Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	world_n	write_v	zeal_n	63	3	7.3206	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A01309	A defense of the sincere and true translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong against the manifolde cauils, friuolous quarels, and impudent slaunders of Gregorie Martin, one of the readers of popish diuinitie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes. By William Fvlke D. in Diuinitie, and M. of Pembroke haule in Cambridge. Wherevnto is added a briefe confutation of all such quarrels & cauils, as haue bene of late vttered by diuerse papistes in their English pamphlets, against the writings of the saide William Fvlke.	Fulke, William, 1538-1589.	1583 (1583)	STC 11430.5; ESTC S102715	542,090	704

therefore in controuersie with other of the same sort are sometimes called Hagiographa holy writings as of S. Hierom praefat in lib. Tobiae sometime Ecclesiastica Ecclesiastical writings and so are they called of Ruffinus Because sayth he they were appointed by our Elders to be read in the Churches but not to be brought forth to confirme authoritie of faith but other Scriptures they named Apocryphall which they would not haue to be read in the Churches So sayth S. Hierom in praefat in Prouerb Euen as the Church readeth in deede the bookes of Iudith Tobias and the Machabees but yet receaueth them not among the Canonical Scriptures so let it read these two bookes of Ecclesiasticus and wisedom for the edifying of the people not for the confirmation of the authoritie of Ecclesiastical doctrines These auncient writers shal answer for our seruice booke that although it appoint these writings to be read yet it doth not appoint them to be read for Canonicall Scriptures Albeit they are but sparingly read by order of our seruice booke which for the Lordes day other festiuall daies commonly appointeth the first lesson out of the Canonicall Scriptures And as for superstition although M. Whitaker say that some one thing sauoreth of I know not what superstition he doth not by and by condemne the whole booke for superstitious and altogither vnworthy to be read neither can he thereby be proued a Puritane or a disgracer of the order of dayly seruice MART. 10. As for partes of bookes doe they not reiect certaine peeces of Daniel and of Hester because they are not in the Hebrew which reason S. Augustine reiecteth or because they were once doubted of by certaine of the fathers by which reason some part of S. Marke and S. Lukes Gospell might nowe also be called in controuersie specially if it be true which M. Whitakers by a figuratiue speech more than insinuateth That he can not see by what right that which once was not in credit should by time winne authoritie Forgetting him selfe by by in the very next lines admitting S. Iames epistle though before doubted of for Canonicall Scriptures vnles they receiue it but of their curtesie so may refuse it when it shall please them which must needes be gathered of his wordes as also many other notorious absurdities contradictions and dumbe blanckes Which onely to note were to confute M. Whitakers by him selfe being the answerer for both Vniuersities FVLK 10. As for peeces of Daniel of Hester we reiect none but only we discerne that which was written by Daniel in deede from that which is added by Theodotion the false Iew that which was written by the spirit of God of Esther from that which is vainly added by some Greekish counterfecter But the reason why we reiect those patches you say is because they are not in the Hebrew which reason S. Augustine reiecteth Here you cite S. Augustine at large without quotation in a matter of controuersie But if we may trust you that S. Augustine reiecteth this reason yet we may be bold vpon S. Hieroms authoritie to reiect whatsoeuer is not found in the canō of the Iewes written in Hebrew or Chaldee For whatsoeuer was such S. Hierom did thrust through with a spit or obeliske as not worthy to be receyued Witnes hereof S. Augustine him selfe Epist. ad Hier. 8. 10. in which he disswaded him from translating the Scriptures of the olde Testament out of the Hebrew tongue after the 70. Interpreters whose reasons as they were but friuolous so they are derided by S. Hierom who being learned in the Hebrew Chaldee tongues refused to be taught by Augustine that was ignorant in them what was to be done in translations out of them Also Hieronym him selfe testifieth that Daniel in the Hebrew hath neither the story of Susanna nor the hymne of the 3. children nor the fable of Bel the Dragon which we saith he because they are dispersed throughout the whole world haue added setting a spit before them which thrusteth them through lest we should seeme among the ignorant to haue cut of a great part of the booke The like he writeth of the vaine additions that were in the vulgar edition vnto the booke of Esther both in the Preface after the ende of that which he translated out of the Hebrew There are other reasons also beside the authoritie of S. Hierom that moue vs not to receiue them As that in the storie of Susanna Magistrats iudgement of life death are attributed to the Iewes being in captiuitie of Babylon which hath no similitude of truth Beside out of the first chapter of the true Daniel it is manifest that Daniel being a young man was caried captiue into Babylon in the dayes of Nebucadnezer but in this counterfect storie Daniel is made a young child in the time of Astyages which reigned immediatly before Cyrus of Persia. Likewise in the storie of Bel and the Dragon Daniel is said to haue liued with the same king Cyrus and after when he was cast into the lyons denne the Prophet Habacuck was sent to him out of Iurie who prophecied before the first comming of the Chaldees and therefore could not be aliue in the daies of Cyrus which was more than 70 yeares after The additions vnto the booke of Esther in many places bewray the spirite of man as that they are contrary to the truth of the story containing vaine repetitions amplifications of that which is contained in the true historie that which most manifestly conuinceth the sorgerie that in the epistle of Artaxerxes cap. 16. Haman is called a Macedonian which in the true storie is termed an Agagite that is an Amalekite whereas the Macedonians had nothing to doe with the Persians many yeares after the death of Esther Haman I omit that in the ca. 15. ver 12. the author maketh Esther to lie vnto the king in saying that his countenance was ful of all grace or else he lyeth him selfe v. 17. where he saith the king beheld her in the vehemēcy of his anger that he was exceding terrible As for other reasons which you suppose vs to follow because these parcels were once doubted of by certaine of the fathers it is a reason of your owne making and therefore you may confute it at your pleasure But if that be true which Maister Whitaker by a figuratiue speech doth more than insinuate parte of S. Markes and S. Lukes Gospell may also be called in controuersie Why what saith M. VVhitaker Marie that he can not see by what right that which once was not in credit should by tyme winne authoritie But when I pray you was any part of S. Marke or S. Luke out of credit if any part were of some person doubted of doth it follow that it was not at al in credit you reason profoundly and gather very necessarily As likewise that he forgetteth him selfe in the very next lines admitting

should not haue bene so straunge a matter vnto you to heare that our Sauiour Christ with great astonishment and terrour of mind was afraid of death where he vseth the wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was not for bodilye paine or bodily death which not onely thousands of holy Martyrs haue ioyfully embraced but infinite wicked persons haue contemned but for the feeling of Gods wrath which was infinitely more heauy vpon his soule than any torments were vpon his bodie MART. 42. Yea Beza sayth further to this purpose much more against his skill in the Greeke tongue if he had any at all that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preposition can not beare this sense For which or in respect whereof and therefore he translateth the Greeke into Latine thus Exauditus est ex metu he was heard from feare not for feare or for his reuerence And because from feare is a hard speech and darke that seemeth to be the cause why our English translators say In that which he feared farre from Beza in word but agreeably in sense FVLK 42. When Beza hath shewed his skill in the Greeke tongue not onely in his translation and annotations but also in diuers Greeke Epigrams which he hath set forth who but one starke mad with malice blind with conceit of his owne slender skil would doubt whether Beza had any skill at all in the Greeke tongue As for that he sayth of the signification of the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he speaketh in respect of the propertie of the Greeke tongue for yet you bring no examples but Hebraisms out of the Scripture for that signification of the preposition MART. 43. But for this matter we send them to Flaccus Illyricus a Captaine Lutherane who disputeth this very point against the Caluinistes and teacheth them that no thing is more common than that signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For proofe whereof we also referre them to these places of the holye scripture Mat. 13. Luc. 22. and 24. Act. 12. Psal. 87. And Machab. 5. 21. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a genitiue and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an accusatiue signifie all one which Beza denieth Gentle Reader beare with these tedious grammatications fitter to be handled in Latine but necessary in this case also good for them that vnderstand for the rest an occasion to aske of them that haue skill in the Greeke tongue whether we accuse our aduersaries iustly or no of false translating the holy Scriptures FVLK 43. And we by the same authoritie sende you to Bezaes answer in his last edition of his annotations And yet the Reader must know that Beza did not simply deny that the preposition might haue such sense But he sayde Non facile mihi persuaserim I can not easily perswade my selfe that any example can be brought wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so vsed And in all these examples that you haue brought it signifieth rather prae which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than propter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as your vulgar translator obserueth the difference 2. Mac. 5. verse 27. translating prae superbia and propter elationem mentis But Beza requireth an example of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that may aunswer to the vulgar Latine pro reuerentia For who would translate in Saint Mathew 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro gaudio propter gaudium or secundum gaudium or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro dolore and so of the rest but of these let Beza him selfe giue account As for these tedious grammatications which you confesse to haue bene fitter to be handled in Latine it seemeth you vttered in English for that of many ignorant you might be thought to bringe some great learning out of the Hebrewe and Greeke tongues against vs whereas the learned if you had written in Latine of other nations as well as ours might haue bene witnesses of your fonde trifling and quarrelling against our translations As for the necessarye cause you pretende that the vnlearned may aske them that haue skyll in Greeke is very ridiculous For neyther can they haue at hande alwayes such as be able to resolue them neither if they be of your faction wil they aske any indifferent mans iugement but onely such as will auouch before the ignorant that all which you write is good and perfect MART. 44. And we beseech them to giue vs a good reason why they professing to followe precisely the Greeke doe not obserue truely the Greeke points in such place as concerneth this present controuersie For the place in the Apocalypse which they alledge of our Sauiour Christes suffering from the beginning thereby to inferre that the iust men of the olde Testament might enter heauen then as well as after his reall and actuall death according to the Greeke points sayth thus All that dwell vpon the earth shall worship him the beast whose names haue not bene written in the booke of life of the Lambe slayne from the beginning of the worlde Where it is euident that the Greeke text sayth not the Lambe slaine from the beginning but that the names of those Antichristian Idolaters were not written in Gods eternall booke of predestination from the beginning as it is also most plaine without all ambiguitie in the 17. chapter v. 8. If in a place of no controuersie they had not bene curious in pointes of the Greeke they might haue great reason sometime to alter the same FVLK 44. How faine would you obscure the light of that excellent testimonie euen contrarye to your owne vulgar Latine translation that you might not haue such a faithfull witnesse against your Limbus patrum You require a reason whye wee keepe not the Greeke pointes Apoc. 13. I aunswer we keepe those pointes which the most auncient written copies haue which the Complutensis Edi●i● hath and which the beste Greeke printes nowe haue If you would knowe a reason why we followe not them that point otherwise I aunswer you the composition of the wordes is against that pointing For except Saint Iohn had meant that the Lambe was slayne from the beginning of the world he would not haue placed those wordes from the beginning of the worlde next to those wordes the Lambe which is slayne but next the worde written And therefore Aretus that could not vnderstande howe the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world is forced to imagine Hyperbaton in this text where none needeth the sense being good and plaine without it as the wordes doe lye Whose names are not written in the booke of life of the lambe that hath bene slaine since the beginning of the worlde And although it be true that the names of the Antichristian Idolaters were not written in Gods eternall booke of predestination from the beginning as it is said Apoc. 17. v. 8. Yet is that no reason why this also shoulde

S. Iames epistle though before doubted of for Canonicall VVill ye say that S. Iames epistle was once not in credit or not worthy of credit for that is his plaine meaning because it was doubted of yea reiected of some yea you saye it must needes be gathered of his wordes that we receiue it but of curtesie and so may refuse it when it pleaseah vs. Demonstrate this in a syllogisme out of his words if you can or all the whole rable of Rhemes if you be able For my part I can but maruaile at your bold assertions and abhorre your impudent enforcements As for other contradictions notorious absurdities dumbe blanks I know not what other monsters you feine vnto him without all proofe or perticular declaration all wise men see howe easie a matter it is to raile slaunder in generals whē you dare come to particulars I doubt not but the world shal see your vanitie so detected by M. Whitaker him selfe that you shal haue litle ioy thus insolently to deface his godly learned writings It had bene more than time that his booke had bene confuted which hath bene abroad a yeare and a halfe almost if you can with such facilitie by onely noting such matters shewe that he confuteth him selfe But somwhat you must say afarre of to saue your credit with your Disciples to keepe them playe for the time while with long studie and great trauaile you are crowding out great trifles MART. 11. For the second point which is not the grosse deniall of bookes but yet calling of them in question mouing scruples about them and diminishing their authoritie and credite I will goe no further than to S. Paules epistle to the Hebrewes which I will not aske why they doubt of or rather thinke it not to be S. Paules for they will tell me because it was once in doubte not considering that it was in like maner doubted whether it were Canonicall yet they will not now denie but it is Canonicall but I must aske them and request them to make a reasonable answere why in their English Bible of the yeare 1579. and 1580. they presume to leaue out S. Paules name out of the very title of the saide epistle which name is in the Greeke and in Bezaes Latine translation both which they professe to folow See the title of the new Test. an 1580. Doth not the title tell them that it is S. Paules why seeke they further or why do they change the title striking out S. Paules name if they meant to deale simply and sincerely and what an hereticall peeuishnes is this because Beza telleth them of one obscure Greeke copie that hath not Paules name and onely one that they will rather folow it than all other copies both Greeke and Latin I report me to all indifferent men of common sense whether they do it not to diminish the credite of the epistle FVLK 11. Nowe concerning the seconde pointe which is calling of some bookes into controuersie or mouing scruples about them to diminish their credite or auctoritie whether you be guiltie of that crime rather than we I haue somewhat noted before But with what euidence you are able to charge vs it cōmeth now to be cōsidered you will go no further than the epistle to the Hebrewes You may be ashamed to haue gone so far For of al bookes of the new Testament their is none that we might worse spare to confounde your blasphemous heresies than that epistle which is the very mall to beate into pouder the abominable Idoll of your Masse and your sacrilegious priesthood seruing to the same Wherefore it is without all colour that you charge vs to seeke to diminish the credite of that epistle But you will not aske why we doubt of or rather thinke it not to be S. Paules because we will tell you that it was once in doubt If you acknowledge that the auctor of this epistle was once in questiō you cleare vs of mouing scruples about it or calling it in question which was your first charge Let Eusebius Hierome and other auncient writers beare that blame if it be blame worthie to tell what other mens opinions haue bene in such a matter Some holding that it was written by S. Luke some by S. Barnabas some by S. Clemens But you must wit if you wil that they which at this day doubt of the writer therof or else thinke it not of S. Paules penning haue other reasons to lead them than onely because it was doubted of For beside those reasons which they had which of old time doubted of the writer therof as the diuersitie of the stile and inscription thereof and manner of reasoning they haue also obserued something out of the epistle it self which seemeth to argue that it was not writtē by S. Paule as that in the beginning of the 2. chapter he saith The doctrine of saluation was confirmed to vs by thē that heard it after it was first spoken by the Lord him self which seemeth to agree with the profession of S. Luke in the beginning of his gospell Wheras S. Paule denieth that he learned his gospel os men but only by reuelation of Iesus Christ. Gal. 1. v. 12. But of all thē that doubt or thinke it not to be S. Paules epistle there is not one that doubteth of the auctoritie thereof but that it is equall with the epistle to the Romanes or the gospell of S. Iohn Although in the Latine church as S. Hierom testifieth it hath bene doubted whether it were Canonicall The cause seemeth to be the heresie of the Nouatians which abused a text out of the 6. chapt against remissiō of sinnes cōmitted after grace receyued which we shew was no sufficiēt cause to refuse so diuine an epistle seing the Apostle speaketh not of particular faults which are cōmon to the faithful oftētimes euery day but of an vtter apostasie falling cleane away frō the truth of the gospel once knowen professed into an horrible contempt persecuting of the same But we must make you a reasonable answere why in the English Bibles printed 1579. 1580. we presume to leaue out S. Paules name out of the very title of the said epistle which name is in the Greeke Bezaes Latine translatiō which we professe to folow I answere without any presumptiō that that which is vncertaine we spare to affirme Exāple we haue not only that ancient Greeke copie whereof Beza speaketh which leaueth out the name of Paulé but also diuerse printed bokes in which that name is left out Beside it is certain that title was not of ancient time vniuersally added For S. Hier. in Catalogo scriptorū ecclesiast after he hath recited al the epistles of S. Paule at lēgth he cōmeth to this epistle Epistola autē quae fertur ad Hebraeos c. But the epistle which is called vnto the Hebrewes is not thought to be his for the differēce of the stile

and reasoning against al other interpreters both auncient later for the cōtrary yea and aff●ming that S. Paul him self did foolishly if he spake there of other rich womē Such a fansie he hath to make the Apostles not onely maried man but that they caried about their wiues with them that they were the Apostles wiues for so he translateth it Act. 1. v. 14 that returned with them after our Lordes ascension to Hierusalem and continued togither in praier til the holy Ghost came vpon them Whereas S. Luke there speaketh so euidently of the other holy and faithful women which are famous in the Gospel as the Maries and other that the English Bezites them selues dare not here folow his translation For I beseech you M. Beza to turne my talke vnto you a litle is there any circumstance or particle here added why i● should be translated wiues none then by your owne reason before alleaged it should rather be trs̄lated women Againe did Erasmus translate well saying It is good for a man not to touch a wife 1 Cor. 7. v. 1. No say you reprehending this translation because it dehorteth from mariage If not shew your commissiō why you may translate in the foresaid places wife wiues at your pleasure the Greeke being all one both where you will not in any wise haue it translated wife and also where you will haue it so translated in any wise FVLK 12. Nay great must be the impudencie of the Papists that imagine the Apostles which had wiues of their owne did leaue them behinde them and leade straung women aboute with them into all partes of the world The first that inuented that glose of cōtinent women such as followed Christ was Tertullian the Montanist in his booke of Monogamy which he wrote against the Church condēning secōd mariage reprouing the Latine translation of his time as it seemeth which in this text 1. Cor. 9. vsed the terme of vxor by the ambiguitie of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying that if the Apostle had spoken of matrimonie he would haue vnderstood this of wiues but seeing he speaketh De victuaria exhibitione of the exhibition toward his liuing he vnderstandeth it of such women as followed Christe Than the which distinction nothing can be more absurde for speaking of exhibition towarde his liuing the Apostle sheweth that he might haue lawfully charged the Church with finding not only of him self but also of his wife as the other Apostles did Againe if rich womē did folow the Apostles ministring to thē of their substance as they folowed our Sauiour this was no burden but an easement vnto the Church which the Apostle would not haue absteined frō as a thing burdenous to the Church of Corinth Cōcerning the other place Act. 1. v. 14. although perhaps it be not necessary to translate wiues yet it is necessary to vnderstand wiues For to answere you in M. Bezaes name who telleth you that it was meete as also Erasmus thinketh that their wiues should be co●firmed who partly were to be companions of their trauaile and peregrinatiō partly to tarie patiētly at home while their husbāds were about the Lords businesse and therfore their wiues also were present Againe what a shamefull absurditie were it to thinke that the Apostles would tarie in a close house so long togither with other women than their wiues and shut out their owne wiues which must needes haue bene subiect to great offense and obloquie And what deuilish malice haue you agaynst the Apostles wiues that you cānot abide that they should ioyne with their husbandes in praier and supplication and be made partakers of the holy Ghost with them as well as other women which were also maried women Mary the wife of Cleophas Ioanna the wife of Chuza and other holy women the mothers or wiues of holy men Will you say the Apostles had no wiues Peters wiues mother will testifie againste you Will you saye she was forsaken by Peter the storie of his martiredome if it bee true affirmeth that she continued with him to his dying day will you say he had no matrimoniall companie with hir his daughter Petronilla will beare witnes against you so yong that she was desired in marriage by Flaccus the Comes Touching the place 1. Corin. 7. where Erasmus translateth vxorem I haue answeared alreadie the circumstance of the place doth argue that it is spoken generally of continence not of abstinence in marriage only And who is such a nouice in the greke tongue that he knoweth not that the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a wife or woman as the circumstaunce of the place requireth where it is vsed MART. 13. Againe to this purpose they make Sainct Paule say as to his wife I beseech thee also faithful yokfellow Phil. 4. v. 3. for in Englishe what doth it else sounde but man and wife but that S. Paule shoulde h●ere meane his wife moste of the greeke fathers count it ridiculous and foolishe S. Chrisostome Theodorete Oecumenius Theophilactus Beza and Caluin bothe mislike it translating also in the masculine gender S. Paule himselfe saith the contrarie that he had no wife 1. Cor. 7. And as for Clemens Alexandrinus who alleageth it for Paules wife Eusebius plainely insinua●eth and Nicephorus expresly saith that he did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the way of contention and disputation whiles hee ●arnestly wrote against them that oppugned matrimonie FVLK 13. The Greeke worde being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a fellow or companion in yoke they haue not therfore translated amisse when they say yoke fellowe whiche signifieth felow in any yoke whatsoeuer If it sound man and wife in Englishe what matter is that for so it soundeth in Greeke Men must not follow the sound of wordes onely but examine the matter And great probabilitie there is that he speaketh there of his wife as Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh neither dothe S. Paule himselfe say precisely he had no wife 1. Cor. 7. but that he liued without the vse of a wife whiche might be hys wife consenting to remaine at ●hilippi That the later writers mislike the iudgement of Clemens and specially that fabulous historiā Nicephorꝰ it derogateth nothing to his credite nor to the likelihoode of the matter That Theophy lact saith the adiectiue should be of the foeminine gender he is not to be credited aboue Clemens Alexandrinus who knewe the puritie of the Greke tong as wel as he But whether it be to be vnderstoode of hys wife or no we leaue it indifferent and translate according to the Greeke word without preiudice of either opinion which kind of translation at other times you do highly commend MART. 14. Againe for the mariage of Priests and of all sorts of men indifferently they translate the Apostle thus wedlock is honorable among al men Where one falsificatiō is that they say among all men and Beza inter quosuis in

denie but the equitie of the same lawes doth still remaine although not euery one that erreth obstinately ought to bee delt with so extremely Also pag. 82. of that booke I say that all protestantes are one in God and Christ their redeemer from which vnitie dissention about ceremonies cannot separate them and yet I except such schismatikes as delight in contention The controuersie betweene Luther and vs doth not hinder vs from this vnitie although Luther and other of preposterous zeale of godlinesse do otherwise account of vs which errour is of infirmitie and not of malice The pag. 23. of the same aunswere there is another charge where I say that text Vow ye and render your vowes to the Lorde is a text that pertaineth to the old Testament meaning that it must haue the exposition according to the lawe of such thinges as God did allowe and were in mens power to perfourme For what if a man vowed to sacrifice a dogge What say wee to Iepthes rash vowe To the vowe of them that vowed to kill Paul Our censurer reporteth my wordes that this text belongeth onely to the olde Testament as though I sayde there was no vse of it in the newe Testament There is one lie by addition In the same place to the text If thou wilt bee perfect goe and s●ll what thou hast c. I say it is a singular triall to that one person F●● euery man is not bounde so to doe yet our censur●● cauileth that so all the other wordes spoken to that young man may be restrained and made singular as whatsoeuer else was spoken to any singular person As though my reason were that therefore it was singular because it was spoken to one man As if wee had not generall lawes and rules to knowe what is enioyned to all men what to some men and what to a singular person In the next pag. 24. hee quarelleth at my exposition of the saying of S. Iames cap. 2. that a man is iustified of workes and not of faith onely Where I say workes are not denyed to iustifie before men and onely faith without workes is thought to iustifie before God Rom. 3. This he calleth a poore deuise because Saint Iames talking of faith without workes sayth it cannot saue a man Nay rather this is a poore cauill For S. Iames talketh of another kinde of faith as well as of an other kind of iustification when his saying seemeth to be contradictory to Saint Paule And that in the place in question hee meaneth iustification before men as in the other place a fayth voyde of good works it is manifest both by his owne wordes Shewe me thy faith by thy workes and also by the example of Abrahams tryall which was not to enforme God of his iustification but to giue testimony before men Pag. 25. to shewe how protestants deny all fathers he bringeth me for an example in many places First he sayth the consent of ancient fathers is alleaged attributing superioritie to Peter vpon that text Math. 16. Thou art Peter c. This he sayth I auoyde very lightly saying that diuerse of the auncient fathers were deceiued in opinion of Peters prerogatiue As for the consent of all which he would seeme to make for it is false but this is not all mine answere but that this prerogatiue appeareth not in the scriptures which was heuier than the answerers penne could beare or if he thinke it doeth let him prooue by syllogisme out of the scriptures if he can But vntill he can I will say this is a lie by detraction Secondly where I say those ancient fathers that expounde the text Iohn 5. I came in my fathers name c. of antichrist haue no grounde of their exposition I proue it by example of Theudas the Aegyptian Cocabus and other that deceiued the Iewes in their owne name yet none of them was antichrist Thirdly where he sayth Ierome with all the ecclesiasticall writers are alleaged for the interpretation of the wordes of Daniel cap. 7. which interpretation I do not admit because it hath no direction out of the scriptures hee maketh a lie by multiplication for onely Ierome with such ecclesiasticall writers out of whom he gathered his interpretation is alleaged Fourthly he slandereth me when he chargeth mee to say Austine doth wrongfully interprete the place for I allowe of Augustines sayinges to be true but I say hee speaketh it vppon a text wrongly interpreted that is falsly translated He hath placed his Tabernacle in the sunne whereas the truth is He hath made in the heauens a Tabernacle for the sunne and so doth Hierome interprete it ●o●i posuit tabernaculum in eis Fifthly where he sayeth that S. Ambrose Ephrem and Bede are alleaged for interpretation of certaine scriptures he sayth he noteth not what for they are alleaged for memories of the dead which I say I will not deny but they were vsed before their times and prayer for the dead also but without warrant of Gods worde or autoritie of scriptures but such as is so pitifully wrested and drawen vnto them as euery man may see the holy ghost neuer meant any such thing as they gather of them This I speake not of these three but of such as would goe about to proue prayer for the deade out of the scripture as Chrysostome who followeth in the sixt place who in deede I say alleadgeth scripture for it but hee applieth it madly and yet hee often applyeth it to the same purpose belike it was the best he had for that purpose God sayth vnto Ezechias I will defende this citie for mine owne cause and for Dauid my seruantes sake Alas good man what maner of reason is this Be it as he sayth that the memorie of Dauid being a righteous man and not rather the truth of Gods promise made to Dauid moued him to defend the citie from the enemies doth it therefore followe that prayer and almes are auayleable for the dead c. If M. Censurer thinke Chrysostome haue applyed the scripture rightly let him gather his argument into a syllogisme and we will shape him another aunswere Seuenthly I will not denie but I sayde that those fathers whom Martiall coted did rather dally in trifling allegories than soundly prooue that the crosse was prefigured in such places of scripture as they alleadge As Augustine maketh the two stickes that the widowe of Sarepta gathered a figure of the crosse Augustine and Tertullian the lifting vp of Moses handes c. in which places yet they ment the vertue of Christs death rather than the holinesse of the signe Moreouer page 33. Master Fulk is charged to abuse the simple people in saying often times prayer for the dead is an heresie because the Montanistes which were heretikes helde it Nay sir because the Montanistes are the first that inuented prayer for the dead Purgatorie seeing neither in scripture nor doctor is any mention of either of both before Montanus therefore he