitie Incarnation Heauen and Hel such as are the faults of these mens bibles and so these two may serue in steed of a number Let vs here them in M. W. owne words In the epistle to the Rom. ca. 13. v. 19. thus it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvhich vvords the old interpreter turned thus Non vosmet ipsos desendentes but by you they are turned othervvise according to the greeke veritie Not reuenging your selues The like place is in Matth. 4. v. 16. vvhere these vvords 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old interpreter turned The people vvhich vvalked in darkenes ambulauit in tenebris as also in Hierom vve reade but you folovving the greeke exemplat haue turned othervvise and more truly The people that sitteth in darknes Qui sedes in tenebris Thus M. VV. and this is al. And here first of al the reader may againe remeÌ„ber how iust cause I had to charge him with affected hypocrisie for exclaming so tragically vpon our testament wherein he findeth only these faultes which if they were faultes of what weight they are euery child may iudge But to passe that ouer let the reader see how blindly fovvly he is deceiued We haue left our latin folovved the greeke saith he in turning Defendentes Reuenging and why so hovv proueth he that vve leaue our latin he vvil ansvvere I suppose for reason him selfe yeldeth none because in al M. Coopers Dictionarie vve finde not that Defendere signifieth To reuenge If that be true then belike if vve vvere maister Coopers scholers the case vvould goe somvvhat hard vvith vs. But if he vvil vevv other Dictionaries as wel as M. Coopers he shal find both that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke in latin is truely turned by Defendere and Defendere in latin is vvel and properly turned in English by Reuenge So the greeke dictionarie of Basile printed the yere 1557. teacheth vs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 defendo vindico vlciscor in alicuius gratiam So the latin and french and latin greeke french dictionaries printed at Paris the yeres 1559.1575 1580. set forth by Sonnius Rob. Stephanus teach vs that Defendere signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 defender garder et preseruer venger as vvel to reuenge as to defend gard preserue And which is to vs more then al the dictionarie of the Church that is the auncient ecclesiastical vse of this vvord in the scripture fathers teacheth vs somtimes in this place this to be his proper grammatical ense and so the auncieÌ„t fathers vsed this word So Tertullian Durum videbatur populo a deo expectare defensam edicendam postea per prophetam mihi defensam et ego defendam It seemed a hard thing for the Ievvish people in Moyses time to expect reuenge from God vvhich vvas aftervvards promised by the prophete saing To me reuenge and I vvil reuenge Where manifest it is that Defendere and defensa is graÌ„matically Reuenge To reuenge manifest it is that S. Ambrose doth not expound but grammatically take the word Defendere in the self same maner that is to signifie ReueÌ„ge eueÌ„ as S. Hier. put it or rather as I thinke leaft it being so vsed by the former traÌ„slator So doth Haymo so doth S. Bede and maketh no scruple at it but in his commentarie taken out of S. Augustine expresseth by Vindicare that which our interpreter vttered by Defendere And the same is most plaine by the traÌ„slatioÌ„ of the bible it self For whereas in other places for example in the storie of Holofernes the greeke is That he sware he would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reuenge him self of al the laÌ„ds that doth the old interpreter vtter by Defendere And in the 9. chap. where Iudith praiseth God saing according to the later English bible O Lord God of my father Symeon to vvhom thou gauest a svvord to take vengeance of the strangers the latin is Gladium ad defensioneÌ„ abienigenaruÌ„ the greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the English bible printed two yeres before traÌ„slateth A svvord for a defence against the enemies and putteth in the margent Or to reuengment The former bible vseth only Defence not ReueÌ„ge at al whereby it is cleare that those traÌ„slators hauing belike some more skil in the old vse of this word theÌ„ M.W. accoÌ„pted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be wel turned ether by Reuenge which is more proper or by Defence which is also most true respecting the vse of the latin
vvay though in part against our vvilles especially vvhen vve are prouoked by aduersaries so insolent and ful of brauerie in vvordes and the same most feeble impotent vnable to performe any thing in deedes and therefore lying verie open to receaue a blovv of any scholer be he neuer so meane and indifferent And albeit no heretical opinion can lightly be defended vvithout many foule shiftes and inconueniences yet M.VV. hath brought him self vvithin harder straightes thē any other by reason of most straunge paradoxes which he hath taken vpon him to maintayne for vvhat man bearing the name of a Christian vvere he othervvise as excellent as euer vvas Cicero or Demosthenes can possibly without increase of infinite absurdities defend Luther against the Apostle S. Iames Beza against the Euangelist S. Luke Illyricus against S. Cyprian and al fathers of the primitiue Church And which in truth is more false wicked more vnreasonable and vnpossible then the rest M Iewels Challenge made at Paules crosse against al men liuing which long since is knowē for a mere shameles proud lying vaunt to Catholike and Protestant Lutheran and Zuinglian learned and vnlearned lippis tonsoribus and in effect notified for such by publike proclamation of the prince and Realme And therefore if he finde in this treatise some wordes more sharpe rough thē he is vsed to heare let him attribute that not to hatred of his person whom I neuer saw and for whose good and amendmēt in Christ God is my witnes I would refuse no paynes how soone I may fall into his handes our Lord knoweth but to hatred of his heresie and his immoderate heate ostentatiō vttered to colour and saue such things as can neuer stand but with open iniurie of Christ disgrace of his Apostles and ruine of Christian religion Our aduersaries Christian reader are now proceeded beyond their ordinarie beyond that which at first they pretended They pleade not now for scripture against fathers for the liuelie word of the Lord against mans traditions which a few yeres sithence was their common songe they are gone far beyond that note and oppose them selues not against S. Hierom S. Austin S. Gregorie but against the self same scripture the self fame liuelie word which they seemed so to honor against S. Iames S. Paule S. Luke against the Apostles and Euangelistes against the verie Gospel of our Sauiour And what can be their next steppe but to cal Christ him self in question to doubt whether he be the true Messias and redeemer of the world And if any of their brethren do moue that doubt as infinite there be that do yea that denie it vtterly what way in the world remayneth for profe thereof al other authoritie besides the written word as the old Fathers Coūcels Tradition Church being by these men quite abandoned and novv the vvritten vvord it self being reiected as far and vvhat Christian talking of these matters and seing these horrible mischeefes not intended in thought surmises cogitations and secret vvhisperings but practised and put in vre by vvriting defenses publike bookes open disputations manifest violences and most vniust murtherings of those which withstand it who I say though he were as pacient as Iob and as voyd of galle as the doue but would be moued Scriptū est saith the Apostle credidi propter quod locutus sum et nos credimus propter quod et loquimur It is vvritten I haue beleeued and therefore I speake vve also beleeue constantly therefore we speake boldy And as saith S. Hierom Quod simpliciter creditur simpliciter confitendum est And if Spiridion that reuerend and auncient Bishop in a great assemblie of Bishops were wel allowed for that he sharply rebuked in publike audience an other in learning his superior in vocation his equall who in citing a text of the gospell altered of finenes and curiositie one only word and the same of no great moment grabatum into lectulum what rigor and vehemencie of speach deserue not they who in Sacramentes chief pointes of faith in the Sacrifice in Baptisme in Priestes in Bishops in Church in Apostles in Angels in Christ him self haue made most prophane innouations and reduced all to the first ethnical termes But of this hitherto The rest which remaineth is only touching Luther Caluin whom M. W. singularly commendeth wherevnto he addeth certain ordinarie wordes of course concerning him self and his felowes how heroically they haue alwaies gotten the victorie ouer vs our forefathers Of these matters somwhat hath bene spoken before and therefore here I wil not say much Luther and Caluin if they were such notable good men they finde it now the better they were the better it is for them if otherwise M.W. commendation standeth them in smale steede Neuertheles certain it is both can not be so excellent as he would make thē being continually in opinion faith in word and worke in the whole trade of their lyfe and maners so opposite so contrary such deadly enemyes as their bookes testifie the world knoweth And M.W. doth verie vnwysely so oft and so painfully to range abrode in praise of that man who is so far abhorring from him and his secte that if Luther be right they are surely out of the way if Luther be a restorer of the gospel they are enemies and destroyers of the gospel if Luther be in heauen they continuing as they do are certain of hel For so Luther euery where pronounceth of them As for the other I meane that vulgar bragging and boasting it proueth not much It is a common itching humour of most kind of heretikes Omnium haereticorum quasiregularis est ista teme ritas saith S. Austin And S. Peter long before gaue it as a general marke of them that they shal be superba vanitatis loquentes speaking provvde arrogant vaine thinges Howbeit it seemeth in our dayes more proper in some special sort to M. VV. sect then to any other as iudgeth that excellent man of whom we last spake Martin Luther who reporteth of them and that by experience that they wil say any thing boast of any thing confidently affirme any thing bur proue nothing by any sound reason or argument nisi gloriatione inani de certissima veritate saue only by friuolous craking of the most cleare truth And if once they fal in to that veyne then is there no ende In suis libris gloriandi finem et modum nullum faciunt But against al such kind of talkatiue vanitie he geueth a very general and resolute lesson vvhich if I professe to take from him and commend the same to others M. w. can not be offended because he extolleh the man for so peerles a maister And this it is Nemo eorum obtestationibus et iactationibus quicquam cred at saith he Nam eos mentiri et dupliciter mentiri certissimum est Let
1â—5 Damaso quaest 2. Many greate Grecians and HebraiciaÌ„s are wicked and detestable Christians First we must be sure of our fayth a Timoth. 3. vers 15. b Ephes 5. vers 25. c Gal. 4. v. 26. d 1. Pet. 3. vers 20.21 e Mat. 13. saepe f See before chap. 6. pag. 117. Act. 8. v. 20. Aug confes lib. 8. ca. 8. pag. 14.15 M. W. inuectiue against the late Catholike traÌ„slation of the new Testament Affected hypocrisie Before pag. 372.373.374.383 Our English translation folowing so precysely the old latin can not be so corrupt as M.W. imagineth Pag. 15. Mat. 27. Ioan. 11. v. 48. The end of the new gospel carnal libertie The true grace of this amplifying figure In his sermon printed fo 14. see the Discouerie pa. 178. A most absurd false amplification To say God is author of synne is to say that god is a deuil Caluin in instructio contra Libertinos ca. 14. Deum in diabolum transformaÌ„t English translatioÌ„s leade men to that opinion 1. Pet. 2. v. 8. Illyr glos in 1. Pet. c. 2. vers 8. Castalio defensio suae translatio pag 153.154.155 Beza in â— Pet. 2. v. 8. God createth men to sinne Beza Bible of the yere 1577. the yere 1579. The yere 1580. The yere 1579. Printed at Geneua the yere 1561. Cast defens suae translacions p. 155. Al these translations by verdicte of Caluin make god an idol a deuel M.W. in his last short sentence 6. refelleth gain sayeth whatsoeuer he hath sayd before The protestants more desyrous of nouelty of words then euer were any heretikes Oecolam Esa c. 1. v. 1. A far greater alteration and nouelty in articles of fayth The authors and writers of sundry bookes of scripture mocked scorned by the protestants a The tower disputatioÌ„s the 4 day b Zuingl to 1 art 57. fol. 100. c Idem to 3 in rhrenos Iere. fo 384. d Magdeb. see before pag 414. e Lutheranes and Zuinglianes see before chap 1. The new preaching a very mockery of scripture 1. Cor. 7. v. 9. see the annotations vpon that chap. Ephe. 5. v. 29 The protestants vse scripture for a veyle 〈◊〉 coueral filthynes 1. Tim. 5. v. 8 Pet. Mar de votis cael Iewel defence of the Apolog. part 6. ca. 8. ¶ 1. Incredible impudency in bragging and lying The particular faultes of our English translation A terrible accusation How weakely the same is iustified Vbi supra Marke the greuousnes of these 2. faultes Defendere is wel translated to reueng Tertullian contra Martionem li. 2 Ambros in Rom. ca. 12. Beda in Rom. 12. Iudith 1. v. 12. 2. v. 1. ca. 9. v. 2. The yere 1579. 1577. 1562. Ecclesiastici 30. v. 6. Of the yeres 1562.1577.1579 Ecclesiaâ—â—ici 48. v. 7. Great difference oft-times in the sense of a word as it is vsed by ecclesiastical writers prophane Iacob 3. v. 4. Rom. 4. v. 20. Mat. 11. v. 10.24 Rom. 12. v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Defendentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mihi vindicta A great and monstruous fault to traÌ„slate a thing more truly The vnconscionable demeanure of our aduersaries Esa 9. v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza Illyricus Castalio Parturiuâ—â— montea Iuuenal Pag. 21. The incredible lying falsifications vsed by the English writers of our time are a great motiue to the Catholike fayth Pag. 22. Mat. 2. v. 11. mat 3. v. 12. Act. 7. v. 58. The summe of M W accusation The protestants maner of disputing Tower disputation Tiburne disputation See M. Fox martirologe in King Henries time Luc. 12. v. 48 English writers The Catholike Church built vpon a rocke Christ and therefore in al times constant vnmoueable The English church buâ—lt vpon the fauour of Lords Ladies gentlemen and gentlewemen and therefore euer tottering and variable Fox act and monumentes pag. 512 Desyre of reuenge Ibid. p. 592. Couetousnes Fox acts monumeÌ„ts in Henri 8. pa. 1295. postremae aeditionis Fox actes monumeÌ„ts in the end of king Henryes lyfe pag. 682. Continual chaunge of the English fayth Luthers iudgement of the Sacramentarie religion Luther tom 7. defensio verborum coenae fol. 381. Trepida coÌ„scientia Faultes historical Note In the preface fol. b. ii In Mat. 2. v. 11. Psal 71. Esa 60. Chrysost Theophil Cic. de diuinat Plin. lib. 20. Esther 1.13.14 Tob. 2.15 Ambro. 1. offic ca. 12. That the wise men were kingâ— Tertullian contra Marcionem l. 3. Ciprian ser de Bapt. numer 1. Chrys hom 1. ex variis in Mat. locis Hier. in psa 71. Tertull. coÌ„tra Iudaeos probatio natiuit Christi Aug. ser 43. ad fatres in Ere Claudian in EpigraÌ„a Isidorus Remigius apud D. Tho. in catena in Mat. 2. Theophi in Mat. 2. Ansel in Mat. ca. 2. Gesnerus in PaÌ„dectis Vniuersa lib. vltimo tit 2. fol. 29. Zuing. to 4. in Mat. ca. 2. That the wise men were three August ser 1 de epipha Leo sermo 2.3.4.5.6.8 Their names 2. Tim. 3. v. 8. Mat. 3. v. 1. Monastical life Magd. cent 5. c. 6. pag. 711. Cent. 1. li. 1. cap. 10. Cythraeus in 3. ca. Mat. â—ucerus ibi Bee Canis de verbi Dei corruptelis lib. 5. c. 2.3.4 An easy kind of answering Act. 7. v. 58. Relikes miracles in the honor of Martyrs Hebrew 9. vers 4. Mat. 17. v. 11 Apoc. c. 11. vers 3. Aug. de ciuit li. 20. cap. 29. Intolerable boldnes and arrogancie Faultes in making arguments Whit. pa. 22 ArgumeÌ„t 1. Mat. 14. v. 26 Real presence Mat. 14. v. 29 Ioan. 3. v. 14 cal 4. d Scripture made ridiculous wheÌ„ it commeth to the handling of prophane men Peters primacy Luc. 10. v. 35. Maâ— 17. v. 2. Mat. 22. v. 30 Scripture falsified CommunioÌ„ booke in the collect of Michelmas day The Saints heare our prayers Mat. 27. v. 59 S. Hiero. in hunc locum To. 1. Conc. Mat. 28. v. 1. Pilgrimage to holy places In epist 17. Paul Eusâ— ad Marcel tom 1. Esa 11. Mar. 16. v. 12 Christ body vnder diuers formes Mar. 7. v. 34. Mat. 27. v. 46 Aug. de Ecclesiasticis dogma c. 31 Idem de nuptâ—is concupis eÌ„â—â—a lib. 2 ca. 18. 29. Exorcismes and other ceremonies in baptisme Luc. 1. v. 3. Pag. 3. In the 4. daies conference The protestants reason against the Machabees is as forcible against S. Lukes gospel More arguments of humane spirit in S. Paules epistles theÌ„ in the booke of Machabees Rom. 25. v. 15. 1. Cor. 2. v. 3 Ibi. c. 11. v. 1.17 Ib. c. 12. v. 11 Rom. 15. v. 30. 2. Cor. 6.11 Ephe. 6. 19. Colos 4.3 Thes 5.25 Sacred writers and holy CouÌ„cels The second booke of the Machabees 1. Mach. 2. 15. Luc. 2. v. 14. This is M. W. glose added to the text Free wil. Luc. 5. v. 3. The Catholike Church Peters ship Gregor in Iob. li. 17. c. 14. See S Amb. in Luc lib. 4 cap. 5. Aug. quaest euaÌ„g l. 2.
syllable then he had of vvhole bookes vvhereof he hath suffered many I say not to be depraued but to be vtterly lost This Iudaical superstition c. Hetherto Castalio And D. Humfrey in his first booke de ratione interpretandi sayth Iudaismus quot locos deprauauerit c. The Ievvish superstition hovv many places it hath corrupted the reader may easely find out and iudge And in the next booke I like not that men should to much folovve the Rabbins as many do Nam quae Christum verum Messiam promittunt et annuÌ„ciant abâ—istis turpissimè câ—nspurcata sunt for those places vvhich promise and declare Christ the true Messias are most filthely depraued by them And Conradus Pellicanus sometime professor of hebrew in Zuricke writing vpon the 8â— psalme and those wordes of our trâ—nslation Conuertuntur ad câ—r vvhere 〈◊〉 cor the protestants according â—o the hebrâ—vv prints novv haue 〈◊〉 gesseth vvel no doubt riâ—htly that the difference came through the great likenes of tvvo letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and prefeâ—reth our reading before the hebrewes vvithal accuseth the Iewes of al times not only since Christ but also befoâ—e of nâ—gligâ—nce in coÌ„â—eâ—uing theiâ— holie boâ—kes Thus he vvriteth The old interpreter seemeth to haue read one vvay vvhereas the Ievves â—ovv reade an other vvhich I say because I vvould not haue men thinke this to haue proceeded from the â—gnorance or slâ—uthfulnes of the oâ—d interpreter Rather vve haue cause to finde fault for vvant of diligence in the Antiquaries and faith in the Ievves vvho both before Christs comming and fithence seeme to haue bene lesse carefull of the psalmes then of their ovvne Talmudicall songes And againe in the same volume vpon that verse of the psalme 108. Quis deducet me in ciuitatem munitam quis deducet me in Idumaeam vvho vvill bring me in to the sensed citie vvho vvill bring me in to Idumaea vvriteth thus The Syriake interpreter ether folovving or finding out or iâ—erâ—asing the fables of the Ievves translateth this verse after this sâ—r vvho vvil bring me in to that vvicked Rome vvho vvil bring me in to that Constantinople of the Idumeans sol centiously do the Rabbines of the Ievves abuse their authoritie not only in their commentaries but also in the translations of their lavv vvhich coÌ„monly are to be read vvhereby the miserable people reading so is easely seduced VVhere besides our principal purpose vve may learne vvithal that the Iewes haue one tricke of the ProtestaÌ„ts vz in to their bible coÌ„munioÌ„ bookes or such like vvherein is contâ—yned their maner of Seâ—uâ—ce to thrust besides the text glaunces against the Pope and Church of Rome as â—n deede the hatred of Christ Christianitie and that Church commonly runneth together The like testifieth Munster alleaging these vvordes of Abâ—n Ezra against the Christians Fâ—vv there vvere that beleeued in that man vvhoÌ„ these Christians haue made their Gâ—d and vvhen Rome did beleeue in the time of Constantine aâ—d altered the vvhole lavv and put in his banner the signe of the crucified man by the persvvasioÌ„ of that Monke of Idumaea that is the Romane bishop so Aben Ezra expoundeth it there vvere none through the vvorld that obserued that lavv besides a fevv Idumeans and here of it commeth that the kingdome of the Romanes is called the kingdome of Edom. Wherein a man may see and compare together the Iuâ—aical and Protestantical vayne in raylâ—ng at the Romane Church and those that liue in the vnitie of it To the Iâ—wes vve are Gentiles to the Protestantes vve are Idolaters In the Iewes speach and sense it is al one to say a Romane a Catholike or an Idumean that is a Gentile so is it in the speach and sense of the Protestantes saue that in steede of Catholike sometymes they vse the vvord Papist The Ievves peruert their diuine Seruice vvith the manifest abuse of scripture against the Romane faith and Church and do not our Ievvish Protestantes much more Cal to remembrance Christian reader their Geneua or rather Gehenna psalmes sung in their coÌ„gregations vvhere as they tel vs nothing souÌ„dâ—th but gods vvord the Canonical scripture see vvhether in any old Greeke Hebrew Latin or English psalters they find praying against the Pope to be deliuered froÌ„ al Papistrie That the Pope as wel as the Turke vvould thrust our of his throne our lord Iesus Christ Gods deare sonne vvhether in any old Creede ether Apostolike or made by Apostolike or honest men they are taught to beleeue release pardoÌ„ of their sinnes vvhich is in these mens diuinitie perfect entier iustification and that only by faith as in their rimâ—ng Creede vvithout rime or reason they sing Finally as the Ievvish Rabbines thrusting once in to their peoples eares that Rome is Edom and the Romane an Edomite mâ—ke that al scripâ—ure spoken against Edom soundeth against Rome euen so the Protestants telling their people that Rome is Babylon and the Pope Antichrist make them forthwith beleeue that vvhatsoeuer the scripture hath â—gainst Babylon Antichrist that maketh iust against the Romane Church the Pope and Catholikes But to returne to our original matter and to drawe to an end of this question touching the pure fountaines originals for plaine and euident demonstration how true that is I referre M.VV. to these two general experimeÌ„tes which at his leasure he may vew and consider of One is the great diuersitie of reading which in many places of the hebrew old testament we find For example whereof let him peruse Exod. ca. 2. losue 22 and 23. Iudic. 3. the first of Samuel ca. 10 17 22 28. 2 Samuel 7. Esa 14 33 54 c. and Munsters notes vpon those chapters where he shall find the reading and sense oftentymes as far disagreing as blacke and white And Munst in his preface forewarneth the reader thereof Sometymes sayth he euen amongst the hebrvves in one sentence I haue found diuers reading For sometymes dissensions are sound amongst theÌ„ some thinking this to be the true reading some thinking contrarie An other experiment is that the hebrew printes wante now somewhat which certainly was in the first originals Example whereof may be the Psalme 144. which being made according to the hebrew alphabete and hauing the verses in number answering to the hebrew letters the first beginning with Aleph the second with Beth the third with Gimel c. as doth the Psal 33. therefore should certainly haue 22. verses as hath that other this lacketh one verse in al hebrew copies so wanted it euen in S. Hieroms tâ—me and euident it is that the error is in the hebrew where lacketh the 14. verse which should beginne with Nan as it is very playne by the translation of the 70 and by our common Psalter Fidelis Dominus in omnibus verbis suis