much rather against it For of this it plainlie appeareth at the first to euerie one that in S. Ieromes daies the vulgar translations were greatlie corrupted and that S. Ierome reformed the same by the Hebrew and Greeke text In S. Ieromes daies the Hebrewe and Greeke text acknowledged more sincere then all translations which argueth that the text was in those daies generallie without contradiction acknowledged to be purer then all translations whatsoeuer Then if such corruption crept into the Hebrewe and Greeke texte as you affirme it was after S. Ieromes daies but when in what manner you cannot tell Againe that you saie this edition of S. Ierome was by Damasus supreame authoritie commended to the Church maie easilie be disprooued or if he laboured to haue it in the Latine Churches receiued yet could he not bring it to passe Ieromes translation not especiallie vsed in the Roman Church for two hundred yeares after Ierome Greg. in epist ad Leand. For both other Churches vsed it not and in the Church of Rome it was not in anie singular estimation for the space of two hundred yeares after S. Ierome and Damasus as we may vnderstand by S. Gregorie whoe writeth that in his daies the Romane Church vsed two translations an old and a new This newe is the same which now is called the olde The name of High Priest if you thinke it maketh anie thing for the Popes supreame authoritie you are abused through your owne ignorance It was a name belonging as well to euerie Bishop especiallie of the chiefe Churches as to Damasus But of such speaches you can be content to take aduantage to the abusing of the simple Foure thinges doe you propound to your selfe to prooue concerning your vulgar translation First that I haue saide nothing to purpose against it Second that it is purer then the fountaines Third that although it hath some small faults yet absolutelie it hath no errour touching either doctrine or manners Last that to refuse it and appeale to the Greeke and Hebrewe is the highe waie to deniall of all faith to Apostasie and Atheisme These thinges Master Rainolds hath thus deuided not amisse now let vs examine his proofes of these points for performance of his promise First you saie that in commending the fountaines so much pag. 297. I have spoken nothing against you but rather much and all against my selfe If you can make your saying good herein we shall haue cause much to commend your witt and learning The reason that you haue brought is by you vttered in these words following For if the fountaines were so pure in the times of S. Ierome and S. Ambrose and the Church then troubled with great diuersitie of their Latine Bibles reformed one to the puritie of the fountaines and originals and we now finde those fountaines and originals differing from that reformed bible whie shall we not conclude that the fountaines haue in the meane season bene corrupted And what cause haue you thus to conclude where haue you learned to make such conclusions thinke you that this conclusion is ought worth Let vs waie it a litle together Master Rainolds and then shall we better esteeme the value of it First you graunt the fountains were pure in S. Ierome and S. Ambrose daies the translations corrupt Doubtles it greeueth you to confesse thus much but the necessitie of confessing the same enforced you Then foure hundred yeares after Christ by M. Rainolds confession the fountaines of the Hebrewe and Greeke texte were pure The fountaines of the Hebrew and Greeke text pure for the space of four hundred yeares after Christ by the aduersaries confession and all translations were reformed by them Now let vs knowe some certentie of the great alteration that followed What cause was there that the fountaines and originals remained pure so long and then after began to be so shamefullie and vniuersallie corrupted Againe what was the cause that the latine translations were so greatly corrupted for so long a space and neuer since could be corrupted Tell vs some truth shewe some reason alledge your authorities speake to purpose and leaue these vntoward presumptions The same meanes that kept the text pure all that while whie might it not continew in times following if you laie the fault of corrupting the fountaines vpon the Iewes as you doe were there no Iewes in the world for the space of foure hundred yeares after Christ or were they either vnwilling or vnable to attempt such a matter it cannot be denied but that within the compasse of those yeares the Iewes had as great opportunities and greater to haue performed so wicked an enterprise then since that time can be deuised Their malice against Christian religion was no lesse then the number of their learned Rabbines was as great then the troubles of the Church of Christ by reason of the great and general persecutions gaue better occasion to them then therefore if this corruption hath thus mightilie preuailed in the text may it please you to enforme vs how and when it began which request ought not in anie wise seeme vnreasonable vnto you For if you maie demaund of vs the time wherein corruption beganne to enter into the Church and otherwise wil not beleeue vs that there is anie in the Church may not we likewise require of you by as good reason what time this foule corruption wherof you speake first began to sease vpon the texte of scripture and if you cannot tell how may you looke to be herein beleeued The Iewes must be charged for all and the hatred which the Iewes beare to our religion must be an argument that now all is corrupted in the Hebrew Saint Ierome saide he was ashamed to see the Christians thus vnworthily and vntrulie charge the Hebrew veritie with corruption Hâ—eron in c. 17. Ierem. And so may we also trulie saie that it is a shame for these men to slaunder the Hebrew texte and to accuse the Iewes of that fault whereof they are not guiltie for ought that can be prooued in this behalfe against them August de civit Dei lib. 15. cap. 13. And S. Augustine entreating at large of a place read otherwise in the Greeke and Latine translations then in the Hebrew text not onelie dischargeth the Iewes from all suspicion of corrupting their bookes but giueth this rule that whensoeuer there is found any variety or difference in the texts we should geue greatest credit to that tongue out of which the interpreters haue made their translation Vpon which place Lewes Viues writeth thus Ludou Viues ibid. This same doth Ierome auouch and this reason it selfe teacheth there is none of sound iudgement that thinketh otherwise But in vaine doth the consent of good witts thus thinke For stout senslesnes as it were an hil is opposed against it not because these men are ignorant of those tongues for Augustine knew not the Hebrew the Greeke but meanlie but there is not in
know not how I could haue written more plainelie more consonantlie to my selfe then I haue done But some are so froward that though it be beaten into them with hammer yet they will not seeme to vnderstand I saie Luther followed the iudgement of the auncient Church in refusing Saint Iames Epistle what maketh this against my selfe Can you deny but some of the ancient Churches refused it Doth not Eusebius prooue it when he saith it was receiued in moste Churches Then it followeth not in al Churches And would Eusebius haue called it a Bastard if some Churches had not so accounted of it But what if some refused it doth it follow therefore that the wholl Church did so you maie not thinke M. Rainolds to cast vpon vs such a miste but that we shal be hable to espie your walking along Saint Iames epistle was neuer refused of all Churches generally it was refused onelie by some Luther in refusing it agreed with the auncient Churches not with all but some as many as refused it But the greater number of Churches receiued it as Eusebius witnesseth and our Church is led by Gods spirit and true learning to follow them But for the Apochryphall bookes of the olde Testament I haue prooued sufficiently and can further declare if neede require that both the greatest part of the Church and the wholl Church hath reprooued them As for that Ierome sayth The Church readeth them it maketh litle for their credit S. Ierome a great enemy to those apocryphal bookes seeing he addeth immediatly it was to edifie the people not to confirme the authoritie ef Ecclesiasticall doctrine and that though the Church read them yet it receiueth them not among the canonicall scriptures wherein he hath plainely cast them downe from that height of authoritie and maiestie whereunto you would so faine lift them vp The Tower conference is here brought in to no purpose Pag. 25. Their scope was to shew that in the primitiue Church not onely some particuler persons but wholl congregations haue doubted of many bookes of Scripture and yet notwithstanding lost not their dignite of true Churches of Christ and therefore that Luther doubting or denying some of them cannot for that cause iustelie in any indifferent iudgement be condemned seeing whatsoeuer they obiect against Luther in this behalfe must light vpon the auncient Churches fathers that haue thought herein as Luther did Wherefore your conclusion that you set downe in the end of this your idle wandring talke is onelie deuised of your selfe and not maintained by vs. For you father vpon vs that we thinke we may refuse all such bookes as of olde haue bene doubted of pag. 28. which is as farre from our thinking as heauen is from earth and if any man haue euer vttered such a thing as I thinke none hath it is his owne priuat conceite not the approoued and constant iudgement of our Church The bookes in the olde Testament that we refuse besides that they carie in their foreheades euident notes of Apochryphall writings haue not onelie bene doubted of but clean cast awaie by the Church of God as hath bene prooued all the bookes in the newe Testament doe we whollie admit as canonical not refusing any parcell or word thereof because we acknowledge in them the spirit of God and see no reason to mooue vs otherwise For though they haue beene doubted of in former times yet it was vpon no certaine ground and by fewe in comparison of those that receiued them vndoubtedlie Pag. 29. Thus in a word the necke is broken of al your notes that follow where in you labour to saie as litle in manie words as possiblie maie be sayd That we rente from the bodie of the Scriptures in the old Testament Toby Iudith Hester Baruch Wisdome Ecclesiasticus Maccabees the praier of Manasses the song of the three children the storie of Bell herein we doe the canonical Scriptures no iniurie deuiding from them such bookes as are not of that absolute authoritie that they which are in truth canonical maie remaine intire and wholl together no more then the shepheard doth iniurie to the sheepe in sorting the goates and other cattel from them But which of our brethren are they that ioyne to these the two bookes of Cronicles and the song of Salomon If you can name any such in these daies it will soone appeare they are not brethren of ours You will not I suppose charge vs therewith and yet perhaps you will haue men suspect vs as guiltie thereof But your boldnesse is intolerable that knowing both the common consent and practize of our Church do notwithstanding both labour to caste wrong fullie vppon vs some suspicion for refusing these and furthermore also plainlie and most falsllie avouch that we denie sundrie bookes of the new Testament setting downe in a rowe Saint Lukes Gospell M. Rainold accufeth vs for denying some Canonical books of the olde Testament diuers of the new which all the world knoweth to be a great slaunder the epistle to the Hebrews the epistle of Saint Iames the second of Peter the second and third of Saint Iobn Saint Iude the Apocalyps a parte of Saint Iohns Gospell What ment you Master Rainold thus to say and thus impudentlie to lie Are you gone to Rheames and haue you left all conscience behinde you Care you not to publish in printe to the world so great so manie so manifest vntrueths before you vse to make your sacrifice at Masse do you not vse to confesse your lies as sins and yet will you print your lies without repentance Of these our Church denieth nor one doubteth not of one If you meane some Protestants in Germanie whatsoeuer they thinke of Saint Iames S. Iude the second of Saint Peter the second and third of S. Iohn yet the epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps of Saint Iohn they do receiue as canonicall Saint Lukes gospell came neuer yet in doubt or question amongst vs and I muse what the occasion should be of this your so fowle vntrueth If because in the Tower conference of the fourth day one said that the Laodicean Councel omitteth S. Lukes gospel it is too friuolous seeing that was a slippe of memorie or ouersight in him And though the Councel had so done as it hath not yet how followeth it that we therefore doe so My distinction of the wholl Church some Churhes is as cleare as the day it is to be obserued that whereas in it resteth the summe of this your second Chapter and you are desirous to haue it remooued yet you bring nothing once to stirre it That S. Iames hath bene douted of in such sorte as Iudith Macchabees the counterfaite Hester for the right Hester we embrace is prooued alreadie false and that our owne doctours refuse it is an other vntrueth For were it as you saie of that conference yet is it but one single mans sentence and that by waie of arguing
and then shall you prooue your selfe to be a perfect heretike and so must you saie or els you saie nothing to the question Can you denie M. Rainolds but that Christes bodie is altogether of the same substance with our bodies and hath the properties of a true and naturall bodie speake plainlie and tell vs your minde lest you giue vs cause to doubt of your soundnes in this article as you haue here giuen verie great For if you confesse this to be true doctrine as you must vnlesse you be indeed one of those heretikes that held the contrarie why bid you me looke how I free my selfe from the filthie and wicked heresies of the Ebionites and Nestorians Marke I beseech you good reader how this prating patrone of Reall presence M.R. saieth it is hereticall to affirme that Christs body is consubstantiall to ours would haue it seme to sauour of wicked heresy to affirme that Christs bodie is a true bodie consubstantiall to ours and all this because the same wicked heresie of reall presence can neuer be defended vnlesse this be denied Yea Master Rainolds saith those heretikes not onelie maie but must thereof infer that Christ was begotten betwene our Ladie and Ioseph Wherein as he hath auouched a plaine heresie which he cannot cleare him selfe from vnlesse he will openlie recant his owne wordes so is it most false that he saith it must be inferred hereof that Christ was begotten as other men No such necessitie Master Rainolds That he was miraculouslie borne of a virgine is no reason but that his bodie may be of the same substance with ours a true and naturall bodie indued with the same qualities and properties that ours are saue sinne from his conception and glory from his ascension whereof in saying it must follow that Christ was not borne of a virgine you haue vttered in plaine tearmes an hereticall assertion defend it or retract whether you will For if this follow thereof indeed which is hereticall then that must of consequence be hereticall which yet is a most true and Catholike doctrine A third answere you make out of Chrysostome pag. 188. who surelie answereth nothing at all for you He exhorteth that we beleeue Christes words This is my bodie to be true Chrysostome obiected by M.R. maketh against hiâ— although we see not his bodie with our eyes And whoe confesseth not this we graunt that the bread is Christes bodie as Christ said whoe euer said the truth But the meaning is that the bread is a sacrament of Christes bodie Chrysost Hom. 83. in Mat. as S. Chrysostome in the same homilie twise or thrise in plain speach affirmeth not that the bread is chaunged into Christes naturall bodie which Chrysostome neuer once dreamed of And that you may perceiue he meant no transsubstantiation the same he said of this sacrament he also saith by and by of baptisme wherein your selues accord with vs that no transsubstantiation is wrought As Christ is in the supper so is he in baptisme inuisiblie mystically truelie in both carnallie bodilie reallie in neither Chrysostome hath spoken neuer a worde for you But M. Rainolds according to his manner translateth a pace out of the Centuries out of Melanchthon pag. 189. c Westphalus and Luther with their sayings filleth a number of pages onlie to shew there is a difference of iudgement among the protestants about the sacrament which to be indeed true al the world knoweth But what hereof will you haue your Reader to conclude Controuersie among the Protestants about the sacrament confessed when he seeth that Luther and some others mislike our doctrine and reasons concerning the sacrament of Christes supper That neither he nor we teach thereof a right That you hould the true part That no credit in other pointes is to be giuen to anie of vs all This is the marke whereat you aime here els where in citing so manifold testimonies out of our writers which sleight although you must confesse is false and knowe your selfe there is no plaine dealing nor soundnes therein yet you are content for aduantage to set it out with greatest countenance that it may bleare the eies of the simple If Luther teaching otherwise of the sacrament then Zuinglius and Oecolampadius did disputed against their reasons this is no matter to maruell at for graunting the premisses to be true it is to late to denie the conclusion The argument that is grounded onelie vpon reason in matters of Religion and faith we graunt moste vnfainedlie to be no lawfull weapon in the Lords warfare And therefore whatsoeuer they haue said against Philosophie and reason Arguments taken from reason in matters of Religion what force they haue when it disagreeth from the faith which in the scritures we learne all that we allow with all our heartes and neuer vsed thus anie argument taken from naturall reason against either you or Luther For reason must submit it selfe to faith we know faith must not be restrained or stretched according to reason But when reason in not controlled of faith then I thinke you will not say but an argument builded vpon reason maketh a necessary proofe Now in this matter faith and reason are not contrary no faith teacheth that Christs body is without the properties of a true body al reason prooueth that if Christ haue a true body as he hath then his body is indued with natural qualities and properties of a body Reasoning against this sound immutable reason you plainely shew your selues to be void of reason Now that one and the same body as Christ hath but one onely body should be at once of contradictory dispositions as namely both visible and inuisible both in a certaine place in no certaine place as you teach and boldly but moste vntruly maintaine this is contrary not onely to reason but also to faith which teacheth that God cannot lie and therefore neuer can make two contradictories true for in the one alwaies an vntruth of necessitie resteth As for example if Christs body be alwaies visible and circumscripte then is it a manifestlie to say the same body is inuisible and incircumscripte but Christs body is alwaies both visible circumscripte and therefore in saying his body is inuisible and incircumscripte you cannot be excused from vntruth and contradiction In faith is no contradiction in your assertion there is a foule and palpable contradiction wherefore your assertion is not of faith If I had to deale with Westphalus or Illyricus further would I answere there speaches but as you make them here to serue your purpose I haue not any more to say vnto them Then leauing them I returne to your selfe M. R. to examine what you bring for defense of the cause which you haue taken in hand to maintaine The testimonies of Cyrill and Damascen you lightly passe ouer pag. 198. De Trinit lib. 2. The fathers against the Reall presence Cyril saith that Christ touching the presence
taken to binde a contentious heretike Thus it appeereth that although we had the verie same Autographall and authenticall copies which Moses and the other Prophets did write with their owne handes yet would this Seminary papist and his fellowes make lesse account of them then of their translation as being lesse hable to binde heretikes then it The reason is first the diuerse significations of euerie worde almoste which may seeme perhapes to some simple bodie to make for their translation against the Hebrew Whereunto I answere first that although the Hebrew were so vncertaine in respect of the manifold and diuerse significations of wordes as they would haue it yet were there noe cause whie the latine translation should more be allowed for the vndoubted word of God then the Greek or any other in the world They are all noe better then translations and what warrrant is there for one more then an oother but onelie in commendation of greater sinceritie and that in respecte of faithfully expressing the Hebrew Secondlie this variety of significations is not latelie begonne but was alwaies from the beginning which notwithstanding the Hebrewes could speake and write their mindes as plainlie and certainlie as anie other people and the scriptures were read and expounded in that language manie hundred yeares before anie parte of them was translated into Latine So that this reason maketh them now no lesse hable to binde heretikes then they haue euermore bene from the beginning And what tongue I praie you were the scriptures written in which the Apostle exhorteth Timothie to read that he might stoppe the mouthes of heretikes and which he saith are profitable to conuince the Aduersaries but in the Hebrewe and Greeke your latine translator was then vnborne when yet the scriptures in their original tongues were able to binde and confute all heretikes Your example out of the Psalme 55. ver 21. sheweth a plaine corruption in your translation For that Hebrew worde with these letters and prickes cannot signifie to reward as your translation hath but vpon those that haue peace with him as our translations for the moste haue according to the Hebrewe The second reason is pag. 433. that manie substantiues maie haue diuerse deriuations from diuerse verbes and one example is brought out of the 60. Psalme v. 6. To this maie be answered as to the former that if this diuersitie of deriuation cause a diuersitie of expositions it maketh no more against the Hebrew text now then euer since the hebrew was first written Thirdlie pag. 434. touching the literal sense of the hebrew words you demaund what masters we shall followe If a controuersie be about the signification of a word whome should we followe rather then the moste learned masters of that tongue they can best resolue vs that know the tongue best and as this for wordes in all other languages is the onelie waie so likewise if we doubt of some worde in hebrewe what meanes maie we vse to be instructed and satisfied but to learne of those that are moste skilful in the tongue and best know the naturall force of the words Who can denie that this is much better then as your translator oftentimes doth to call blacke white and to giue a signification of a worde which all Hebricians can tell is cleane amisse Examples hereof are in your translation plentifull as if before you knew not now by that which I haue alreadie alledged you maie vnderstand That which followeth of Caluine Beza and the rest hath nothing but a poore bragge not worth the mentioning To your question pag. 437. whether I thinke it flat Atheisme and Turkery to denie that Christ was borne of a virgine I answere no Christian can thinke otherwise but that it is indeed plaine Atheisme to denie this so principall an article of our faith Then you require what scripture I haue to prooue this veritie I answere I prooue this veritie by a plaine text of scripture in Matt. 1. v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beholde a virgine shall conceaue c. But this you saie prooueth nothing by mine owne rule by Bezaes common kinde of scanning such citations and by the protestants interpretation of this place What rule what scanning what interpretation of ours can you alledge against this moste sufficient and euident proofe Did euer Beza or I or anie other protestant speake anie thing against this trueth If you can charge anie of vs we desire no fauour at your hands But what cause or reason haue you thus to saie Because this texte is not according to the Hebrewe but the seauentie as you affirme Which to be a foule vntrueth and tending to Atheisme and Turcisme whoe seeth not For if the Angels wordes rehearsed in Saint Matthew be not agreeable to the veritie of the Prophets wordes then may Turkes Iewes Atheists and wicked heretikes indede at their pleasure not onelie dispute against this article of our faith but also condemne it and we shall not be hable to conuince them This aduantage giueth M. Rainolds vnto them when he saieth Saint Matthewes text is not framed according to the Hebrwe but the Greeke translation M. R. denieth the text of S. Matthewe touching Christ borne of a virgine to be according to the Hebrewe Thus while you labour to prooue that we in cleauing to the Hebrewe text doe open a gappe to Atheisme your selfe in denying S. Matthewes text to be fully agreeable to the Hebrewe haue opened a broade gate to all Atheists and Turkes in the world God forbidde that we should euer vtter word so much seruing for defense of Atheisme as you haue here done or els set downe in word or writing that S. Matthewes place is not according to the Hebrew If you take part with the Iewes and openlie maintaine that the Hebrew worde signifieth not a virgine but a young wench then will I answere you as the godlie fathers haue answered those wicked enemies of Christ that 〈◊〉 signifieth a young wench indeed but one that is a virgine being deriued of the roote that signifieth to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Saint Ieâ—â—â—â— writeth that this worde not onelie signifieth a young maide or virgine but more also a virgine kept hidâ— and secret by greate diligence of hee parents and further also a young virginus of tender age not an olde virgine as some be And although the word in Hebrew had signified onelie a wench yet the Angell and Euangelists expounding it of such a wench as was a virgine also this maie suffice all Christians to beleeue and holde that our sauiour Christ was borne of a true virgine let Iewes Turkes Atheists and heretikes say what they can to the contrarie Master R. is affraid lest men should thinke he studied to disgrace the Greeke Hebrew tongues pag. 435. c. which he confesseth to be great helps to the attaining of the true sense in sundrie places of scripture and sheweth what paines the Catholikes haue taken in
conscience tolde you that if you opposed your selfe against this trueth therein should you offer iniurie to your Pope and Pope-catholike brethren whome the same so specially doth concerne You saie I know not what Antichrist is Contrae Sander pa. 6. in principio against whome I write and that sometime I make Antichrist to be the wholl Catholike and vniuersall Church wherof the Pope is head which to be a pregnant vntrueth he that looketh one the place may see Haue I saied the Pope is head of the Chatholike vniuersall Church or the Catholike vniuersall Church is Antichrist what will you be ashamed hereafter to write that in the first entrance write thus vntruelie without shame and yet hauing your selfe auouched so notorious an vntruth you dare make mention of Lucians true historie which booke as may seeme you haue not onelie read ouer with diligence and delight but also translated into English propounded vnto your selfe as worthie of your imitaion For to giue you that praise that of due belongeth vnto you Lucian if he liued could hardlie coyne more passing vntruthes or scoffe more kindelie at Christ and his gospell then you haue done A greater reason was he saith for that he abhorred to deale with heretiks pag. 5. who passe al other in pride and ignorance and of all heretikes he maketh vs of England to be the worst Indeede true it is that heretikes for the most part are obstinate past amendment therefore a great wearines vexation of minde is it to maintaine contentions and disputes with them whereof in the end small profit doth redound But this complaint of hereticall wilfulnes nothing toucheth vs who by Gods grace are far from al kinde of heresie and hold no other doctrine then that which the Prophets and Apostles and Iesus Christ him selfe haue taught vs which is plainly contained in the bookes of canonicall scripture from which if labouring to disswade vs you cannot preuaile no maruell is it And in defending the same we are content to be esteemed of you contentious proude ignorant and as you list We are not so much in loue of your society nor seeke your fauour and commendation so greatlie that we will ioine in vnitie with you against the Lord his trueth and Church If you thinke we are proud tell vs wherein our pride consisteth If in that we will not yeald vnto you nor giue ouer maintenance of the Gospell pardon vs Master Rainolds modestie in the Lord is an excellent vertue but the modestie that betraieth the trueth of God is accursed Other pride I doubt not we are as cleare from as your selfe or anie of your fellowes And for ignorance we may thinke it was some spice of pride in you to obiect it vnto vs who for anie thing that appeereth haue no cause to brag of such knowledge or to chalenge more to your selfe then you may safely graunt to an other For tell vs what learning is wherein it consisteth and howe it maie be gotten Vnles you haue some speciall meanes and as it were some secret waie to attaine vnto it which others haue not I see not why we should thinke that you haue gotten a greater measure of learning and wisdome then others who haue vsed as great indeauour as your selfe And what the matter should be I know not that you are sodenlie become so learned and that we haue lost all learning But were you as learned as euer anie was or could be your learning shall not be hable to hurte the cause that we defend your learning shall in the end deceiue you and you that now boaste of your knowledge shall then be ashamed of your ignorance To knowe Christ out of his worde is true knowledge sound learning and perfect wisdome Certaine examples you rehearse of our ignorant assertions onelie thereby to make our cause seeme odious to the simple but the reasons of our assertions you pretermit which is your common sleight continuallie to tell your readers that such and such opinions we holde and not to shew the maner nor to remember or answere our reasons Wherein I desire the reader to consider how vntruelie Master Rainolds hath charged me with a wicked heresie that in this man he maie beholde the conscience of a Papist He setteth downe for one of my sayings that Christ is not begotten of the substance of his father a slaunder moste manifest in a matter of greatest moment I haue not writen thus no I neuer thought thus I abhorre with my hart all such blasphemy against the Person of our sauiour Christ But in the meane time what hath this slaunderer deserued Let the reader equallie iudge betweene him and me and by triall hereof esteeme more indifferentlie of the rest of his malice Now the greatest cause of all that made him so loth pag. 7. was he saith because he found in our doctrine no staie or certentie which yet if it were true should haue ministred vnto him greater will and courage forsomuch as the doctrine that standeth vpon no certaine staie is easilie disprooued and ouerthrowen But in trueth Master Rainolds perceiuing our doctrine to be grounded vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles which maie not be remooued and knowing we will not yeald to mens doctrines and inuentions whatsoeuer differing from the holie scriptures but rest our selues whollie vpon the written word of God I thinke he was indeede somewhat discouraged as great cause was he should being sure his engines could not preuaile against the same And what greater steadfastnes in religion can be required then to holde Gods word which we professe to be the ground whereon we build our faith If you can shewe wherein we swarue from it we will not refuse your instruction But saie not nowe we are vnstaied when as you knowe we relie our selues whollie vpon the worde vnles you will denie Gods word to be a certaine rule and staie of doctrine We plant not our religion in mans iudgement vncertentie of Traditions in vaine ceremonies and deuises as you doe but in matters of faith and religion we depend vpon God whoe in the scriptures of the olde and new Testament hath deliuered to his Church one certaine vniforme and perfect doctrine to which we adde nothing from which we take nothing awaie in which we settle and ground our selues But let vs heare how Master Rainolds can prooue that the Protestants haue no certaine faith For this he hath propounded to himselfe to declare especiallie in this preface And I desire the godlie readers to marke his proofes which shall be I trust to their comfort and confirmation in the truth First he obiecteth diuersitie of iudgement amongst vs Pag. 9. concerning the Princes supremacie in matters Ecclesiasticall wherein is no such difference as he pretendeth if he listed rightlie to vnderstand the case The title of supreme head of the Church hath bene misliked by diuerse godlie and learned men and of right and properlie it onelie belongeth
fathers and Doctors as you report Luth. cont Regem Angl. fol. 342. vnius maiestatis aeter nae verbum Euangelium Dei verbū est super omnia c. but that he setteth against the sayings of fathers of men of Angels of Diuells the word of the onely eternall maiesty the Gospell And againe immediatly he saith The word of God is aboue all the maiesty of God maketh with me that I care not though a thousand Augustines and Cyprians stood agaynst me Gods word is of more authoritie then all men or Angels Is this to set his priuate iudgement against all the fathers is this pride is this presumption must Gods word and maiestie and Gospell yeald to the iudgement of fathers be they neuer so manie This forsooth is your modestie that though the Lord hath spoken it yet if the fathers saie anie thing against it you will not prefere your iudgement grounded on the scriptures before the auncient fathers Accursed be such modestie that doth soe great iniurie and dishonour vnto god This ciuilitie towards men is treason and blasphemie towards the lord Remember what Elihu saith Iob. 32. v. 21.22 I will not now accept the person of man neither wil I give titles to man For I may not giue titles lest my maker should take me away suddenlie If this affection was in Luther as it was what fault can you finde therin You aske of me the reason why I so busilie defend Luther I aske of you the reason why you so continuallie accuse Luther If you seeke for some reasons to accuse him I cannot want better reasons to defend him your accusations being so vntrue That you say we aduance him into the place of Christe or at least among his Apostles belike you imagine that Luther is to vs as your Pope is to you whome you more esteeme and honour then Christe and all his Apostles For saie they what they will their saying hath litle force or authoritie if it like not your holie father but his saying must preuaile whatsoeuer they saie to the contrarie You thinke it good reason I should giue ouer all defense of Luther seing he bare extreame hatred as you say against the Sacramentaries here you bring in much to that purpose which yet you know is not the matter you tooke in hand But it is alwaies the propertie of such discreet and worthie writers whatsoeuer they finde though from the cause to hale it in by some meanes in one place or other I answere in a word Luther dissented bitterlie from Zuinglius and O Ecolampadius in the matter of the sacrament as it falleth out often times that sharpe contentions may arise amongst Godlie and learned men yet it is no cause why we should not answere in Luthers behalfe when he is wrongfullie charged by you Therefore you come to scanne my defense of Luther particularlie pag. 48. and finde your selfe occupied in deuising diuers senses of Luthers words and then disputing against them First if all the fathers teach one thing and bring scriptures for them Luther the contrarie bring scriptures for him whether in this case Luther may preferre his iudgement before all the fathers This is not the case M. R. that Luther ment you must therefore proceade further yet in your suppose Next then you put case If a thousand Augustines Churches teache some doctrine citing no text for it and Luther bring some text of scripture after his sense against the same the matter is not in citing textes but in deliuering the doctrine that is approoued by the text Then leaue your childish trifling and take Luther as he meant If Augustine or Cyprian or any other father maintaine any thing against Gods word Luther or any other minister of Christ may in such case preferre his iudgement warranted by the word of God before theirs If you denie this you are not worthie to be called a Christian and yet closelie you doe denie it in that you reprooue Luther and condemne him for saying the same And where you saie I can bring no instance that euer the auncient fathers did so haue you forgotten what fell out in the Councell of Nice Socrat. l. 1. c. 11. when the fathers agreeing to dissolue the marriage of ministers were withstood by Paphnutius One man maintaining the trueth of Gods word may lawfully dissent from others although neuer so many August cont petil l. 3. c. 6. and yealded in the ende Here one Paphnutius iudgment was preferred before al the other three hundred fathers And so often times the iudgement of many hath beene corrected by one S. Aug. saith whether of Christe or of his Church or of any other thing that appertayneth to our faith and life I will not say we not to be compared to him that sayd though we but as he added If an Angell from heauen shall preach any thing besides that ye haue receiued in the legall and Euangelicall scriptures lette him be accursed If we maie accurse them how many and whosoeuer they be that teach contrary to the Propheticall and Apostolicall scriptures then may we preferre our iudgement in such cases before them Saint Augustines words you see are very sharpe but he learned thus to speake of the Apostle him selfe August epi. 19. In an other place Saint Augustine saith For all these fathers yea aboue all these the Apostle Paul offereth himselfe I flee to him I appeale to him from all writers that thinke otherwise This was S. Augustine bolde to write euen to S. Ierome and feared not any suspicion either of arrogancie or heresie for the same such accoumpte then must be made of the trueth that we must stand with it against al the world and not for reuerence of mens persons giue it ouer or betraie it or be afraid to defend it If this be so as you will not I am sure for shame or feare denie openlie then haue you nothing to burthen Luther in this behalfe When you say Though the fathers in the Councells of Nice Ephesus Chalcedon had alleadged no direct and euident place against Arius Nestorius Eutyches yet the Christian people were bound to beleeue them grounding them selues onelie vpon the catholike and vniuersall faith of the Churches before them it is boldly and bluntlie spoken These godly and catholike fathers assembled in Councel against those heritikes confuted them by the authoritie of Gods word and as it were cut the throte of their heresies with the sworde of the spirit This was onelie the weapon then vsed and with this they preuayled The councels and fathers confuted all Heretikes by the scriptures as likwise haue all other godlie councels euer done against all heretikes and enemies of the trueth For in Religion there is no trueth but grounded vppon scriptures no errour or heresie but repugnant to scriptures no heretikes but refuted by scriptures They dealt not against the heretikes as you imagine omitting scriptures and grounding vpon the faith of Churches
is not of the same length with your conclusion that therefore he offered sacrifice in bread and wine But that you saie is a reason of his priesthood which I denie and it is the thing in controuersie should by you haue bene prooued not barely affirmed For though as you report the words of Moses it may seeme that the reason of Melchisedechs bringing forth bread and wine was for that he was the Lords priest yet Moses in in his owne language saieth not so but thus And he was a priest of the most high God as it is also translated by Pagnine and Vatablus and Arias Montanus according to the originall veritie And though sometime it may so be taken yet how can you prooue that so it must of necessitie here be taken And if it be your sacrifice for al that will not here of follow as you maie learne by Andradius your greatest Doctor Li. 4. Defen Trid. whoe maketh that a reason whie Melchisedech being a Cananean and ioined perhaps in blood or frendship with some of the Kings that Abraham slue notwithstanding was so farr of from seeking to be reuenged of Abraham that he met him frendlie and presented him with gifts because the bonds of country and kindred are not so strong as of godlines religion popish arguments confuted and reiected by papists them selues So the reason is not as you imagine He offered sacrifice in bread wine therefore he was a Priest but by Andradius iudgement he was the Lordes Priest and therefore he refreshed Abraham a true worshipper of the Lord. But what if all this were graunted without resistance that Melchisedech offered a sacrifice in bread and wine it must be cast in a strange mould before the sacrifice of your Masse can anie waies be framed hereof For first this sacrifice might be a figure of Christes bodie and blood represented and offered vnto vs in bread wine with out anie such vnholie sacrifice as is imagined in your Masse And so did the auncient fathers meane when they applied this historie of Melchisedech to the sacrament of Christes supper How the fathers applie Melchisedechs fact to the sacrameÌ„t of Christs supper Wherfore when you haue digged as depe as you wil yet shal you not finde the mine or spring of your sacrifice here Againe what resemblance is there betwene Melchisedechs bread and wine and your Masse wherein you teach is neither bread nor wine remaining at all That you bring out of Musculus and Caluin concerning referring those wordes and he was a Priest to that which followeth and he blessed him you are not hable to confute and therefore you do well and wiselie to note it but shew no reason against it and so likewise you set before your reader an other place of Caluin wherein he writeth that their opinion is confuted who seake out the cheife resemblance betweene Christ and Melchisedech in offering of bread and wine seing the Apostle who standeth vppon other points not so notable and principall as that speaketh not so much as once therof This was to hott for you to beare therfore you let it fal to the ground couering it with the naked names of Hierome Gregory Nazianzene Out of Caluins words by you repeted you will the reader to note two things Pag. 62. which being noted neuer so much make nothing for your profit The first is that Caluin and the Caluinistes as it pleaseth you to speak finde nothing wherin Melchisedech sacrificed and so by sacrificing prefigured the sacrifice and Priesthood of Christ whereunto I haue alreadie answered and further adde now that we finde in Melchisedech as much as the Apostle hath found We expound and vnderstand the figâ—re of Melc in such sort as the Apostle hath taught vs the Apostle hath found as much as truly can be found vnles you wil say the holy ghost was grosly fouly ouerseene in omitting the chiefest thing wherin Melchisedech represented our sauiour Christ We thinke it no shame to finde no more then the cleare light and wisdome of Gods spirite could finde wherwith the Apostle examining searching throughlie the wholl historie of Melchisedech hath not giuen the least inkling of your surmised sacrifice He sheweth diuerse properties in which Melchisedech was a figure of Christ comparing not anie sacrifice of Melchisedech with the sacrifice made by Christ but the person of Melchisedech with the person of Christ So you haue found such a propertie betwenee them two as he neuer saw and therefore must needes account your selues wiser then he which we by your leaues cannot acknowledge and therfore refuse your inuention The second is that the auncient fathers acknowledge Melchisedech to haue sacrificed in bread and wine and so to haue foreshewed Christes sacrificing in like manner What is to be answered to the fathers comparing Melchisedeches bread and wine to the Lords supper To this an easie answere maie serue First that whatsoeuer the fathers teach without warrant of Gods word must be iudged no better then stubble and straw which hath no vse in the building vp of gods spiritual Temple but serueth onelie to be burnt Secondlie that the fathers not one of them all applie this of Melchisedech to the Popish masse which was not hatched in the daies of the ancient fathers but is a latter birde of Antichrists brood Thirdly that none of the ancient fathers do prooue by this any real sacrifice of the Church wherein Christ is to be offered continuallie as the Papists doe most wickedlie and horriblie maintaine Lastlie the fathers onely meant to commend the excellency of the Lords supper which Christ instituted in bread and wine by this fact of Melchisedech that brought forth bread and wine as it were in these signes shadowing and figuring Christ vnto vs who long after appointed the same to be sacraments of his body and blood This was the cause why they so often alledge this example of Melchisedech as you may perceiue by Cyprian who saith In sacerdote Melchisedech sacrifice Dominici sacramentum praefiguratum videmus that is Cypr. ep 63. In Melchisedech the Priest we see the sacrament of the Lords sacrifice prefigured Thus Cyprian writeth in the same epistle that you alledge here by whose wordes you maie learne to what purpose the fathers applied that of Melchisedech farre otherwise then you doe And in that Cyprian calleth bread and wine his bodie and blood therein is no difficultie meaning sacraments of his bodie and blood As for the new oblation that Irenaeus speaketh of Iren. li. 4. c. 32. it is the praiers and almes of the faithfull which they offer vnto God in the celebration of the Lords supper which is so far from your sacrifice that you maie as soone make the north and south pole meete togeather as this testimonie of Irenaeus with your idoll of the Masse In that you beare your reader in hand I haue dissented from Caluin and the Protestants that argueth
and detestable in the eies of the God of heauen This therefore is a sure reason and shal stand against the gates of hell and force of all papistes that Christ is a Priest for euer and hath an euerlasting Priesthood Therefore he is the onely Priest of the new Testament and his Priesthood is not communicated to anie other and so your priestes are no priests your sacrifice is no sacrifice your Religion is no Religion your Christ is no Christ your God is no God Depart from them whosoeuer will not be partakers of their condemnation To shew this reason to be childish Pag. 76. you haue brought indeed a childish exception Christ is you saie a true man for euer a king for euer our doctor master and teacher for euer yet are there many men kings doctors teachers besides Christ. An obiection of M.R. answered This man is suddenlie so drowned in the dreggs of poperie that he hath lost all taste and sense of trueth for els he would haue bene ashamed of such an answere which nothing cōmeth neare the matter We speake of those offices which Christ was apointed to beare by the annointing of the holie ghost and special commission from God you bring instance of things that be of an other condition and nature as to be a true man an earthlie King an outward minister of the word such like Christ is our onelie king Prophet and Priest so that in this sense in which these are giuen to him none can be King Prophet or Priest but he For he onelie is our spiritual King he onely is our teacher and author of all heauenlie doctrine he onelie can offer the sacrifice propitiatorie for the sinnes of the world If you thinke anie can be a King or Prophet in this manner but onelie he you take his honour from him and giue it to an other to whome it doth not appertaine which you do indede most notably in sesing your selues vpon his Priesthood which doth as truelie belong to him alone as the other of his Kingdome and Prophecie do Now then weigh with your selfe what a witles obiection you haue made and if you can bring no better defense for your Priestes then your haue hetherto done you haue good cause to be sorie and ashamed that euer you changed your copie and of a minister of the Gospel became a priest of the popish order God giue you grace to repent that the fruite of Christes priesthood maie not be denied vnto you another daie That which followeth is but a supplie of superfluous wordes without wit without learning without trueth The comparison you make betwene an earthly prince and Christ doth nothing fit your purpose For if you haue as lawfull authoritie vnder Christ to exercise a priesthood as the ciuil gouernours haue vnder their prince to execute their office laid vpon them then shew your commission and we require no more For as no man dare presume in the affaires of the state to commaund or enterprise anie thing in the princes name without a sufficient warrant from the prince so maie no man take vpon him anie ecclesiasticall function in the Church vlnes he haue a commaundement from the Lord. But Christ neuer gaue you anie such commaundement he neuer laid vpon you any such office he neuer called you to this honour to be his fellow priestes els bring vs your Charter that we maie se it and shew vs your letters of orders that we may trie them And further you are to consider that although the prince bestow offices preferments vpon his subiects as pleaseth him yet his Regalities he keepeth to himselfe and no subiect wil presume to chalenge them Pharao gaue Ioseph as great authoritie as anie princes vse to giue anie of their seruants yet the chaire of estate he kept to himselfe therin he was aboue him But you moste rudelie and arrogantlie intrude your selues into Christs seate and will not onelie be his vicepriests but as good priests as he ioined in the same commission with him according to the same order of Melchisedech that he was of so you are not content with such offices as he hath appointed vnto you but you claime his chiefest principalities which is no lesse a fault then high treason against the hiest maiesty M. Rain maketh an end of this treatise with an other foolish cauil taken out of the communion booke wherein he saith commission is giuen in some cases to the minister to remitt sinnes whie saie you in some cases The Minister of God hath power to forgiue sinnes not in some cases onelie but in all whatsoeuer if the sinner repent beleeue the gospell This authoritie is giuen vnto him by Christ this the parlament communion booke confesse this the ministers daylie practise amongst vs. Neuertheles you are still as farre from your purpose as before For this maketh not our ministers to be priests but preachers of repentance which bring the glad tidings of the gospell to all those that be heauie laden and desire to be refreshed Neither haue they power themselues to forgiue sinnes Mar. 2.7 for God onelie forgiueth sinnes but hauing the word of reconciliation committed vnto them from God they offer pardon and in his name pronounce pardon to the sinner that turneth from his sinnes vnto the Lord. If you know this why striue you against a knowen confessed truth If you be ignorant what commission the ministers haue receiued of Christ then be content to learn it out of the word of god As for your priests you haue alleadged nothing to prooue their calling and authoritie lawfull and I haue shewed that the scriptures giuing all priesthood after Melchis order to Christ onelie haue wrung in sunder the necks of your popish sacrificers and therefore it is the duetie of all Christians whose saluation consisteth in the sacrifice priesthood of Christ to thinke of you as you are indeed enemies of Christ Baalites idolatrous Antichristian Priestes whose punishment shal be with the Beast in the lake that burneth with fire brimstone for euer The Lord open the eies of his people that they may see your wickednes and beware of you least they be in wrapped in the same condemnation with you CHAP. 5. Of penance and the value of good workes touching iustification and life eternall IN the beginning of this Chapter M. Rainolds chafeth and laieth about him on euery side Pag. 82. c. striking now at one man now at another sometime this waie sometime that as though he were suddenly fallen into some maladie great distemperature in his head The occasion riseth vpon my words in saying our aduersaries doctrine cannot stand vnlesse we will alow for good those thinges that in the writings of the fathers are moste faultie And whoe knoweth not if he haue read any thing in the fathers The Popish religion gathered of the corruptions of fathers former times but that the popish religion for the moste part is
92. Satisfaction for sinnes wrought onely by the sacrifice of Christs death is grounded vpon the rock that neuer can be shaken euen the word of god that abideth for euer For as the redemption of mankinde is to be ascribed onelie to the sacrifice of Christes death and cannot without singular blasphemie be assigned to anie other thing so likewise is the satisfaction for sinne appropriated to the same sacrifice of Christ cannot without like blasphemie be giuen to any workes of man how excellent soeuer You make it a small matter to satisfie for sinne that teach it is in the power of man by his owne paines and penance to appease the wrath of God wherby it plainly appeareth you neither know the grieuousnes of sinne nor the iustice of god that requireth a greater punishment for sin then any man is able to suffer yea you charge the Lord himself with iniustice in that hauing laid the guiltines of our sins vpon his sonne and punished them al in him is not content with that punishment satisfaction If we do satisfie for our sinnes then hath not Christ satisfied for them but exacteth of vs a further paiment and satisfaction for the sinnes for which Christ hath once sufficientlie satisfied alreadie The prophet saith He is punished for our transgressions Esai 53.5 he is bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace is layde vpon him by his stripes are we healed And immediatlie againe he repeateth the same and sayth The Lord maketh the punishment of vs al to light vpon him Veâ— 7. 1. Ioh. 1.7 The Apostle Iohn saith The blood of Iesus Christ doth purge you from all sâ—â—ne Apoc. 1.5 And in his reuelation he saieth that Christ hath washed vs from our sins in his blood Thus are we taught in the scriptures of God to beleeue that our sinnes are forgiuen and we reconciled to God not for anie thing that we can worke or suffer but onelie for the death blood-sheading of Christ So all your satisfactions are hanged vpon the hedge and serue for nothing els but to plunge you deeper into the pitte of condemnation which you shall neuer escape so long as you trust to anie satisfaction but onelie of Christ As for your Tridentine councell which you alleadge it is but a bable A childe may soone espie the vanitie and falshood of this diuinitie that you deliuer vs here by warrant of that Councell Concil Trident sess 14. ca. 8. This it is The satisfaction which we vndertake for our sinnes is ours but yet by Christ Iesus which in effect is all one as if they had said that Christ him selfe hath not satisfied for our sinnes at all but onelie hath purchased to vs a facultie and habilitie euerie man to satisie for his owne sinnes The scriptures teach that Christ himselfe hath satiâ—fied for our sinnes 1. Pet 2.24 This is the mysterie of your satisfactions a mysterie of great impietie For the scriptures teach the cleane contrarie S. Peter saith that Christ hath borne our sins in his bodie vpon the crosse And how hath he borne them if he hath not satisfied for them did he take them vpon himselfe to returne them back to vs againe or did he not perhaps fullie satisfie for them Tell vs then how farre Christ hath satisfied and how much remaineth for vs to satisfie that we maie know how to deuide aright the satisfaction betweene Christ and vs. But accursed for euer be they that deny the satisfaction of Christe to be most perfecte and will supplie it by their owne diligence and labour Christ hath perfectlie redeemed vs therefore Christ hath perfectlie satisfied for vs. The work of Christs redemption is our satisfaction For this redemption consisteth in fully satisfying the warth of God against sinne Neither is it possible for any to satisfie for sinne but a redeemer onely For this cause was the name of Iesus giuen to our Redeemer because he saueth vs from our sinnes Matth. 1.21 And how is this saluation wrought 2. Cor. 5.21 In that he became man for vs that is our sinnes were imputed to him Heb. 10.14 and he made a sacrifice for them and by this one oblation hath consecrated for euer those that are sanctified Then is there left to vs no parte of satisfaction but when soeuer we repent of our sinnes and beleeue in the satisfaction of Iesus Christ we are clerelie acquitted of all our offenses for the merit of that perfect sacrifice which Christ offered for vs. If you denie this thinke of your selfe as you liste you haue no more parte in Iesus Christ then hath an Infidel That you rehearse out of Brentius pag. 93.9.4 and Andreas Fricius is idle and serueth onely for stuffing Brentius saith truelie we must not onelie take awaie nothing from Christ that belongeth vnto him but not giue him more then the scriptures haue taught to be due vnto him For he is iniuried and dishonoured both waies neuertheles this that you will seeme to giue him more then we is by no means to be accepted for so much as it taketh from him a thousand times more then it can pretend to bestowe vpon him For in ascribing that vertue to the sacrifice of Christ to make our workes of force to satisfie for our selues you pull awaie from it violentlie that full and perfect power of satisfying once for all of it selfe which doth truelie and properlie belong vnto it so herein you may well be compared to those wicked Iewes that made cursie to our Sauiour Christ and yet did buffet him on the face with their fists Andreas Fricius if he haue anie priuat opinion of his owne let him take it to him selfe he may not obtrude it vpon the Church without warrant of Gods word And yet out of his wordes by you rehearsed what can you gather seruing for proofe of mans merits or satisfactions What your opinion and iudgement is Pag 95 c. M. Rainolds of my learning and writings I trust you thinke I make no great account Verilie among the wholl rable of popish proctors there is none that I haue read of lesse wit and learning then your selfe What account your fellowes make of you I cannot report but if they esteeme you for one of their worthies you are more beholding to them then you haue deserued of them For alas what haue you brought thâ— in truth is worthie answere what haue you said wherein appeereth any learning more then moste common what cause haue you thus to bragge in your selfe thus to contemne others God giue you grace to see to know to examine your selfe that you maie perceiue your owne weakenes and pouertie If I should boaste of my selfe mine owne tongue would condemne me this childish profane manner I leaue to you and your companions who hunte so greedelie for the praise of learning that you despise the simplicitie of Gods trueth and Gospell Yet there is none of vs how
faith If you doe not you are to blame to charge me with ignorance of that which your selfe do not vnderstand Iustification by faith onely excludeth not necessary dueties of Christian obedience if you doe then can you not but plainlie perceiue that the doctrine of necessarie suffering with Christ is not anie waie contrary to the Doctrine of our iustifying by faith onelie Although we trulie teach that onelie faith doth iustifie because it is the onlie instrument by which we take holde vpon Iesus Christ and so are iustified yet we teach that iustifiing faith can neuer lacke good workes and hereof it followeth that whosoeuer hath faith must also bring forth the fruites of faith which are good workes that necessarilie therby to declare and testifie his faith as the Apostle Saint Iames doth fullie prooue This necessarie coniunction of workes and faith the effect and the cause doth not disprooue but that our apprehension of Christ is to be attributed to onelie faith Faithe although it neuer be alone yet it apprehendeth Christ iustifieth alone as the beholding of the light is the onely proper function of the eie although the facultie of seeing cannot be deuided from the sense of feeling Yet no man will saie that we perceiue the brightnes of the sunne by our feeling but by our seeing onelie So though our faith can neuer be alone but is alwaies fruitfull of good workes yet it onelie doth iustifye and not good workes in that it onelie laieth holde vpon Christ our righteousnes You haue a weake head Master Rainolds if you stagger at this But blessed be God that striketh his enimies thus with giddines To like purpose serueth that you alledge out of Illyricus and others concerning the controuersy whether good workes are necessarie to saluation There is none so ignorant but knoweth the iudgement and resolution of the Church And although Illyricus be earnest How good workes are necessary not as causes of saluation but as effectes of a iustifiyng faith saieth they are no way necessarie to saluation yet he confesseth a faithfull man must needs doe them as duties necessarilie required by the Lord not that they are anie waies the cause or merite of saluation If you vnderstand the proposition thus then in this sense they are not necessarie for then should they derogate from the merites of Christ But as effectes of faith and iustification so are they necessarie and this doctrine as it is true so is it far from all papistrie For papistes teach that workes are efficient causes of their saluation and that is moste false and iniurious to the blood of Christ Christians holde that good workes are necessarie fruites of faith and that those who are iustified and reconciled with God must walke before him in new obedience and serue him in righteousnes and holines all their daies You wish I were a Papist for mine owne sake and for your sake againe I wish that you were none Which of these wishes is better the day of the Lord shall make manifest In the meane time enioye that happines which you haue purchased by your falling from vs or rather from Christ I will be no companion of your Apostasie CHAP. 6. Of reproouing the auncient fathers for their doctrine touching good workes IF wrangling were anie waies to be commended in these great and waightie controuersies of Religion Pag. 114. c. then had Master Rainolds deserued praise and thanks for his paines in this behalfe But as in all debating and triall of truth it is acounted an vnhonest part to deuise false shifts for maintenance of vntrueth The fathers in their writings haue sundry weeds growing with the good corne so in matters of Gods worship and Religion to vse craftie cauillation is a most wicked and damnable practise The auncient fathers holding the ground and foundation of doctrine did oftentimes builde thereon stubble and strawe partlie by some superstitious opinions which themselues conceiued of such inuentions and partlie by the sway and violence of custome whereby they were caried to a liking of those things which they saw commended and practised by others And yet God forbid that because of some errours which they held we should raze their names out of the Calender of Gods Saintes or thinke otherwise then reuerentlie of them Among other infections that raigned in the fathers daies this was not the leaste that they hoped in some sort to make some parte of amendes to God for their sinnes by voluntarie punishments which they sustained in this life Whereof although by a consequent it followeth that they did iniurie to the satisfaction of Christes death yet they meant not directlie to take anie thing from it but trusted by it onelie to be iustified and saued Neuertheles being ledd by a likelie and probable persuasion of mans witt that God would spare them if they punished them selues they trusted by this meanes to make some recompense for their offenses and therefore suffered much hardnes trauaile and penaltie in the course of their life which if they had done simplie with desire and purpose thereby to make themselues fitter for the seruice of God it had bene a godly and profitable endeuour And this no Protestāt misliketh seeing the Apostie hath taught that it is expedient for all Christians to beat downe and subdue their owne bodies 1. Cor. 9.26 But to put anie confidence of appeasing Gods wrath in these actions deuised by them selues cannot be excused in anie whosoeuer Howbeit I would not any should thinke that when the Fathers speake so often of Satisfaction and Penance Satisfactions not alwaies meant in respect of God they meane allwaies a satisfaction vnto God for sinne as the Papists doe For those satisfactions were nothing els for the most parte but penalties appointed by the Church for such to endure as had by some open falling into greater transgression giuen a publike offense to the Church of Christ Such were brought vnder penance by the censure discipline of the Church which when they had accrodinglie performed in token of their vnfained repentance then were they receiued againe into the companie of the faithfull and then was satisfaction made namelie in respect of the Church Of these Ecclesiasticall satisfactions we reade often in the fathers and councels but hereby is not meant that by these they purchased remission of their sinnes at the hands of God And yet I denie not but manie did put too great superstition in these outward exercises trusting something thereby to finde fauour with God the rather for their harde vsage of themselues Which though it be an error yet were they notwithstanding good men and holie fathers as I called them In which respect when you labour and spend much of your oyle to prooue me contrarie to my selfe you may see what a trifler you are and how vnworthie of answere Were not the Apostles holie men Holy mē may haue had their errors and that in weighty
had recourse to the Greeke copies and haue prescribed the same rule to be followed continuallie and Saint Hierome himselfe reformed the latin translations according to the Greeke then extant read in the Greeke Churches Thus then you maie perceaue that to be constant in the profession of Gods trueth and to be carefull to keepe the text of scripture from corruption are two diuerse things which you might haue soone considered if you had but looked backe to that your selfe haue written before For these are euen the same Grecians whose exemplars Saint Ierome followed in correcting the Euangelists and which he calleth waters of the moste pure fountaine and sundrie wise commendeth Hieron Marcellae For proofe that the Hebrew fountaines are by the Iewes corrupted pag. 303. c. you bring vs forth a place out of the prophet Esaie Chap. 9. First in that I say the Iewes haue not corrupted the hebrew text I say no other thing then that which the moste learned Papists of all times haue affirmed M.R. in this controuersie hath his master papists aduersaries to him namelie Isaac Clarius Valla Andradius Montanus Lucas Bellarmine and manie moe and that by the same argument which my selfe vsed that then this corruption moste certainelie would haue appeared in those places that directlie concerne our Sauiour Christ amongst the which this that you mention here is notable And although I wil not deny but that the Iewes might haue some purpose to wrest it from the sense that it might be aplied to any rather then to Christ yet the corruption is not so greate as you would haue it seeme consisting not in change of any letter but only of the pointes The letters remaining without alteration whatsoeuer is amisse in the pointes may easilie be corrected Furthermore if we reade the word with the same pointes which now it commonly hath in the Hebrew Bibles whereby the verbópassiue is turned into an actiue yet the place notwithstanding prooueth inuinciblie the Diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ For as well doth it confirme this doctrine if we read Vajikrae vocabit that is God the father shall call his name wonderfull c as if we read Vajikkare vocabitur his name shall be called wonderfull Although you that take vpon you such profound knowledge and cunning in the Hebrew language should not haue beene ignorant that this is the phrase of that tongue That the Iewes refer the last name onely which is the Prince of peace Sar-shaelom to the Childe borne all the rest going before to God him selfe this I graunt to be a malitious construction of the wordes but no corruption of the text One thing is it to expound the wordes in a wronge sense an other to falsifie the wordes You hoped no doubte to haue gained much more by this place then will any waies be yelded vnto you for that you adde of the Churches authoritie which you call the supreame grounde and stay is nothing worth being an olde worne and wasted sentence brought in rashelie without credite or countenaunce The wordes are plaine of them-selues and haue in them authoritie and stay sufficient to prooue the trueth of Christs diuinitie and to confute the enemies thereof An other such place you obiecte out of the Prophet Ieremie pag. 306. Chap. 23. v. 6. wherein that some corruption hath bene committed either in letter or poynt may be imagined but cannot by euident demonstration be prooued ijcro What mooued S. Ierome to translate thus vocabunt eum They shall call him I will not dispute The reason might be in the variety and incertentie of poynts or in the ambiguous acception of the word But because M. Rainolds chargeth the Iewes with so foule a corruption of this place only to discredite the diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ he must remember that the Seuentie interpreters translated it in the singular number according to the Hebrewe now extant In comment ad Hier. ca. 23. as S. Ierom also maketh mention yet were they neuer chalenged for partial interpretation of the scriptures being as many write wonderfullie assisted gouerned in that work and not smallie had of auncient time in regard And this was long before our sauiour Christ was come in the flesh and therefore vndoubtedlie the place was not corrupted by the Iewes for such a cause as you imagine vnlesse you will saie the Iewes in hatred of Christ corrupted the Bible diuerse hundred yeares before Christ was borne and before they had cause to conceiue any malice or displeasure against our sauiour Christ And so your Lyranes surmise is plainelie disprooued in which you rest your selfe as in a certaine veritie and vpon his worde are boulde to pronounce sentence against the poore Iewes for committing a crime which by cleare euidence of greater authoritie they are not guilty of Neither maketh it lesse for Christs diuinitie to read it vocabit He shall cal him that is God the father or euerie faithful man shal call him The Lord our righteousnes then if we reade vocabunt They shall call him the Lord our righteousnes And Saint Hierome as you might haue seene had you looked on the place your selfe translateth the text after this manner Et hoc est nomen quo vocabunt eum sine vocabit eum Dominus iustus noster wherein he sheweth plainelie there is no substance of matter more in the one then the other If this be so shameful so notable a corruption as you in countenaunce and shew pretende S. Hierome was greatly ouerseene that not onelie gaue no warning thereof in his Commentarie but vsed the same also in the text it selfe But what wil you say to those learned men whoe hauing more skill in the Hebrew tongue then you Master Rainolds or els your Lyra thoug a Iewe borne haue translated the word as it is now read in the hebrew Bibles no otherwise then your selues would haue it to be translated I meane Arias Montanus and Vatablus as in their translations you may finde whoe if they haue rightelie and well translated the worde then may you see that no such wickednesse hath bene practized in this place as you haue fathered vpō the Iewes And furthermore compare an other like place in the same Prophet Chap. 33. v. 15. Where this worde is vsed in the singular number without controuersie the Prophet speaking againe of the same matter and almoste whollie in the same wordes Thus you may vnderstand that the integritie of this place may be auouched and the Iewes deliuered from your vniust accusation many waies One example more you giue mean an other kinde Pag. 310. wherein no kinde of corruption appeereth at all In the Prophet Esay chap. 53. vers 8. the old latine translation standeth thus propter scelus populi mei percussi eum For the sinne of my people haue I smitten him The Hebrew text is something otherwise Miphshahh 〈◊〉 mi negahh lamo propter defectionem populi
mei plaga ipsi that is For the transgression of my people was he plagued Your selfe confesse there is agreement in the sense as indeed euerie one maie see yet by and by as a man without memorie or reason you saie the sense is inuerted greatlie altered Something would you gladlie saie but nothing to purpose can you saie The sense in the Hebrew now extant agreeing so fullie with the translation of S. Ierome which you hold as authenticall and consonant to the veritie of the auncient Hebrew Bibles how can you probablie charge the Iewes with corruption of this place there being no difference and therefore no corruption in the sense by your owne confession If they corrupted the text it was because they would corrupt the sense but here the sense runneth as pure and clear in the Hebrew as in the Latine therefore this text is not corrupted by the Iewes What Luther hath written of the Iewes and Rabbines endeauour in this behalfe maketh nothing for your aduantage Yet as though it had bene by plaine demonstration declared that the bibles are corrupted by them M.R. taketh vpon him now to shew the sorts and manners of their corruption And two he noteth Pag. 314. the first is by plaine alteration of points letters and syllables the second by deuiding words which by the Prophets were ioyned together And that you maie knowe he hath plentifull store and varietie of examples Sernetus is alledged neither Iewe nor Rabbine whoe by diuiding a texte of the Apostle in the Greeke corrupted the sense Thus trimlie can M. R. prooue the matter he goeth about although he speake neuer a word to the question The controuersie is whether the Iewes haue thus corrupted the Hebrew Bibles M.R. alledgeth an example wherein Seruetus of late thus corrupteth the Greek Testament No man now can saie but he hath wel performed his parte prooued inuincibly both manifest corruption in the Bibles and shewed also the manners thereof More perhaps anon will come to his hands for as yet nothing hath he found pag. 316. * M.R. saith he could note sundrie other particular errors in the Hebrew but that he wanteth a peece of that insolent vaine which manie of his aduersaries haue If he wanted nothing els he need not greatlie to complaine but doubtles much greater want hath he of truth and learning then insolencie One thing here he confesseth which the Reader maie remember M. Rain hath made a notable confession against himselfe that howsoeuer some grosse errors haue crept into the fountaines and originals yet commonlie and for the most parte the text is true and sincere Thus M.R. hath voluntarilie protested for the Hebrewe and Greeke text And are there no grosse errors in your latine translation or not so manie as in the fountaines it shall be prooued there are not onelie grosser faults in yoâ—â— translation but also moe manifest corruptions then you can imagine in the text In that you demaund pag 317. what reason I haue to thinke the Hebrew text so pure I answere the care which God hath for the truth of his worde and the diligence of them to whose custodie the same was committed Against this reason you argue but without a good argument That diuerse bookes of scripture haue perished is not denied But the Canon of scripture being after the captiuitie gathered by Ezra and other Prophets and deliuered to the Church that since that time anie parcell hath bene lost you cannot prooue And those that are lost of which you recken some in some you are deceiued they are wanting without anie losse or decaie of necessarie doctrine for the Church in those times wherein they were not extant And that the Iewes haue bene more diligent to keepe their Bibles from corruption then Christians haue bene to keepe their translations sincere who can doubt considering that in S. Ieromes daies the common translations were moste faultie as himselfe is a witnesse but the Hebrew text remained true sincere incorrupt and was a rule to follow in reforming the translations vsed in the Church And your selfe euen now confessed of your owne good accord that the Hebrewe text was for the moste parte and commonlie voide of all corruption which being true sheweth a wonderfull prouidence of the Lord watching ouer the bookes of his heauenlie word to defend them from such infections as otherwise through negligence and malice of men they were subiect vnto Now if the Iewes were either so negligent or so malitious as you imagine and the Christians so carefull for preseruation of the Bible how then came it to passe that in the Hebrew copies was found so great truth sinceritie in the common translations such notorious errors corruptions Andrad Defens Concil Trident. lib. 4. and that for so many hundred yeares after Christ Andradius a doctor of your owne schools a great master in your Romane synagogue hath tolde you alreadie that you haue herein vnaduisedlie foolishlie deemed that therfore more credit is to be giuen to the latin edition then to the Hebrewe bookes for that these were corrupted through the treacherie of the Iewes saith you cannot either note the time or describe the authors of that hainous fact or assigne the place or shew such other circumstances which might conuict the Iewes of this sacrilege that therfore the whol matter hangeth vpon bare suspicioÌ„ for which we ought not to charge in this manner the holie bookes of the hebrewes so auncient so commended by our elders so renoumed by testimonies of al ages pag. 320. The likenes of some Hebrew letters betweene themselues hath beene a cause I graunt of some corruption in the Bible but that not greate and such as hath hapned of negligence rather then purpose and may easelie both be espied and amended and nothing so grosse or common as in your latine Bibles may be seen Is it reason thinke you that for as much as some letters haue bene mistaken in the Hebrew therefore the wholl text should be condemned Is there not such mistaking of letter for letter word for word in the latine vulgare translation who knoweth not there is shall we then vse your argument against the translation which you haue deuised against the fountaine There is no reason to the contrarie For if diligence hath bene bestowed in purging and reforming such errors of the translation More reason had it bene for the Councel of Trent to haue taken order that the fountaines might be clensed if there be in them anie fault then the latine translation why may not the same be done in restoring the originall text to the naturall truth and sinceritie The errors rising vpon the similitude of letters and words may in the Hebrew as wel as any other language be corrected That in these examples by you alledged out of the Psalmes 100. v. 3. 59. v. 10. any such errour of mistaking hath bene committed in the text would haue bene by
you more substantially prooued For my part I thinke not and so do the best Hebricians that I haue read both protestants papists The text in the hebrew is easie enough and yealdeth a true and godlie sense Your last example Gen. 3. v. 15. prooueth no error in the Hebrew but onelie in your latine translation The Hebrewe in all the copies olde and new vnles one wilfullie corrupted by Guido Fabricius hath one reading whereby a comfortable promisse is set forth that the womans seed shal bruse the serpents head your translation containeth grosse impiety blasphemie referring that moste excellent worke to the woman which onelie appertaineth to the seed of the woman About this you saie the Protestants keepe a sturre And cause I thinke M.R. is angry with vs for making sturr about the chiefe promises of our redemption Such regarde haue the papists either of their owne or of our saluation wherefore some sturre should be kepte vnles it be no matter if whatsoeuer belongeth vnto our sauiour Christ were applied to the blessed virgine his mother as in this place moste horriblie and in the Psalmes alreadie hath bene notoriouslie performed by you in token of your great loue to our Ladie but small regarde of our Lorde That we haue charged the Apostle with anie error is a bolde manifest vntruth Pag. 324. Betweene the Apostles citation 1. Cor. 2. v. 9. the Prophet Esayes authoritie Chap. 64. v. 4. there is some diuersity in one word The Prophet hath expectanti ipsum to him that waiteth for him the Apostle diligentib ipsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them that loue him Which diuersitie came not through ouersight or error in the Apostle but either that the Apostle followed the common reading of the Greeke or as his manner for the moste part is did take the sense not tying himself to the words For they that loue God are such only such as waite for him and this waiting for god ariseth of the loue of God You think the Apostle Prophet in these words declared the vnspeakeable ioyes of heauen which are prepared for the children of God and therefore you frame an argumente against iustification by faith Proude blasphemies vttered by M.R. against Gods word which you in your accustomed spirit of blasphemie call our mathematicall solifidian fansie because the Apostle writeth that God hath prepared so great things for those that loue him By the things which the eie hath not seene the eare not heard the heart not conceiued is meant the doctrine and mysteries of the gospell which the Lord hath reueiled to such as waite for him or loue him And to let you expound the wordes according to your owne sense doth this make any thing against the doctrine of iustification by faith onelie that God prepareth euerlasting inexplicable ioies for those that loue him For whome should they be prepared but for such as indeed loue him But is our loue worthie that rewarde Is it giuen to such as loue him in respect and for the merit of their loue This must you prooue if you will refell our doctrine in this behalfe But this was no matter to be handled in this place It was a poore glance and did no harme Here M.R. bringeth in a troupe of authorities together pag. 326. c. to prooue that false which I haue said and all true that he saith long sentences are translated out of Castalion D. Humfraie Pelicane and Munster wherby howsoeuer it fareth with his cause the volume of his booke is well increased For whereto serue these testimonies alledged That through negligence or ignorance of the writers printers some faultes may be found in the Hebrew Bibles I thinke there be none that wil denie but what makeh al this to purpose seeing there be a thousand times moe such faults in your translations then can be found in the fountaines your long speaches and discourses either in other mens words or in your owne when they come to scanning are short enough and therefore may in a short answere be discharged Your comparison of Iewes and Protestants in rayling at the Pope and Romane Church I passe ouer Two examples Master Rainolds willeth me to consider pag. 332. One the greate diuersitie of reading That in the text is such diuersity I deny The Iewes may perhaps in their Commentaries be of diuerse opinions touching the reading but in the text litle or no diuersitie shall you finde in so much that Ioannes Isaac affirmeth Lib. 2 pag. 69. there is soe great consent and agreement in the Bibles that no booke of the bible can be shewed written with the hand of a Iewe which either hath any thing that others want or wanteth any thing that others haue This may plainelie argue an exceading care to keepe their Bibles from all manner of corruption althoughe this that he writeth may almoste seeme incredible An other experiment is that the Hebrewe printes want something now which certainelie was in the first originals Example hereof you bring the psalme 144. Which being made according to the Hebrew Alphabete as diuerse other are one verse is wanting wholly therein the 14. in number which should beginne with Nun. What cause there was of omitting this Acrostiche I will not take vpon me to vnderstand It is not of later times corrupted seeing the Chaldee hath not that verse And as it is now in the Hebrewe so was it in Saint Ieromes time and before when the Hebrewe Bibles were accounted most pure and yet then in the Latine psalter a verse was supplied So that howsoeuer the matter stande this prooueth not the translation to be of greater puritie and credit then the fountaine Cause there was doubtles why the Prophet left out the order of the letter but whether such as the Rabbines and Talmudâ—sts haue deuised I cannot affirme The like example haue you in the. 36. Psalme of your edition which being made after the same manner of the Hebrew Alphabet you haue not in it the letter Am. Reasons thereof are alledged both by Iewes and learned Papists but the place for all that they thinke not to be corrupted as you peraduenture will rashlie pronounce As for that in the Greeke and Latine of this Psalme there is a verse answerable the first word whereof in Hebrew beginneth with Nun Nasman Fidelis Dominus c. this prooueth not the fountaine to be corrupte or vnperfecte but the Septuagintes finding no verse for the letter Nun and thinking perhaps there was some want repeated the. 17. verse following the first onely being changed For this verse supplied by them and the other following is al one excepting onely the first worde It seemeth not that the Prophet was altogeather so curious to keepe the order of letters that if any be wanting in a Psalme of that kinde we ought therefore to suspecte corruption in the Hebrew In the Psalme 25. no verse beginneth with Vau and two beginne with Resh
in the verie conclusion Eccle. 12.14 God will bring euerie worke into iudgement with euerie hidden thing whether it be good or euill your translation goeth something wide from this true sense and telleth vs that God will bring into iudgement all thinges that are done for euerie error Pro omni errato Cant. 1.2 4.10 Cant. 2.17 be it good or euill In the booke of Canticles by mistaking an hebrew word your translator hath put thy pâ—ppes for thy Loue diuerse times In the 2. Chapter for Bether is put Bethel and so still is it standing in your text and of long hath stood as appeereth by Gregory S. Bernard yet is it a plaine corruption in the iudgement of al that can iudge anie thing insomuch as Genebrard hath not feared to make a chaunge of the wordes euen in the text it selfe which he hath printed with his annotations In the 4. Chapter in steede of these wordes betweene thy looks Cant. 4.1 your translation hath farre otherwise absque eo quod intrinsecus latet torque crine besides that which lieth hidde inwardlie and afterward for one chaine of thy neck it hath one heare of thy neck All this perhaps in your iudgement seemeth little who haue learned more highlie to esteeme the word of your Pope then of God and therfore so your Pope may gaine something or loose nothing you care not how corruptlie or sincerelie Gods word be red and set forth amongst you But they that consider how holie and precious a thing the word of God is and what charge the Lord hath giuen to keepe it faithfullie must needes confesse that these are indeed grosse corruptions and ought with all diligence to be searched and remooued out of the Scriptures The bookes of the holie Prophets allthough they are not so generallie and foulie defaced as some other Scriptures by this corrupt kinde of translating and by such faultes as haue since the translation growen by sundrie meanes yet are they not in your vulgar edition so incorrupt and sincere as they ought to be seeing they maie by the authenticall text easilie be amended I might set downe sundrie proofes and testimonies of such imperfections as I haue now done in other books And it were a thing greatlie to be wished that some man of learning and iudgement would throughlie and perfectlie discouer the corruptions of this wholl translation whereby it would fullie appeere what shame or trueth there is in the Church of Rome to prefer it before the faithfull originall bookes of holie scripture as it doth now in parte appeere by this that hath bene before alledged I verelie am afraid lest I haue alreadie wearied the reader with multitude of examples and the thing which I tooke in hand to prooue I haue not onelie in this treatise sufficientlie but also moste plentifullie performed The translation of the new testament is something more tolerable in respect then of the old Yet he that will looke narrowly into the same shall finde cause and matter enough of complaint against either the ignorance or negligence or malice of some by whose fault it hath bene noe better preserued in that holie purenes and integritie which the word of God doth require and especiallie this so singular a parte of his word Wherein alreadie both Valla and Faber and Erasmus and Beza and Camerarius and many mo haue laboured to shew the errors of that translation for which their paines as they haue deserued great thankes of all the godlie soe haue they receaued much hatred and discurtesie at the aduersaries hands For auoiding tedious length more then were in this answere conuenient I referr the readers for the new testament to those learned writers by perusing of whome and of that which I haue gathered here together and thus particularlie noted he shal manifestlie perceiue that in the Romish vulgar translation are manifold and almoste infinite faults of all sortes by adding by omitting by mistaking of letters pointes syllables and wordes by wronge interpreting the originall texte Which faultes they shal neuer be hable to approoue or iustifie though they weary themselues neuer so much with traueling and toyling and seeking some defense When they haue saide what they can say for maintenance of these corruptions it shall for all that still appeere by all learning and true euidence of reason that they haue neither the olde nor newe Testament in the entire and originall trueth thereof CHAp 13. Of the new Testament in latine and a comparison of the vulgar translator with all other of this age NOw M. R. beginneth to declame against pag. 361. the newe Testament in Greeke as he hath in the former Chapter done against the old Testament in Hebrew Wherein how vnlearnedlie and vnworthelie he hath behaued him-selfe the wise reader may perceiue by that which hath beene answered to his particular reprehensions And as no cause can be alledged to preferre the latine translation of the old Testament before the Hebrew fountaine so no lesse absurd and vnreasonable is it to leaue the Greeke and follow the vulgare translation in the new testament Their chiefest reason of greatest shew and likelyhood against the Hebrew text is the malice and impietie of the Iewes whoe being enimies of Christian religion may therefore be thought to haue in many places corrupted their bibles of purpose to disgrace and discredite the Gospell of Christ But as this is prooued moste vntrue so being graunted for true it can be no reason against the Greeke testament which euer since the writing and first publishing thereof remained in the custodie and handling of most godlie fathers Churches and Countries who had as great skill and care to preserue it from corruption as had the latins to kepe their translations pure and sincere Then what reason can you bring or what colour of reason can you pretend in the new testament to cleaue onelie to the latine and to reiecte the Greeke The latine you saie is purer then the Greeke So haue your fellowes of Rhemes indeede tolde vs and this they make their principall ground whereupon they haue bene bolde to followe the latine and not the Greeke in translating the new testament But what aduantage soeuer you thinke to make of this or any other such reason true it is and by triall so shall be found and hath heretofore by diuerse sufficientlie bene prooued that the latine translation of the new testament is more generallie notoriously corrupted then you shall euer be hable to auouch of the Greeke originall text That Beza writeth against Erasmus in commendation defense of the latine translation it is euident he meaneth not whollie to excuse it from corruption in all places but onelie in certaine which Erasmus found fault withall For otherwise Beza sheweth the vulgare translation to be full of corruptions as if you reade his annotations you may perceiue Wherefore this testimony of Beza serued your Remists to litle purpose but that they haue a sleight to
haue you more for the one then the other But your seconde reason is more absurde wherein you professe that although you had the true originals yet could you not make in these daies a better translation Wherefore could you not the thinge is not harde if you had simple and willing mindes But now may we see by this your protestation that whatsoeuer you speake against the corruption of the originall bookes in respecte where of you will seeme to preferre your common translation before them yet although you had as true originals as euer were or could be wished notwitstanding you woulde still make more account of your translation then of them That wherefoeuer we find faulte with your translation some one of our owne brethren standeth with you in defense of your translation is vntrue I haue shewed examples enowe of grosse and manifest corruptions in the translation of the olde testament which none our brethren as you call them euer went about to excuse Valla Erasmus Beza haue noted manie in your translation of the newe althoug I graunt that both Erasmus doth instlie reprooue Valla and Beza hath worthelie reprooued Erasmus in some places of their reprehensions And so maie it fall out to those that take paines in correcting a booke ful of corruptions as your latine translation is sometime to finde a fault where none is the latter corrector to dissent from the former Your Tridentine decree which you commend being set forth by so manie excellent godlie learned men as you saie were impietie to compare all the scattered synagogues of Lutherans with them hath bene tried and examined by more godlie and learned men then euer were in that synagogue assembled wherein neither godlines nor learning but Antichristian tyrannie preuailed One example I alledged of corruption in your latine Testament pag. 391. c. and that I might haue gathered manie moe is euident by that which hath bene declared before In the 1. Cor. 15. v. 54. these wordes are wanting in your translation when this corruptible hath put on incorruption which yet are found in all greeke copies now extant and were not onelie in the olde greeke testaments as appeereth by S. Chrysostome but also euen in the auncient latine translations thereof and that by your owne coâ—â—ession Hereunto you make long and friuolous answeres by distinctions of points First you saie there is no losse of anie parte of doctrine for the same thing is set downe in the next lines before A proper reason which giueth libertie to scrape out of the scriptures whatsoeuer is in other places repeated Secondlie you adde that some reason you haue to thinke that percel repeated not to be of the text As good haue you to thinke that these wordes when this mortall shall put on immortalitie are not of the text seing they are sett downe in the lines immediatlie going before Thirdlie that it was in some greeke copies as you reade Perhaps so but what then seing doubtles the moste and best read it other wise Fourthlie you thinke more reason to correct Chrysostome by Ierome then Ierome by Chrysostome Yet maie it seeme otherwise to indifferent men that Chrysostome and the Church of Constantinople had as true copies and as great varictie of bookes as Ierome could haue anie For where should Ierome seeke for true and faithfull copies of the new Testament but in the Greeke Church and in which more then in that and whoe liker to haue the truest then Chrysostome I think therefore no man of discretion can otherwise iudge but that it is much more likelie S. Chrysostomes reading to be true then S. Ieromes if they diffent especiallie other latine translations agreing wiht that text which S. Chrysostome followed And Saint Hierome manie times in his Epistles and treatisies reprehendeth the common latine reading The vulgare translation of the new testament reprooued indiuerse places by S. Ierome euen the same that is nowe currant in your latine testaments Whereby maie appeere that the same was not in his iugdement euerie where so entire as you affirme That Saint Chrysostome maketh against vs and approoueth your reading I wonder with what face you could auouch Let anie man read S. Chrysostome in Greeke and if he finde not the text in him set down as our Greeke testaments reade it both in the first and second place I am content to yeald the wholl to Master Rainolds And so likewise readeth Oecumenius this place I graunt S. Ambrose hath it onelie in the first place yet other latine fathers reade it according to the veritie of the Greeke as your selfe confesse which as much as I maintaine Fiftlie you thinke it enough for defense of your translation that the same wordes are added in the margent which is but a poore shift when you haue thrust the text of scripture out of his due and proper seate to giue it some roome in a corner And yet your English translation hath discharged it of that place also and wipte it cleane awaie both out of text and margent That not here onelie pag. 399. c. but in other manifolde places also you keepe the errors of the latine translation contrarie to the trueth of the Greeke copies is a thing that hath bene plentifullie prooued by manie and therefore to saie so was no bragge Aria Montanus how good a priest soeuer he be doubtles is not of your iudgement concerning the Hebrewe and greeke originals of scripture and therefore cannot alowe that wicked decree of the Tridentine Councell wherein the corrupt translation is confirmed and established for the Canonical word of God by general consent commaundement the true originall Canon of scriptures being there reiected and disgraced Now then whether in this and such other respects I had not iust cause to call you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iniurious to the Bible I referre to the iudgement of all godlie and wise readers For what greater iniurie or contumelie can be offered to the holie Bible then not onelie to approoue a translation that is full of corruptions in all partes thereof for the authenticall Bible and word of god but also to cast away the originall Bible it selfe as corrupte and to giue no further credit vnto it then it agreeth with your translation And therefore that you malitiouslie auouch of vs that we haue no Bibles maie moste truelie be saide of you that you haue willinglie refused the fountaines of Gods moste pure and blessed word and haue not amongst you in publike regarde and authoritie the true Bibles indeed which you haue wickedlie both contemned and condemned Your repetitions to the end of this Chapter full of outragious vntruthes and slaunders require no answere in this place you haue bene fullie answered before and the wholl world can testifie to Gods glorie and your confusion that not one tittle of Gods worde and scriptures is by vs denied CHAP. 14. Wherin Master R. laboreth to prooue that it is the verie waie to Atheisme and infidelitie
your other argument our of Luke 7. v. 47. of the woman to whom many sinnes were remitted it hath bene answered so fullie and truelie by sundry learned writers that I might whollie passe it ouer A chieâ—â— place of the papistes for merite of workes answere and expounded Onelie this in briefe I saie to stoppe your rayling mouth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because is often times vsed for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore that so in this place it must be of necessitie expounded may appeere by an inuincible reason which your selues cannot denie For that woman being so deeplie drowned in deadly sinne how could her loue deserue the grace of God and remission of her sins doth your scholasticall Theologie maintaine that a sinnefull creature lying in state of condemnation can by loue merit pardon of his sins Tel vs plainly if this be your doctrine your religion your diuinity If then this be moste false and impossible confesse that the loue of that sinnfull and miserable woman was not be cause of forgiuenes of her sinnes but the effecte following and not going before the same This doctrine is true and Catholike the contrarie wicked and hereticall and therefore no cause had you to raile so mightely at Beza and vs for translating expounding this word as we do as the proportion of faith circumstance of the place moste vndoubtedlie and necessarilie requireth For our sauiour Christ sheweth the cause of hir so great loue to be the forgiuenes of the great and manie sinnes They to whome litle is forgiuen loue a litle they to whome much is forgiuen loue much She had much forgiuen therefore she loued much And this the Fathers also acknowledge to be the true and naturall seuse of the place although you abuse their names to the contrarie S. Gregorie as he is also by Thomas alledged Grâ—g 〈◊〉 83. â—â— Luangell writeth thus The debt being forgiuen to both the Pharisie is demaunded who should more loue him that forgaue the debt You see that Gregorie expoundeth this of the loue that followed the forgiuenes of the dâ—bt And so likewise Saint Ambrose vpon this place Ambros is Luc. 7. Because saith he there is nothing which we can worthelie render vnto God woe be vnto me if I loue not I dare saie Peter rendered not and therefore he loued more c. Let vs therefore render loue for debt charitie for reward thankes for the prise of his bloode Thus Saint Ambrose planlie she weth that this loue in that woman did spring from remission of her sinnes Câ—nus l. 12. c. 12. as it must in vs also proceed from the same fountaine I could also put you in minde what Canus a schooleman of yours hath written of this place cleane ouerthrowing your opinion as if he had of purpose deuised a shift for you Notwithstanding that the fathers sometime write our sinnes are washed a waie by teares of repentaunce I graunte wherebie they meane no other thing but that by our earnest sorowe and repentance we receiue a sure testimonie to our soules of the remission of our sinnes Your discourse about Musculus exposition I pretermit with al your monstrous reproches blaspemies of Lucianical onely faith c. except the deuil him selfe stood by them and suggested to them such construction c. fitter for you to vtter then me to rehearse or answere pag. 428. This wholl matter againe M.R. laieth out in particular distinctions wherunto hath bene answered enough alreadle and more then nedd but onelie in respect of that intolerable and outragious Importunity which this cauiller hath vsed If this be an vnlawfull shift in expounding of scripture to trie and correct the translation according to the Hebrew and Greeke fountaines then haue all the auncient fathers of the Church exercized continuallie wicked shifts whoe both appeall them selues to the authenticall fountaines and counsell all others to doe the same far otherwise then your fathers of Treâ— haue done or will suffer others to doe whotie their faith wholly to a bare translation and giue no creditt to the Canonicall fountaines wherin they haue not only vse de damnable and miserable shift but at once haue rased out the wholl scriptures from beginning toending Grat. dist 9. vt veter S. Augustine saith the bookes of the olde Testament must be examined by the Hebrew and the new by the Greeke veritie Saint Ambrose saith Ambrosade incarn cap. 8. The authoritie of the Greeke bookes of the new Testament is greater S. Ierome is euery where of the same minde In the new Testament saith he if there arise anie question among the Latines Hier. ad sonn Fret and there be difference in the copies we repaire to the fountaines of the Greeke tongue wherein the new Testament was written and so likewise in the olde In his preface vpon the fiue bokes of Moses he esteemeth it an absurde and impossible thing that the latine copies should be purer then the Greeke and the Greeke then the Hebrew Againe in a nother place he saith if trueth is to be sought in a Euang. ad Damas whie reiurne we not to the Greeke orignal speaking of the new Testament And such sayings hath he manie alwaies preferring the Hebrew Greeke before al translations in the world But all this by M.R. simple verdite was but a shift in him and al the auncient learned godlie fathers For it is the high waie to Atheisme in his opinion to do as they did and as they haue also taught vs to doe Zuinglius exposition of loue for faith pag. 429. I will not maintaine It may seeme more curious then necessarie In the text is no difficultie if the simplicitie of truth maie be receiued As for Tertullians complaint of certaine heretickes that either refused or mangled or corrupted the scriptures it toucheth vs no whit at al who acknoweledge the wholl bodie of scriptures and are so far of from wilfull corruption thereof that of purpose we would not alter one letter in the Bible to winne the wholl worlde Therefore we litle regard your furious and senseles railing against vs where with you haue stuffed all partes of your booke that neuer was scorpion fuller of poison then it is of venemous and stinging reproches Leauing the Greek you returne againe to the Hebrew Pag. 431. against which you haue deuised pretie reasons to prooue there is no holde in it against contentious heretikes The blasphemie of which assertion M. Rain saith that in the Hebrew text of scripture there is no holde I dout not euerie reasonable man at the first will espie and abhorre For seeing it pleased the Lord of all tongues of men vnder heauen to chuse that tongue wherein to write his word oracles that his Church might haue a most perfecte and certaine rule of religion shall this Papist come and controll the wisdome of God for so doing and say that of the Hebrew litle holde can be