further if Saint Augustine himselfe had bene of your opinion he would not haue giuen this admonition to preferre some before some but would haue straitly and precisely charged that no difference should be made but all receiued alike being al of like authoritie As for Daniel albeit some parte of him be written in the Chaldey tongue yet was it vnderstood of the Church being then in captiuitie vnder the Babylonians and that tongue is but a diuerse Dialect from the Hebrew and differeth littel from it My second reason Pag. 21. you say is of more force and if I prooue it you promise to be of my iudgement Let vs then set downe the reason first and see the proofes afterward I sayd betwene thosde bookes Apocryphes of the old Testament and Saint Iames epistle there was this difference that they were refused of the wholl Church and so was not Saint Iames wherfore we had reason to reiecte them and not this By the wholl Church I meant not onely the primitiue Church of Christians as you supposed but the Church of the Iewes before Christ which neuer allowed those bookes for Canonicall as your selues confesse which is an inuincible argument against them For had they bene Canonical that Church would not nor ought not to haue reiected them and other Church there was none then to allowe them So by your iudgement it must be thought that diuerse bookes of Canonicall scripture were neuer receiued for many yeares in any Church which howe absurde it is euery man seeth The Apostle writeth that vnto the Iewes were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3.2 whereby is meant his word But these bookes the Iewes neuer receiued and therefore they are of another sorte then those that containe the oracles of God And that the Iewes did not amisse in reiecting them it may be vnderstoode in that they were neuer reprooued by Christ or his Apostles for the same Their false expositions of scripture are often tymes noted and their errours confuted but they are neuer found fault with for refusing these bookes of scripture whereof if they had bene guilty they should not haue escaped reprehension This argument you deale not with but expound my words of the primitiue Church whereas I spake specially of the Church before Christ For though the Catholike Church neuer thought these bookes to be Canonicall as that word is properlie taken yet it vsed in some places to read them for instruction of manners Hieron praef in Solom not for confirmation of faith as S. Ierome teacheth but the olde Church of the Iewes neuer vouchsafed them so much honour as to read them publikelie And that the Catholike Church receiued not these bookes for Canonicall though it read them you haue alreadie heard the witnes of Saint Ierome who also in another place writing expressely of the Canonicall bookes Hieron in prologo Galeats excludeth these out of the Canon and calleth them Apochryphall Hereunto might I adde many testimonies of Councels and writers both olde and newe wherein appeareth what iudgement the Catholike Church had of these bookes Gregory the great whoe in your opinion was the head of the Catholike Church being Bishop of Rome Writers old and new esteeme those bookes for Apocryphall and therefore one that by likelyhood should not be ignorant of the Churches iudgement calleth the bookes of Macchabees not Canonicall yet set forth to the edification of the Church Greg. in Iob. li. 19. cap. 16. Thus for 600. yeares after Christ you see these bookes were not esteemed in the catholike Church for Canonicall which also must be thought of the rest whereof we speake seeing there is one and the same iudgement of thē all And that this iudgement hath euer since continually remayned in the Church is prooued by a c. 49. in Graeco Veronensi Damascene by b De sacram in prol li. 1. cap. 7. Hugo S. victoris by c in Leu. li. 14. cap. 1. Radulphus by d in prol in li. Apocryp Lyrane by e in prol Iosu Hugo Cardinalis and many moe whoe playnly doe affirme those bookes in the olde Testament that the Church of England now accounteth Apocryphall to be so and not as you would haue them taken canonicall Yea since your Tridentine assembly Arias Montanus a man of your owne side though not so absurd corrupt in iudgement as moste of you in his Hebrew Bible interlined is not affrayd thus to write of the same bookes and that not in a corner but in the very forefront and principal leafe of the booke There are added sayth he in this edition the bookes written in Greeke Bibilia Montani 1584. which the catholike Church following the canon of the Hebrews reckneth among the Apochryphall Thus it is euident that these bookes haue beene and are refused by the catholike Church and that our Church iudgeing them Apochrypall consenteth with the iudgement of the catholike Church and yours in receiuing them for canonicall haue not herein a catholike iudgement Now for Saint Iames epistle where you demaund how it may appeere that it was not refused by the wholl Church I would know whether you will say it was indeed refused by the wholl Church or no if you will so say then you shall as much discredite the authoritie thereof S. Iames epistle was neuer reiected by the wholl Church but by some particuler Churches onely as euer Luther or anie Protestant hath done For as the wholl Church neuer receiued anie booke for canonical but that which was truelie Canonicall so the wholl Church hath neuer refused any as Apocryphall but such as were indeed Apocryphall If then the wholl Church of Christ hath refused Saint Iames Epistle it will necessarilie follow that S. Iames Epistle is not canonicall But that the wholl Church euer refused it is vntrue as maybe prooued by the testimonies of writers and Histories of the Church Euse l. 2. c. 23. Eusebius that was the greatest aduersarie of it and did most sharplie censure it yet in the same place confesseth that both that and the rest were receiued and published in moste Churches Wherfore when you saie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that for this part you must credit me vpon my word herein you bewray either great ignorance or desire to quarrell The difference then which I put betweene the Apocryphall bookes of the olde testament and these bookes of the newe that they were reiected by the Church wholie these not so is fullie prooued whereupon it followeth that the Church of England had greater reason to refuse them then these and was therein led by learning knowledge not by fansie and opinion as you saie What learning or what diuinitie is your Church led by first to esteem of these alike then to alowe for Canonicall such bookes as you confesse and can not denie to haue beene refused by the wholl Church Where you say my reasons make moste against my selfe pag. 23. I
no more then the moone in the wane giueth light to passengers at midnight And doubtles vnles the Lord had in his displeasure towards you bereaued you of common iudgement and reason you could not yeald your vnderstanding captiue to such loose and light perswasion The question in controuersie is whether the Pope were acknowledged for head of the vniuersall Church within six hundred yeares after Christ Cent. 5. p. 781.782 This you say appeareth by the confession of the Centurye writers and so you translate out of them many authorities which being all put in one conclude nothing to this purpose in the end They shew how the Popes haue laboured to get superioritie to themselues especially in the example of Leo who as he was learned and eloquent and stoutlie mainteined the Catholike faith against Eutyches so is he trulie noted of ambition more then beseemed the minister of Christ But admitting the Popes testimonie for the Popes primacie what haue you found in the Centuries against Master Iewell that they warned Bishops of other prouinces to come to generall councels this is not the thing we require Let them write to whome and whither they list this officious writing prooueth not vniuersalitie and supremacie of power as any man maie easilie vnderstand That Leo could not appoint a Councell that he sued to the Emperour to call a Councel that the Councell was gathered by the Emperours not by the Popes authoritie I haue alreadie shewed What maketh then the writing of a fewe letters to prooue the Popes power in summoning councells that they were presidents in generall councels And can you or dare you auouch that this was so in all generall councells And though it were what matter maketh it for your purpose A generall councell must haue a president which presidencie if it were graunted to the Bishop of Rome in respecte of his place which was the first amongst Bishops will you of your wisdome hereof gather that he was Vniuersall Bishop and head of the Church A senslesse and franticke conclusion That he confirmed generall Councells This is like the rest a worthy reason forsooth All Bishops were bound to maintaine and approoue the godly decrees of councells that so heresies might be repressed and the puritie of religion preserued Is it then a great maruell if the Bishop of Rome that was accounted first and chiefe confirmed good councels and disanulled wicked whoe is he that hath the reason of a man that will hereof conclude in sadnes and sobriety the popes supremacy If M.R. be blinded it is no wonder All this and ten times as much can not prooue that the Pope is the head of Christs Church or that he was so esteemed in the primitiue age and therefore that you alleadge out of Luther that before Bonifacius the third in the daies of wicked Phocas the Emperour the Bishops of Rome had no greater authoritie then other Bishops is true For albeit they had gotten greater priuiledges of honour and other preferments partlie through the reuerent opinion which the Emperours Bishops had of them partlie by their owne seeking as appeareth in stories moste euidentlie yet soueraintie of power and iurisdiction ouer the wholl Church had they none vntill Phocas the tyrant bestowed it vpon Boniface the Pope a worthy founder of the Popes Antichristian supremacie How Leo behaued himselfe in magnifiing his owne dignitie aboue measure pag. 154. c. is to plaine by his writings so as although he thought nothing lesse then of that pontificall supremacie and authoritie which afterward in that seat of Antichrist was erected yet hath his pride bene iustlie and worthelie reprooued for claiming more honour then belonged vnto him But you must remember that all authoritie and honour is not that vniuersall supremacie of power which your Pope chalengeth and vsurpeth the which neither Leo desired nor yet Gregorie the great who succeeded him in that sea almost two hundred yeares after did exercise for anie thing that you haue alledged in proofe thereof The Centurie Collectours declare indeed how that mystery of iniquity wrought and encreased then in the Romane sea Centur. 6. p. 425. in that the Bishops thereof tooke vpon them more rule and authoritie ouer their brethren then they ought and namelie this Gregorie in whome the vertue godlines of Romane Bishops died But haue you found in the Centuries such plaine proofes ot the Popes supremacie as you affirme First you bring nothing but the speaches or practises of Gregorie Gregorie the great was no Pope such as the lâ—tter popes haue bene Regist lib. 11. â—p 54. who was a Bishop of Rome secondly you can not thereof gather that he was vniuersall Bishop or head of the Church For that he calleth the Apostolicall sea head of all Churches he meaneth nothing else but that it was the chiefe Churhc Lib. 7. ep 62. which is confessed That he saith the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the Apostolicall sea whoe denieth this but what subiection meane you M. R that the Romane Church had power ouer the Church of Constantinople to commaund ordaine disanull at her pleasure that is vtterlie false and disprooued by all stories that haue written testifiing that the Church of Constantinople accounted her selfe equall in all priuiledges too the Romane saue only that the Roman in order was the first That he intermedled in the doings of certaine Bishops of diuerse prouinces it is euident but not in all Churches of all prouinces ouer the world For the Church of Christendome was then deuided into partes the same were assigned to the gouernment of Patriarches The Romane prouince was greatest containing the Churches of the west wherein Gregorie had authoritie not by Gods worde but by appointment of man and yet his authoritie was no other but the same that the other Patriarchs practised in their prouinces namelie S. Chrysostome long before Gregorie ouer Thrace al Asia and Pontus as Theodoretus writeth Theod. lib. 5. cap. 28. What can you alledge more for Gregorie then I can for Chrysostome Gregory reprooued corrected Bishops of Cicilie Africke Spaine Chrysostome punished and deposed Bishops of Thrace of Pontus of Asia Hereof is concluded no lesse the supremacie of ChrysostoÌ„me then of Gregorie such notable demonstrations can you make Yea how much S. Gregorie alwaies abhorred that tyrannicall supremacie Pag. 159. c. which your Pope of long time hath vsurped ouer the Church S. Gregorie was not onelie himselfe no vniuersall pope but hath also in plaine words condemned both that office title vniuersallie is manifest in that he so often so bitterlie inueicth against the name of vniuersall Bishop which he would not haue done condemning it whollie as most wicked vnlawfull ambitious profane Antichristian if he had thought his owne episcopall gouernment and iurisdiction had extended ouer all Churches For as Iohn of Constaninople chalenged that name in the same sense meaning doth Gregorie reiect it but Iohn
these men Pag. 15. c. Taking of armes by some and standing in the field for maintenance of Gods holie religion safetie of their owne liues Master Rainolds vrgeth against vs grieuouslie which yet toucheth not the matter in hand concerning our vnsteadfastnes in doctrine but serueth onelie to procure enuie Sturres and tumults for matter of Religion he rehearseth that haue bene in Germanie in Fraunce in Bohemia as though it were sufficient for their condemnation that they once resisted and did not by and by admit whatsoeuer violence was offered either to Gods trueth or to themselues contrarie to promise to othe to publike edicts to lawe whereby they were warranted to doe as they did More of this matter will I not answere being of an other nature and cleered long since from crime of rebellion not onelie by iust defense of their doing but also by the proclamations and edicts of princes themselues The regiment of women as it was publikelie by writing oppugned by one or twoe pag. 18. so was it publikelie defended and the truth thereof since hath bene amongst vs generallie acknowledged Can you obiect the priuate iudgement of so fewe against the common consent of a wholl Church and thereof conclude that in our Religion we haue no certaine staie Then maie we in like manner and by as good reason argue against you for a thousand such maters wherein hath bene no smal dissension amongst your diuines that the Papists haue no cettaine ground of their faith A Cardinall of Rome hath openlie defended and taught that the Apostle permitteth one wife to priests and to others moe and that pluralitie of wiues is not forbidden either by the law of god or nature You know whome I meane euen Caiâ—tane your Popes legate and the great aduersarie of Luther Looke Katharine who hath noted this amongst his manifolde errors And another Popes legate writ and published in printe a treatise in commendation of a foule sinne for which he was greeuoslie punished by your Pope being preferred to a great Archbishoprik Pighius saith that Iustice in vs is a relation wherein he hath exceedinglie offended your friendes Maie we now by your example hereof conclude that this is the doctrine of your Church that thus you beleeue generallie or els that there is no staie in your religion For Copes and such like ornaments either approoued or reiected pag. 19. to gather an argument of our inconstancy in matters of faith is too childish and absurd Our religion is not like yours consisting in outward shewe of gestures garments and behauiour so that our externall ornaments maie be changed without anie alteration or change of our doctrine Lastlie Master R. omitting certaine small differences of feastes Pag. 19. c. c. wisheth the reader to consider the generall changes that haue bene in our Church and realme since this schisme as he calleth it first began And first he calleth to remembrance the Acte of six articles established in the latter daies of king Henrie the eight which in the beginning of his sonnes raigne was straightwaies disanulled and the Church reformed which reformation was ouerthrowne in Queene Maries raigne and after renewed by her Maiestie that now raigneth And of all this what can Master Rainolds conclude against the vnitie and certentie of our profession what alteration hath bene in the Church of God in times past we may reade not onelie in gods booke but in Ecclesiasticall histories Sometime religion prospered wel and florished especiallie the Prince being godlie and zealous to promote the same sometime againe superstition heresie idolatrie mightelie preuailed the Prince being an idolater or heretike Yet notwithstanding the truth of gods word Religion remained one and stedfast howsoeuer the outward state of the Church or common wealth was diuerslie changed And if at the first when the Lord began to worke some reformamation in this Church perfection in euerie point was not foorthwith attained and established no maruel is it considering both the greatnes of the worke and the malice of manifolde enemies that withstoode the same Yea if in our communion booke alteration hath bene according as to the Church seemed moste conuenient yet that was not in substance of Doctrine but in matters of ceremonie neither can you charge vs more for changing our communion booke then we can you for changing and reforming your Missales your Portasses your Breuiaries a number such other bookes euen of late yeares in dailie and publike vse of seruice amongst you As for Anabaptistes Atheistes Puritanes the familie of loue our Church and Religion vtterly condemneth to the pit of hell and if there be such amongst vs secretlie so haue there alwaies bene heretikes wicked persons in the Church and in respect of them our Religion is no more to be accused then the good corne may iustlie be condemned because together with it manie tares and weeds spring vp and cannot be auoided Further Master Rainolds saith pag. 22. if he should note the difference betweene our Protestants and those of other nations he should neuer make an end But let him note what him list and make an end when he please greater difference shal he not finde amongst the true professors of the Gospell and Churches reformed then may be amongst the children of God When such bitter dissension was betweene the East and west Churches about the daie of Passeouer and the same continued so manie yeares with great offense alienation among the faithfull yet they ceased not for all that to be still the Churches of Christ Neither is it euer to be hoped for that such perfect concord shall be among the professors of Christs religion that they shall all agree moste iointlie together in the trueth or in euerie particular point thereof Your vnity although it be not so intire and generall as you would haue it thought yet if it proceeded of knowledge of the trueth and faithfull submission with hartie obedience to the same it deserued great commendation but springing from such fountaines as it doth of brutish ignorance and feare in the moste of vaine ambition worldlie pleasures and filthie couetousnes in the chiefest though it be through corruption of mans nature mighty yet the causes being marked it appeereth to be but carnall tyrannicall and diuelish For this moste wicked persuasion being once imprinted in mens harts by the subteltie of Sathan that all men must obey the Pope whatsoeuer he teach and commaund without examination or resistance vpon paine of eternall damnation an easie matter is it vpon this foundation to raise vp and maintaine any vnitie whatsoeuer And although this worldlie prouision for keeping of vnitie be not amongst vs yet through Gods grace and blessing al Churches reformed agree soundlie in all articles of faith that are substantiall and necessarie to saluation and shall so doe vnto the ende pag. 25. The grounds and heads of disputation receiued among the Romish Catholikes Master Rainolds reckeneth many and first
of the Church For outwarde succession is no more certaine in that Church then in others and it hath bene diuerse times broken of and discontinued by vacations and schismes for manie yeares together If then the Church had bene builded vpon this tottering rocke of externall succession at Rome it had oftentimes bene dashed and ouerthrowen but thankes be to God the Church is builded vpon a surer rocke then is the personall succession of your Popes or els of anie estate of men in the worlde and therefore whatsoeuer becommeth of your Pope or of his chaire and succession the Church falleth not but abideth and remaineth for euer Your stories written in time of Antichristes tyrannie what cause is there whie we should anie whit regarde them the authors thereof being infected with the errors of the Pope and daring not write for the moste parte otherwise then might well stand with his humor And to all histories that since the defection haue commended the faith of that Church we oppose the worde of God which plainelie conuinceth it of manifold and damnable heresies besides we could alledge sundrie writers in all ages that openlie haue reprooued the same The former distinction concerning the Romane Church pag. 25. here Master Rainolds taketh in hand to disprooue and to shewe that my paradox as he calleth it is impossible First he saith I graunted the Church of Rome to haue bene pure godlie Christian for sixe hundred yeares after Christ which forsooth I neuer graunted as he meaneth that simply and absolutelie no manner of corruption in anie parte of doctrine had taken place therin but onelie according to the state of those times and comparison of that general apostasie which afterward ensued So your conceit M. R. that this alteration should whollie be wrought within the space often or twelue years is so vaine childish that nothing can be deuised more foolish and farther of from the purpose No M. Rainolds notwithstanding Antichrist was not openlie aduanced in the Romane Church before Bonifacius the third yet was there in it no small preparation for entertayning of him before that time through corruption of doctrine and manners in that Church though it was in manie things corrupted before yet had it also great sinceritie which by little and little decaied more and more till Antichrist came and was reuealed and after Antichrist was seated there yet was not therefore all puritie lost by and by but in continuance of time it fainted and languished hauing receiued deadlie poison and no remedie being prouided Wherefore this roye of yours was indeed a vanitie of vanities fitte for such a vaine sophister as you are But now because Doctor Saunders and M. Rainolds boldelie affirme that by testimonies of stories no heresie was brought into the Romane Church or anie chaunge of doctrine euer made in the same let me put them in minde briefelie Sigisbâ—rt Gemblacensis in Chronico Ann. 1088. that Sigisberius the moncke an Historiographer mentioned by them both expresselie chargeh Gregorie the seauenth and his successours for maintaining and practizing not onely an error but an heresie also in taking vpon them authoritie to excommunicate the Emperour and other ciuill Princes This heresie hath euer since continued in that See and is at this daie by the Pope and his Popelings auouched and therefore by confession of their owne Historiographers Pag. 55. some heresie hath taken place in the Church of Rome contrarie to Doctor Saunders and Master Rainolds proude assertion That the Romane Church of later time hath not chaunged the faith which the auncient Romane Church professed Master Rainolds promiseth now to prooue by such testimonies as I must needes alowe for vpright and sufficient My selfe is the first then Caluine Luther Martyr Illyricus none of which euer dreamed of such a matter as he taketh in hand to prooue by their confession That I haue said the first Romane Church helde the purity of faith nothing concerneth the later Church in what sense I haue so saide is before declared not thereby to iustifie that Church in euerie particular doctrine custome or ceremonie but onelie that the principall and substantiall articles of Christian religion were in it maintained against the heretikes of those times Then that Caluine Luâ—â—â— c. do graunt that the primitiue Romane Church maintained and beleeued the Popes supremacie the sacrifice of the Masse reall presence and Priesthoode is moste vntrue as further in discourse of this booke shall appeere And therefore the conclusion that of these premises should ensue is like the vntimelie fruite that ere it be ripe falleth downe to the ground And as for the common place that followeth concerning the continuance of Christs vniuersall Church pag. 57. to what purpose doth it serue or what argument maie it afforde you we beleeue and confesse to the comforte of our soules that Christs Church hath continued and neuer shall faile so long as the worlde endureth and we account it a profane heresie to teach that Christs Catholike vniuersal Church hath perished from the earth at anie time For this assertion as you truelie prooue shaketh the foundations of all faith and religion But as you haue effectuallie and inuinciblie by manifolde scriptures euinced that Christs Church can neuer be rooted out and no man in the world can open his mouth against you herein so if you had also proued by like euidence of scripture that the Catholike vniuersall Church of Christ is nothing els but the outwarde succession of the Romane see then had you prooued your matters soundlie and confuted our opinion truelie and proceeded orderlie But hauing spoken much concerning the perpetuitie of Christs Church which no Christian can denie or doubt of you bring vs no text not reason to shew that Christs Church either is the Popes succession or els dependeth vpon the same For as touching externall shew and succession of Churches the scriptures haue foretolde that Antichrist shall seduce great and small Apoc. 12.61 13.16 rich and poore free and bonde and that the Church shall flie into the wildernes and there remaine of al which no word could be true if the Catholike Church were tied to the Popes Chaire and the Popes Chaire were the rocke that can not be remooued And yet notwithstanding this generall dispersion and flight of the Church vnder Antichrist the Catholike Church shall for all that continue although not in that outwarde strength and glorie in which sometimes it hath appeered and florished Now this long discourse following is visible Pag. 59. c. and the Testimonies of Melancthon Oecolampadius Caluine and Illyricus at large rehearsed to that purpose all this argueth nothing els but pitifull and grosse ignorance in this man who not knowing what he auoucheth or what he refelleth yet laieth on such loade as though with euerie blow he felled his aduersarie to the ground The militant Church of Christ to be a visihle companie who hath from the beginning of the
So that by his comparison the doctrine of the gospel doth infinitelie in largenes excel al the scriptures of the new testament Such mad wicked sentences hath he throughout his wholl booke manie Ambrose Catharine saith It is the Popes proper priuiledge to Canonize scriptures Catharin in epist ad Galat. cap. 2. Ipse canoniz at scripturas reprobat or to reprooue scriptures to Canonize true Saints and to reiecte false meaning thereby that the holynes authoritie and estimation of scriptures procedeth frō the Pope Wherein yet he seemeth to haue foulie forgotten that canonicall scriptures are a greate deale more auncient then the Pope and therefore could not receiue theire Canonization from him But thus they vtter their minde that scripture is no otherwise the word of God then as it is approoued authorized and Canonized by the Pope which is in effect to bring the holy ghost vnder the censure approbation of a man and such a man as he I omit because I will not be tedious a number of such sayings moe wherein the holie scriptures of God are shamefully intolerably dishonoured by these men in their writings and disputations and yet to procure a litle enuy to Luther they accuse him with out all measure continuallie for calling the epistle of Saint Iames a strawne epistle not absolutelie in it selfe but onelie in respect of S. Peter and Paules epistles Thus much now haue I thought good for satisfiing of the godlie to answere If you will not be satisfied you may write againe twise as much more whoe can let you this matter requireth no longer talke CHAP. 2. Of the canonicall Scriptures and English Cleargie FRom Saint Iames Epistle Master Rainolds proceedeth to entreat of other bookes refused by the Church of England which yet he saith were not further disprooued in times past then that epistle of Saint Iames whereupon he would haue his reader beleeue that in alowing some bookes and reiecting others we are ledde by opinion fansie not by learning or diuinitie Wherein Master Rainolds your selfe haue shewed that opinion not learning ruled you when you writ this For Saint Iames epistle was neuer disprooued by the wholl Church of God but onelie by some of the Church but those bookes that are refused by vs were by the wholl Church distinguished from the canonical scriptures had no greater credit then they are of with vs as shall appeere The reason therefore of our refusing them is not as you imagine because they containe some proofe of your Romish Religion which we cannot otherwise auoid but by denying the bookes to be of Canonicall authoritie but because they doe bewray themselues of what stampe they are by most euident markes and therefore haue bin generally of the wholl Church heeretofore sette in the same degree that they are left by vs. These Reasons you sawe comming against you and because you durst not openlie encounter with them you steale by an other way let them passe But I must call you back a litle though it be to your griefe and trouble and require of you a plaine and direct answere how those bookes of the olde testament which are commonly called Apocryphall written first in Greeke or some other forraine language can be Canonicall For all bookes of holie scripture in the olde Testament were written and deliuered to the Church by the holie prophets of God being approoued by certain Testimonies to be indeed the Lords Prophets Therefore Abraham answered the rich man Lue. 16.29 requiring to send Lazarus to his fathers house They haue Moses and the Prophets whereby it is plaine that the wholl doctrine of the church then was contained in the bookes of Moses and the other Prophets 2. Pet. 1.19 And Peter saith we haue a more sure word of the Prophets meaning the scriptures of the olde testament And so the Apostle to the Hebrewes writeth that God spake to our fathers by the Prophets Heb. 1.1 By which testimonies of Scripture it is prooued that none could write bookes to be receiued of the Church for the Canonicall word of God but onelie they whome God had declared to be his Prophets But the writers of those Apocriphal books were no Prophets as may easily appeere For then they would not haue written their bookes in Greeke as is confessed most of these were nor in any other tongue then that which was proper to the Church of God in that time as Moses and the Prophets after him writers of the holie scriptures had done The Church was then amongst the Iewes and the Prophets were the messengers ministers of God in that Church and vnto it they deliuered dedicated their bookes Wherefore the Greeke tongue being not the tongue of Canaan nor of the Church then was not chosen by the Prophets to write and set forth therein the doctrine and Religion of the Lord so that the verie tongue wherein these bookes were written being not the tongue of the Prophets doth plainlie conuince them to be no prophetical therefore no canonical bookes of the olde Testament And here I omitte particular arguments which might be brought against euery one of those bookes seuerallie whereby it may be prooued inuincibly that though you entitle them with the name of Canonical scriptures yet they had not the spirite of God for their father Agaynst this reason you bring Saint Augustines authoritie De doct Christ l. 2. 8. whoe reckoneth them amongst the Canonicall bookes of scripture and so you say did the Catholike Church of that age But that this is a moste manifest vntruth appeereth by S. Ierome Praesa in Pro. Solom whoe plainlie writeth that the Church readeth those bookes but receiueth them not amongst the Canonicall scriptures So although Saint Augustine had thought them to haue bene of equall authoritie with the writings of the Prophets which are called properlie Canonicall yet was not this the common iudgement of the Church in those dayes as Saint Ierome doth let vs vnderstand who liued in the Church of that age In what sense S. Augustine calleth these bookes canonicall Saint Augustine calleth them indeede Canonicall by a general and improper acception of that word because they are red in the Church and containe profitable and Godlie instruction but yet not so as though there were no difference betweene them and the other which are vndoubtedlie Canonicall For in that very place Saint Augustine opposeth Canonical scriptures to such bookes as by perilous lies and phantasies might abuse the reader Periculosis mendacus phantismatibus and bring preiudice to sound vnderstanding And then giueth a rule to preferre those bookes that are receiued of al Catholike Churches before them that some Churches receiue of those that are not receiued of all to preferre those that the moste of greatest authority do receiue wherby you may see the vanitie of that you said before that the catholike church then iudged them to be canonicall And
vncertaine and rotten a stay The first reporter of Peters being at Rome was Papias a man of mean credit authority in the Church of God Euseb lib. 3. ca. 39. and as Eusebius writeth of him a father of diuerse fables a fit father of your faith Of him Hegesippus receaued this and of Hegesippus others as in writing histories the latter follow those that went before so that this wholl matter is grounded vppon Papias word for which your pope hath good cause to giue him thankes Now the scriptures in many places weigh so strongly on the other side that if manie a thousand such as Papias should tell vs Peter was at Rome their reporte were not to be trusted Peter promised to remaine with the Iewes Gal. 2.9 and be their Apostle and Paul assigneth vnto him the Apostleship of the circumcision Gal. 2.8 If Peter were Bishop of Rome how was this promise kept Saint Paul writeth an epistle to the Romanes wherin he saluteth many persons by name but of Saint Peter he maketh no mention and from Rome he writeth manie epistles at sundrie times and sendeth salutations to the Churches from many faithful but of Saint Peter in none he speaketh euer a word Doubtles it was because Saint Peter was not there Genebr Chreâ—â— nol l. 3. saecu 1. And if he had bene Bishop as your men affirme twentie fiue yeares almost it may be thought straunge how it could come to passe that when Saint Paull writ to Rome and came him selfe to Rome and taried at Rome writing from thence so manie epistles S. Peter should euer be absent for his charge Other arguments might I vse against this common opinion of Peters sitting and dying at Rome But as you lose all if you can not prooue him to haue bene Bishop there so though you could prooue it and we should of necessitie confesse it yet had you gained nothing at all For though it must nedes follow if Peter were not Bishop of Rome that all your religion is false flowing from that head yet being graunted that Peter had bene Bishop there it maketh neither hotte nor colde for proofe of anie point in question betweene vs. pag. 133. Liui. decad 4. lib. 5. Of this therfore no more now The largenes of the chalenge containing in number seauen and twentie articles of controuersie you labour to extenuate by an old historie recorded in Liuie of Titus Falminius host who by diuerse maners of dressing and preparing one onely kinde of meate furnished his table with great varietie of dishes And would you beare vs downe Master Rainolds that this multitude of articles is but of one matter drawne forth into sundrie partes by skilful varying and mincing the same If anie will looke vpon them he shall soone be hable to controll you The first of Priuate masse the second of receiuing in one kinde the third of common praiers in an vnknowen tongue the fourth of the Popes supremacy the fift of the reall presence the seuenth of eleuation the eight of Adoration the ninthe of Hanging the Sacrament vnder a Canopy the tenth of Accidents without subiect the fourtenth of worshiping Images the fiftenth of reading the scriptures in the vulgar tongue the seauententh of the sacrifice of the masse can you denie that these controuersies being the arguments of seuerall articles are diuerse and differing one from an other And are not these waightie pointes generall heads principall questions great misteries and keies as Master Iewel calleth them of your religion some of the other articles I graunt haue more affinitie together yet not so great except in one or two but that they maie in reason and nature be distinguished and stand each by them selues without necessarie support or defense from others And what though there had bene a nearer respect betweene them might they not therefore be propounded and handled seuerally The manner of your owne schooles and controuersie lectures prooue the contrarie wherin euerie question according to the subiect matter is deuided into sundrie articles and euerie article hath a special treatise Your tale therefore of the Calcidian hoste who entertained the Romane Captaine with one onely kinde of meat dressed diuersly commendeth the cunning of that cooke but serueth nothing to your purpose though you set it out with as great shew as you can Three articles you acknowledge to be of weight pag. 138. The primacy of the Pope thereall presence and the sacrifice wherein you haue vttered your iudgement of the rest that they are not of such weight as your Church would haue them to be esteemed And of these three you might with as good reason except the two latter so make the first onely a matter of weight For that indeede is the substantiall point in mainteance wherof all your labours are bestowed Otherwise were it not for defense of your Popes wicked vnreasonable Antichristian monarchy you could easily agree with vs for these two all the rest I doubt not But what thinke you then M. R. of priuat Masse Is it a thing of no weight as here you would haue it accounted there is not I suppose any thing in your Church more vsed or better liked Your halfe communion your latine seruice your Images your keeping the scriptures in a tongue vnknowen to the people and other such heads of your Romish religion are they of no weight are they trifles are they not worth the striuing for Then let your men giue ouer all defense of them let priuate masses be abolished let the communion be administred in bothe kindes according to Christs institution let the publike praiers be said in the tongue that euery country vseth let Images be burned and Idolatrie forbidden let it be lawfull for the people of all countries to read the scriptures in their owne language let there be no controuersie about the other articles For while you stand so stifly in maintenance of all these and others you cannot truely saie and beare vs in hand they are not of waight in your account That Master Iewell promised to giue ouer and subscribe Pag. 140. if anie of those articles could be prooued by scriptures councels or Doctors within 600. yeares after Christ it was not because he meant euer to subscribe to your doctrine or was vnstaied in his religion but of a most assured knowledge and resolute persuasion that you were vtterlie destitute in this behalfe of all truth and antiquitie as indeed you are Otherwise you maie remember that our religion is grounded onelie vpon the holy scriptures of God and therefore though you brought against vs writers and fathers neuer so manie for these matters as you can bring not one of credite and age yet will we neuer subscribe vnto you hauing once subscribed to the certaine trueth of God reuealed vnto vs in his holie perfect written word by which al sentences opinions and writings of men whatsoeuer must be examined Now commeth M. Rainolds to auouch the truth of these
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
AN answere to a certeine Booke written by Maister William Rainolds Student of Diuinitie in the English Colledge at Rhemes and entituled A Refutation of sundrie reprehensions Cauils c. By William Whitaker professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge Printed at London for Thomas Chard 1585. To the right honorable Syr VVilliam Cecill Knight of the Garter Baron of Burghley Lord high Treasurer of England and Chancelor of the Vniuersitie of Cambridge Grace and peace IT is not vnknowen to your Honor how the aduersaries haue neuer ceased since the beginning of hir Maiesties moste happie reigne vntil this day by their bookes in great numbers written and published and by al other means that possiblie they might deuise to trouble the state of the Church and to diffame that holy religion of Christ which through Gods great mercie and godlie lawes of our gratious Souereign is according to his holy word established amongst vs. VVhat they haue wrought with manie of al estates and how mightelie they haue preuailed with that strong effectual illusion of Satan which hath aduaunced Antichrist vnto that supremacie of power authoritie and credit in the world wherof the holy ghost by SS Paul Iohn hath foretold lamentable experience can witnes in the backsliding and continuall falling of manie away from vs to their own final perdition to the grief of the godlie to the great encouragement and comfort of the enemie And among other examples of this Apostasie I offer to your Honor one verie notable euen the man with whom I haue in this booke to deale who hauing bene late not onlie a common professor of our religion but a publick minister and preacher of the same in our Church hath not onlie reuolted from vs through some worldly tentations and run ouer into our enemies cāp but hath also lifted vp his heel against vs and in open writing most malitiously and bitterly railed at vs. Occasion of vttering his conceiued malice against vs in his late writing he taketh by a certein Preface of mine before the answer to D. Saunders demonstrations of Antichrist which being not verie long and handling no great variety of matter I neuer thoght could haue prouoked the Aduersarie so much or procured so long and large a Confutation I looked rather that the substance of my book concerning Antichrist should haue bin answered by some that would maintein Saūders arguments wherby he laboreth to prooue that the Pope cannot be Antichrist which being in deed a weighty and moste materiall controuersie required the learning and diligence of the moste sufficient scholler amongst them Neither coulde I otherwise suspect but seeing I had written in latin against a latin Aduersarie he whosoeuer should take in hand to set forth anie thing against me would haue done it in the latin tongue But M. Rainolds who was appointed as he saith to aunswere my booke of Antichrist and in all his actions professeth himself to be ordered by those to whose gouernment he hath submitted himselfe pretending in shew to publish a confutation thereof hath written onely against the preface wherin are handled other matters so hath answered nothing to the principall question wherof the book that he would seeme to haue confuted speciallie entreateth further hath written not in latin as I did but in english as liked best his gouernors himself VVherupon I was at the first partlie persuaded to passe ouer this Refutation of his with silence the rather because I listed not to reason or deale against such a one as he is of whom for manie respects I could not conceiue anie hope at al that euer my labors should doe him good hauing thus embraced pernitious deceitful error wilfullie cast awaie from him the loue of the truth which once he had in shew receiued which he pretended to beleeue and which he did in deed profes Which kind of men through Gods iustice for the most part are giuen ouer into such reprobate hardnes of hart that they can neuer after be reclaimed but continue alwaies desperate to their euerlasting destruction Notwithstanding when I perused better the contents of his booke and tooke aduise of the godlie what were best for me to do herein whether I should make answer to this man or rather obeying king Ezechias commandement let him alone and say nothing to him I was in the end resolued to set forth a plain and sufficient answer to his whole volume not for his sake of whom I haue no hope nor respect but in regard of others who thereby maie either be confirmed in the truth or preserued from error I see the Aduersaries drift especiallie was to breed in the minds of our countrimen a misliking of this our religion which himself hauing once liked wel was after I know not how moued to mislike The which he endeuoreth to performe by some other means then heertofore haue commonlie bene vsed as anie man reading his book may soon obserue wherin he shal finde continual allegations of testimonies out of our owne writers craftely brought in to shew a dissension of iudgements amongst our selues that so his readers may be induced to thinke the worse of our doctrine and of vs al. A deuise ful of fraud dishonestie malice to take aduantage of mens infirmities imperfections against the eternal truth of God which he cānot by ordinarie lawful kind of reasoning refute Betweene Luther and Zuinglius about the Sacrament was a sharp contention hotlie debated in manie books the same hath cōtinued since to the great hindrance of the gospell and offence of many In which contrary writings and discourses are found oftentimes harder speeches of either against other then were to be wished yet such as the godlie seruants of the Lord in contention about the truth somtimes ar moued to vtter against their brethren S. Paul openlie and sharply reprehended S. Peter to his face whereat wicked Porphyrie catched a like occasion to raile at Christiā religion long since as our aduersaries do at these daies VVhat a violent and troublesome contention was there betweene Theophilus of Alexandria and good Chrysostome of Constantinople VVho knoweth not how sharplie Cyrillus a learned and wise Bishop of Alexandria hath written against Theodoritus a godlie and catholick Bishop in a controuersie touching the catholick faith Both Bishops both catholickes both learned both godly both excellent pillers of the Church and yet he that readeth both their writinges would thinke that both were daungerous enemies of the Church and faith of Christ and of all Christians to be auoyded So in the bookes of Luther and Zuinglius and those that maintaine either part appeereth I graunt great sharpnesse and bitternesse of dissension who all notwithstanding if ye set the heat of disputation aside were as godlie as learned as zealous Christians as the worlde had anie Nowe commeth in M. Rainoldes like a craftie enemie and gathering a heape of such speeches out of sundry their bookes hath in diuers places
of his confutation inserted the same as anie occasion woulde serue to make his readers acquainted therewith that seeing such earnest contention among the chiefest professors of the Gospell they may be further withdrawn in alienation of minde from the loue and liking thereof VVherein also to helpe his purpose he hath vsed two kindes especially of vnlawfull sleightes One is to report among others the testimonies also of open Aduersaries to the doctrine of the Gospel as namely of Gabriel Fabritius against Beza and of Castalion and such others as eyther being professed papistes or doubtful protestantes ought not in this case to be regarded Another is to falsifie the iudgementes and sentences of our writers and so to make moste vntrue reports of them As for example in his 12. cha pa. 356. he affirmeth that we begin secretlie to disprooue the Churches faith touching the manner of Christs crucifying namely that his handes and feet were pearsed with nailes and for proofe hereof alledgeth testimonies out of Marlorate Musculus and Bucer in whom no such thing is in anie place to be found And that euery man maie perceiue what pleasure he hath what libertie he taketh to himself of speaking and reporting any thing vntruly he accuseth Castalion to haue made a discourse in the Preface written to K. Edward the sixt before his translation of the Bible in proofe that Christ is not the true Messias which verilie is a foule slander as any man maie iudge that readeth the same so be chargeth vs with the abhominable heresies of the Trinitarians Libertines Anabaptists Antinomi Dauid George and such like whom we detest as much as they against whom both wee haue written more then they and our Magistrates both ecclesiasticall and ciuil haue also seriouslie proceded VVith such allegations of al sorts out of al writers for al purposes hath he fraughted and stuffed his book other substance and waight of matter is there none therin so that of it self it might be thought moste vnworthie of answer Yet because such bookes doe harm abroad and it is expedient to haue the aduersaries folly and weaknes detected I haue vndertaken this labour of answering M. Rainolds and that in english for the same consideration that caused him to leaue the latin and write in the english tongue which I thinke he hath not done so much for want of skil therin as that his writings might commonlie be read and vnderstoode of englishmen This my labour I offer to your Honors good acceptation humblie beseeching you that I may publish it vnder the safegard of your honourable protection And as you haue bene alwayes a zealous louer of Christes Gospell and by your godly wisdome haue done your endeuour to aduaunce greatly the Lordes cause from time to time and to hinder the practises of the enemy so I beseech the Lord to encrease in you all those Christian vertues to the benefit of Christes Church and the common wealth of this Realm Thus I commend your Lordship to Gods moste mercifull and gratious preseruation beseeching him to prolong your dayes vpon earth with multiplication of all graces necessarie for this life and for the life to come Your Lordships to commaund William Whitaker AN ANSVVER TO MASTER RAINOLDS PREFACE WHether Master Rainolds were appointed by his gouernours to make this answere pag 3. as he saith or els of his owne accord tooke the matter in hande without commission of any superior authoritie I take it to be a thing of small regard both in respect of himselfe and of his worke and also of those his superiours to whose direction he professeth to haue committed himselfe and all the giftes he hath Onelie this thing I cannot beleeue although it be no more materiall then the other that he was so loth to take vpon him this buisines as he pretendeth For if we consider not onelie the manner of his writing wherein appeereth as great malice against the trueth of God as shameles railing at Christs gospell and professors thereof as notable pride presumption and hardnes of hart as euer hath done in anie enemie heretofore but further also how necessarie it was for him being a Renegate and of a Minister and Pastor of a Church become sodenlie a seminarie Priest therefore liuing in great suspicion mongst his fellowes to approoue by some publike testimony his vnfeigned conuersion to their synagogue we shall not easilie be persuaded to thinke there was in the man such vnwillingnes in this matter at the first as he would haue vs to suppose But as vaine declamors are commonlie wont to excuse themselues with pretense of being loth to attempt so waightie a matter that they maie seeme somewhat vnwilling to doe the thing which in truth they doe moste willinglie and studiouslie so Master Rainolds could not deuise a more commodious beginning of his declamatorie preface then a protestation of lothnes to write that which anie man maie casilie iudge he went about with all his will industrie and habilitie And that you maie the rather imagine he was forsooth verie lothe to take this matter in hand he can shew you diuerse reasons that made him so loth and yet the true reason that ought indeede to haue hindred his course he toucheth not that herein he was to set himselfe against the knowen truth to write against his conscience in open maintenance of wicked heresies to fight for Antichrist against the Lord and finallie to commit the sinne that either in propertie of nature is the greatest of all or commeth neerest vnto it One reason was he saith because he sawe manie in that societie as willing and more hable to vndertake and dispatch a greater matter then that As willing Master Rainolds whie then haue you dissembled before in telling vs you were vnwilling now by your owne confession you were willing enough but there were manie also in your Colledge as willing as you Whereof surelie we haue no doubt that you are all moste wilfullie bent and earnestlie disposed to doe what harme anie of you possiblie can to the Church of England As for your knowledge and habilitie to performe against vs anie notable enterprise we haue no care we stand in no feare of you we knowe what pith is in the strongest of you And for your selfe Master Rainolds I am of opinion that you maie truelie take the garland from your owne head and giue it rather to manie others of your fellowes Another reason he faineth to be Pag. 4. for that he thought it some iniurie to Catholikes to dispute against that sauage and barbarous paradoxe namelie that the Pope is Antichrist What iniurie could this be thought done to your Catholikes Master Rainolds to write in defense of your Pope and prooue him not to be that Antichrist then which a greater pleasure can no man doe for him and for his Church it being apparant and so of manie Christians beleeued that he is indeed no other then the verie Antichrist himselfe In which respect perhaps your
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
to the sonne of God and may not be communicated vnto anie man whosoeuer And therfore neuer did our Church giue that title in such wordes vnto the Prince not yet did the Prince euer chalenge the same and so herein is no dissension For the Princes lawfull supreame authoritie in procuring for the Church a good and peaceable estate in defending of the same by maintaining Gods true religion worshipp against heretikes and schissmatikes in remoouing of manifest abuses and disorders in causing the ministers of the Church according to their offices and vocations to execute their duties faithfullie in punishing them if they be found negligent al this with assistance of godlie and learned Ministers of the Church by that absolute and immediat commission which euery souereigne Christian Prince hath receiued from the Lord God being not subiect to anie foraine power of Priest or potentat this also all Protestants confesse with full consent therein condemning the Popes Antichristian supremacie who contrarie to Gods worde chalengeth a sole supreame gouernment ouer al Christian Princes Churches in the world Is this now a good proofe that Protestants haue no certentie in their faith Secondlie pag. 11. touching baptisme Master Rainolds thinketh he hath found some contradiction betweene the communion booke which affirmeth that by baptisme children are regenerate and wherein the Minister exhorteth the people not to doubt but Christ will giue to the Infants baptized eternall life and betweene the disputation in the Tower of London the second daie 〈…〉 wherein the doctors teach that al those who are baptize◠are the sonnes of god If your eies were matches things that are but one would not thus appeere double vnto you Babtisme is the sacrament of new birth wherein our adoption by Christ is sealed vnto vs and we are made the sonnes of God as manie as beleeue both sacramentallie and spirituallie the vnbeleeuers onelie sacramentallie Wherefore this is not so to be vnderstood as though whosoeuer is baptized shall therefore be sure to haue eternall life For Simon Magus was baptized and yet condemned and so also manie moe besides notwithstanding their baptisme shal be excluded from fellowship with the Saints in Gods kingdome So that to be baptized proueth not necessarilie assurance and certentie of life euerlasting in all persons Why then might not the Doctors be bolde to saie that baptisme of it selfe hath not this force to make anie the childe of God that in baptisme none can be made the children of God if they be not his children by election For doubtles he that commeth to be baprized vnles he be one of Gods elect can not in baptisme receaue the gift of adoption which onely belongeth to those that are predestinate and elect and election is not begone in baptisme but was before the foundation of the world Againe betweene the communion booke and me Master Rainolds hath noted a manifest difference pag. 12. as he thinketh The booke hath sett downe an order of priuate baptisme and I finde fault with womens baptisme It is sufficient for answere to you that priuate baptisme is one thing and womens baptisme is another Priuate baptisme hath bene sometimes maintained and vsed in the Church but womens baptisme was neuer allowed in any tolerable state thereof neither doth the communion booke make anie mention of women nor doth giue any authority to women to minister baptisme And therfore reproouing and disalowing of baptisme to be done by women I haue not thereby spoken any word against our communion booke Concerning necessitie of baptisme wherein you would fasten vpon me some suspition of Anabaptisme I graunt baptisme is necessary if it may be had according to Christs ordinance and institution so that the contempt thereof is damnable but not in such sorte necessarie as that the lacke thereof without contempt shal bring a man into the state of condemnation If you will thrust out of Gods kingdome all that are not baptized you shall take awaie from the Lord manie of his deare children whome yet he will not deliuer ouer to your cruell iudgement and power of Sathan The communion booke appointeth not a sacrament of cōfirmation pag. 13. But yet there is an order for confirmation of children which for anie thing I know is in all communion bookes the same Shewe vs what fault you finde with vs for it and answere shall be giuen you sure I am in respect hereof you haue no cause to complaine of our vncertentie in the faith Pag. 14. About the article of Christs descension into hell I graunt there hath bene some diuersitie of iudgements yet so as the trueth of that article is confessed of all The manner of his descension may be doubted of by many protestants but your opinion that Christ in soule descended into hel to fetch vp the soules of the faithful deceased before his passion is generallie improoued Caluine saith not that Christ was damned aliue in soule vpon the Crosse as you foully slaunder him but that Christ taking vpon him selfe our sinnes and punishments suffered in minde those paines of hell for a time which we otherwise should haue sustained for euer Deny this and denie the iustice of God to be satisfied which taketh awaie al hope form vs of escaping the torments of hell and being throughlie reconciled with the Lord. Christs diuinitie acknowledged in our communion booke no protestant euer denied pag. 14. As for Caluins Autotheisme as you fondly terme it I haue answered if you can And if you list to read more of this matter I referre you to that which Lambertus Danaeus hath written against Genebrard and Iordane of Paris concerning the same Our doctrine in this behalfe is no other then hath bene the catholike doctrine of Christs Church euermore In labouring of malice to blaze abroade some heresy of Caluine your selues are now become defenders of heresy against the blessed Trinitie For tell me Master Rainolds if the substance of the Godhead be the same in the sonne and the father and the substance of the father be God of it selfe must not the Godhead of the sonne be of it selfe But you confessing in words Christ to be God in denying him to be God of himselfe take his diuinitie from him indeed For God is of himselfe God by propertie of his owne nature and substance which in denying you are proceeded as farre and somewhat farther then the wicked Archeretike Arius I could turne you ouer to your owne schoolemen and bid you to striue against them In Centil conclus 62. Quod Christus secundùm existentiam diuinam non est filius Des. letting Caluine alone Looke vpon William Ockam a famous schooleman who was not affraid to publish this position amongst his hundred diuinitie conclusions That Christ according to his diuine being is not the sonne of God which how he expoundeth there maie you see but if Caluine had written in such termes whoe could haue staied the outragious cauilling of
speake and thy selfe considering the matter aduisedlie wilt saie as much For in making an olde rotten translation as I may boldlie call it being compared with the originall word of scripture although otherwise I giue to it that reuerence that the antiquity therof deserueth full of wants faultes errors ouersightes imperfections and corruptions of all sortes as in this booke hereafter god willing thou shalt perceaue to be the authenticall word of God and denying the originall faithfull text which Moses the Prophets the Apostles the Euangelists did write to be the worde of God what do they els but plainlie as it were with one dash of a penne cancel the wholl sciptures Herein maiest thou see what conscience these men make of scripture that do cast awaie the verie authenticall text and bookes of holie scripture preferring before them a homelie latine translation which besides it is such as I haue said no man can tell from whence or from whome it came And this forsooth is their scripture coined and canonized of late in the councell of Trente and neuer before and other scripture haue they none Hitherto Master Rainolds treatise hath bene generall of the English Protestants pag. 41. c. now he craueth leaue of the reader to descend and applie the same to his aduersarie whose booke he is to examine and first he noteth the fashion of Heretikes alwaies to haue bene to inuade the chiefe pastours of the Church What heretikes haue vsed commonlie to doe appertaineth nothing vnto vs we could no otherwise doe but when we espied the wolfe deuouring the flocke and Antichrist sitting in the temple of God giue warning thereof to all crie out against him and call him by his proper name the verie Antichrist of whom Saint Paul to the Thessalonians and the scriptures in other places doe mean This hath bene the iudgement of al reformed Churches from the beginning and wil be to the ending of the world And although Sanders hath taken great paines in this behalfe to prooue their Pope to be no Antichrist for then all were vtterlie lost yet how little he hath by his demonstrations preuailed the godlie reader maie easilie iudge by the answere set forth which Master Rainolds because he cannot orderlie and thorowlie disprooue carpeth at some partes thereof in the residue of this his preface But being appointed as he saith to answere the booke it had bene more for his commendation and credite of the cause to haue perticularlie refuted my wholl replie then thus to pike certaine parcels at his owne choise and to pretermit all the rest Yet let vs see what he can saie whereby it shall appeere how litle he had to saie In the first demonstration of all Pag. 44. c. D. Saunders endeuoureth to proue that the great Antichrist must be one singular man for proofe whereof he allegeth sundrie reasons which are seuerallie answered and lastlie as the chiefest that all the fathers haue spoken of Antichrist as of one man Doctor Saunders and parcel of my answere are here by Master Rainolds repeated but the principall ground thereof is omitted Whereas it is by Saunders affirmed that all the fathers haue spoken of Antichrist as of one onelie man although this be vntrue and can neuer by Saunders or anie Papist be prooued and although further it is one thing to speake of Antichrist as of one man and plainlie to saie that Antichrist is one man yet supposing this were true that Saunders meaneth notwithstanding his demonstration holdeth not being taken from the authoritie of men from whome no demonstration in diuinitie can be drawen This is the summe of this answere which Master Rainolds accuseth of Antichristian arrogancie seing the fathers write according to the apostolicall faith and tradition as he saith But how may it appeere Master Rainolds that the Apostles taught or deliuered such a faith vnto the Churches concerning Antichrist if this faith be contained in their writings tell vs in what booke in what place in what wordes If in secret tradition we admit no profe as you know from such vncertaine and blinde traditions And if you your selues oftentimes doe dissent from the fathers giue vs also the same libertie of dissenting from them vpon as good ground and iust causes as you haue anie The fathers speake diuerse times not according to the tradition faith Apostolicall but according to the common receiued opinion them selues in plain termes confessing that they speake but coniecturally if there was not in that age so full and cleare knowledge of Antichrist as at this daie no maruell maie it seeme to wise men for so much as nowe Antichrist is not onelie borne and bredde but growne to a strong man and perfectlie discerned and acknowledged by all marks essentiall to be Antichrist They forsawe him we see him they knew he should come we know he is come they feared him we haue felt him they geassed at him we can point him out with our finger finallie they might be deceiued but wee cannot vnles we will stop our eares and close our eies and suffer our selues willinglie to be abused pag. 46. c. In the second demonstration Doctor Saunders commendeth the Church of Rome by testimonies of writers auncient and later thereby to make vs beleeue that seing it hath bene so highlie praised it cannot therefore possiblie be the seate of Antichrist Here I gaue Doctor Saunders a distinction betwene the elder Romane Church and the yonger The auncient Church of Rome indeede was worthelie extolled and magnified of the fathers for constant keeping of the faith although euen then in that Church the egge was laide whereof shortlie after Antichrist was hatched the distinction M. R. raileth at with all his mighte but cannot disprooue with all his learning it being euident in al histories that after the daies of those godly fathers the Bishop of Rome was made head of the vniuersal Church wherein he was publikely proclaimed to be the Antichrist that should come afterward continually both religion learning and good life died by litle and litle in that Church as hath bene testified and complained of by infinite writers So the difference betweene that Church in former latter time is no lesse euident then betweene a mans youth and doting age if you consider all partes and properties of a true Church And yet saith Master Rainolds if it be lawfull thus to answere then shall no heresie euer be repressed forgetting fowlie that heresie must be refuted and repressed by scripture which neuer changeth but abideth for euer though Churches varie both from others and from themselues In the third demonstration Pag. 50. c. wherein Saunders affirmeth the succession of priests in the Romane Church to be the rocke against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile I denie the outwarde chaire or succession of bishops to be the immoueable inuincible Rocke wheron the Church is builded which is the sonne of God himselfe the onelie foundation
the Bible For proofe whereof Luther is charged to haue written contemptuouslie and contumeliouslie of the Epistle of Saint Iames which though it had beene true and could not haue beene denied yet did it nothing at all touch vs who therein agree not with Luther neither are bound to iustifie al his sayings priuat opinions no more then they wil be content to auouch what-soeuer hath beene spoken or published by any one or other famous man of their side We no more bound to defend Luther in all his sayings then they will be bound to defend whatsoeuer hath bin said by their writers Which thing if they will take vppon them to performe then let them professe it or els they offer vs the more iniurie that obiect still against vs a saying which was neuer either vttered or alowed by vs. This might suffice men of indifferent reason but our aduersaries will yet continue wrangling about nothing and will trouble the world with friuolous writings being neither ashamed nor wearied of any thing For what matter is it worthie soe much adoe and soe many wordes whether Luther euer spake so of Saint Iames epistle as Campian sayth he did or no If he had so spoken as in trueth he hath not for any thing I can vnderstand what haue they wonne what haue we lost what matter was it to multiplie words so much about Is this the controuersie between vs and them doe we striue about mens words and writings Is Luther our God or the author of our faith or our Apostle No they shall not bring vs thus from the defense of Gods trueth to skirmish with them about mens sayings we will not leaue the great questions of Religion and fall to dispute about matters of other nature condition such as this is concerning Luthers particuler iudgement of S. Iames Epistle The truth of Gods word is it for which we contend against the which if anie man haue spoken any thing let him beare the blame himselfe and let not the common cause be charged therewith So if Luther or anie other learned man of our side haue eyther interpreted the scriptures in something amisse or haue doubted of some one booke of Scripture whereof doubte also hath beene of olde in the Church of Christ we are not to defend their expositions or to approoue their iudgement and therefore in vaine do these men spend so much time and take such paynes to prooue that Luther vttered reprochfull wordes against the Epistle of Saint Iames which as though it had beene a principall matter for their aduantage not onelie the Censurer in his defense and Gregorie Martin in his discouerie haue spoken thereof but now also my new aduersarie Master Rainolds in his booke against me beginneth with the same and sayth he hath thought good to sett it downe and prosequute it somewhat more at large But I for my parte haue not thought good to spend my time and comber the reader about such vnnecessarie and impertinent discourses as these are which the aduersaries deuise and wherewith Master Rainolds hath stuffed his booke onely it shal be sufficient for answere to Master Rainolds whoe in trueth deserueth no answere playnlie and briefelie in euerie point to cleare the trueth from his cauils and slaunders for the satisfying of the godlie in this behalfe And first what a sillie argument he gathereth M. Rainolds argum that we haue left no ground of faith because Luther somwhat toucheth the credit of Saint Iames epistle for that Luther hath written somewhat hardlie of Saint Iames his Epistle that therefore the Protestants leue no one ground whereupon a Christian man may rest his faith I trust anie man of mean discretion can easilie perceiue For the iniurie done to Saint Iames Epistle by Luther should not be obiected against the Church of England which doth receiue the same as the Canonicall word of God but against Luther if he did so deserue and such as maintayne Luthers opinion herein But neither I nor any other that I knowe in our Church euer denied much lesse doth the whole Church denie that epistle to be worthely rekned among the bookes of sacred Scripture S. Iames Epistle not doubted of in the Church of England nor haue taken vpon vs to defend either Luther or any other for reiecting the same Indeed because Campian rayled vpon Luther charging him to haue disgraced that epistle with despitefull tearmes I answered that Luther had not so written of it as Campian affirmed which still I may truely holde for anie thing hath bene shewed either by any other or by Master Rainolds him selfe whoe like a profound scholler handleth this worthie matter thus at large Furthermore how doth that followe Maister Rainolds that if Luther thought Saint Iames epistle not to be Canonicall or equall in Authoritie with the epistles of Saint Paull and Peter that therefore he left no ground for a Christian mans faith to stay vppon are all the grounds of our fayth in Saint Iames epistle is all foundation of Religion ouerthrowne yf Saint Iames epistle should not be Canonicall Doe they that deny or doubt of that epistle destroy the credit of all other bookes of holie scipture God forbid that so we should thinke Diuers auncient learned men and Churches haue denyed the Epistle of S. Iames. Amongst the Auncient writers of estimation Eusebius calleth this same epistle of Saint Iames about which you make soe great adoe in playne wordes a Bastard I thinke you will not say that Luther hath written worse or more against it Euseb lib. 2. ca. 23. Ieron in catal And Saint Ierome saith It was affirmed that this epistle was published by some other vnder the name of Saint Iames whereby appeereth that many Christians in auncient tyme thought it to be in deede counterfait and yet did they not therefore ouerthrow al the foundations of our fayth Euseb lib. 7. ca. 25. Dionysius Alexandrinus writeth as Eusebius reporteth that many of his predecessours vtterly refused and reiected the booke of Reuelation Concil Laod. cap. 59. Iunil lib. 1. cap. 3. And so doth the Councell of Laodicea leue the same out of the number of Canonicall bookes Iunilius Africanus an auncient father reiecteth not only the bookes of Iudith Hester and Maccabees as they are worthy in that they are not canonicall but also of Iob Ezra and Paralipomenon which notwithstanding are canonical scriptures And neuerthelesse for al this they left some staie for Christians in the other bookes of Scripture wherein a man may finde sufficient ground to build his faith vpon Yea Ierome was not afraid to discredit the trueth of the historie written in holie Scripture concerning Dauids marrying with Abisag calling it according to the letter that is the true and natural sense Hier. epist 2. Vel. figmentū esse de mimo vel Atellanarum ludicra no better then either a poetical fiction or vnseemely iest and therefore deuiseth a proper Allegorie of Wisdome which cherisheth
and refresheth a man in his age I wil not vrge Father Ierome for his vnreuerent wordes but sure I am he hath deserued more reproofe for the same then Luther hath done for any thing euer vttered by him against S. Iames Epistle By these examples you may learne not to be so rash in your iudgement and hasty in your conclusions as you shew your felfe to be in the very beginning that because Luther denied Saint Iames epistle to be Canonical following the ensample of others hence doe gather not onely that he but we also although herein disagreeing from him and denying no one booke of Canonicall scripture neyther of the old nor new testament doe raze the foundation of faith and leaue no ground for Christians to stand vpon We leue such ground and thereupon do build our faith as ye shall neuer be hable to shake with all the force ye haue Verely your Pope and ye all that hang vpon him cannot well stand on this ground because it is too narrowe and slippery for you and therefore ye seeke larger roome in the Fathers Councells Traditions whereof you speak The grounds of Popish faith These are in deed fit groundes for your Church to be founded vpon the corruptions of Fathers the decrees of men superstitious inuentions forged traditions whereunto if you did not more leane and somewhat staye your selfes then to the bookes of holy scriptures your Church your Pope your Cardinals your monkes your friars your selues should surely lie in dust shortly But now to come to Luther whome still you chardge and me also about Saint Iames epistle I could vse as many words against you if the cause required as you haue against me handle the matter by poynts as you doe but what end or vse should there be of such kinde of writing or what profitt could arise thereby to the Church of Christ Had you clerely gayned al that for which you contend yet had you not prooued any thing at all against our Church or fayth nor yet against me but onely that Luthers writings haue beene changed and altered which because you haue so paynfully euicted I praie you take it vnto you and vse it moste to your aduantage Howbeit for all your needles and vnthriftie labour spent herein yet doth Campian still remayne chardged with that vntrueth whereof you would so fayne acquit him which you may sone perceiue if you call to remembrance what Campian in his booke obiected to Luther concerning this epistle of Saint Iames namely that he called it contentious swelling Campian Rat. 1. drye strawen and thought it not worthy an Apostolike spirite All this doth Campian auouch Luther to haue written of Saint Iames epistle Now yf Luther haue in deede thus written then haue I vniustly accused Campian of vntrueth yf otherwise then hath Campian slaundered Luther fowly To know the trueth herein I vsed all conuenient diligence in examining all the copies both Dutche and Latine that I could get and when I found in them noe such wordes but rather the cleane contrary I was perswaded as I had good cause that all this was but a forged matter and therefore sayd it was vntrue Afterwards it fell out that I light vppon an old Dutch Testament of Luthers translation with his prefaces wherein I found something like in one poynt to that which Campian had obiected the which when I had read I dissembled not but confessed it in my answere to Gregory Martin And in that preface Luther in deede writeth that Saint Iames epistle is not so worthy as are the epistles of Saint Peter and Paul but in respect of them is a strawen epistle His censure I mislike and so himselfe I thinke afterwards seeing those words in latter editions are left out Yet I trust euery indifferent reader will graunt that there is ods betweene this that Luther writeth indede and that which Campian saith he writ For it is one thing to speake simply and another thing to speake in comparison Campian sayth Luther calleth Sainte Iames Epistle strawne Luther sayth That it is in comparison of Saint Peters and Saint Pauls epistles strawne If you can by all your wisdome prooue these to be all one and will farther busie your selfe about trifles I am content to giue you the reading but I will not vouchsafe to answere any more such strawen or rather wodden replies And sure Master Rainoldes if you can write nothing to purpose and yet will needs be writing something it were better for you to sit downe and picke strawes then so to trouble your selfe and others wherein you shall purchase nothing els but commendation of a strawne writer and your booke shal be iudged more worthy to be burnt then to be answered But seeing you haue taken in hand to prosecute this matter so largelie M. Rainolds helpeth not where greatest neede is of his helpe why doe you faile in that thing wherein most of all we need your hand and helpe For this that you bring concerning strawne hath already beene confessed somuch as is true your parte had beene now farther to haue shewed that Luther likewse called the same epistle contentious swollen drie not worthie an Apostolicall spirit as he is accused by Campian in the same place But for proofe hereof you can bring forth nothing and therefore you confesse that Campian layd more to Luthers charge concerning this Epistle then was true so that if in one poore word you haue a little auouched the credite of your Iesuite for whome you fight yet in three or foure other you haue condemned him which you slylie passe ouer notwithstanding as though Campian had neuer spoken so or you had nothing to do therwith Indeed I graunt it maketh smale matter what Campian hath lyed of Luther but you that take vppon you to defend him may not thinke you haue performed your duty if of much that he hath said you be able to iustify his saying in one litle point in three points haue failed Wherefore either cease to quarell still about this one word or shew your proofes for the rest also or acknowledge your lewd and miserable wrangling as in deed you must howsoeuer the matter standeth concerning Luther in this behalfe For what if Luther had plainly and constantly affirmed of Saint Iames Epistle as much as Campian hath obiected though vntrulie Is this a cause sufficient why you should make all these outcryes generally against all Protestants why then may not we by like reason complayne of all Papists for that which Cardinall Caietane hath written both of other bookes of holie scripture and namelie of this same Epistle whereof we speake was not Caietane a piller of your Church a peere of the court of Roome the Popes Legate in Germanie against Luther Doth not this famous Cardinall of Roome set downe in playne wordes that the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrewes doth gather insufficient arguments to prooue Christ to be the sonne of God that the second and
third of Iohn are not Canonicall scripture Cardinal Caietane denieth sunday bookes and partes of Canonical Scripture in the new Testament where fore Catharinus hath written against him that the Epist of Iude is Apocryphall that the last Chap. of S. Marke is not of sound authority that the history of the adulterous woman in S. Iohn is not authentical namely of S. Iames Ep. that the salutation is prophane hauing nothing of God nor of Iesus Christ But what speake I of Caietane disalowing certaine bookes and parcells of diuine scripture whereas Hosius another Cardinal and one chiefe founder of all your late sophistications hath written most dishonorably and vilely of the wholl scripture for thus he sayth Scriptura quomodo profertur á Catholicis est verbum Dei quomodo profertur ab haereticis Hofius contra Brent lib. 4. est verbum diaboli that is The scripture as it is brought forth by the Catholikes is the word of god as it is brought forth by the Heretikes is the word of the deuil So that by this notable Cardinals iudgement if a Protestant that is in their language and meaning an heretick shall alledge for proofe of Christes eternall diuinitie the beginning of the Gospel written by Saint Iohn this scripture shall now become of Gods word as it is and alwaies shal be the word of the deuil because it is vsed by such as they account and call heretikes O blasphemous hand and tongue And can you prooue this Maister Rainolds can the word of God be made the word of Sathan It will not stand with your honestie to maintaine it Gods word by whome-soeuer it be vttered though by the deuill him-selfe is not the worde of the deuill God is immutable so is his worde Then hath Hosius blasphemed in calling Gods word the deuills word which you ought to consider who thinke you haue found somewhat against the Protestants when you shewe what Luther hath written in some disgrace of Saint Iames Epistle I can further put you in remembrance what others of your syde haue taught and maintained to the great slaunder and derogation of the Scriptures and that not in one worde or two but in earnest and long discourses Pighius Hierarch li. 1. Cap. 2. What doth Pighius labour to perswade in one whole Chapter often in other places by occasion but onlie that the Scriptures haue al their credit authoritie from the Church as though they had not any of them selues from the lord by whose spirit they were written For thus he sayth All authoritie of Scripture among vs dependeth necessarily vpon the authoritie of the Church Neque enim aliter cis credere possemus nisi quia testimoniumillis perhibenti Ecclesiç credimus for we could not otherwise beleeue them but because we beleeue the Church giuing testimonie vnto them And againe The primitiue Church hath made certaine proofe vnto vs that the writings of all the Euangelists are of canonicall trueth and not the Euangelists themselues that were the writers And against SS Marke and Luke he disputeth at large and boldly auoucheth that they were not meete witnesses of the trueth of those gospells which they writ Marcum Lucam nonsuisse testes libneos veritatis scriptorum à se Euangeliorum Ecclesie therefore euen while they liued that credit was not giuen to their Gospels for them-selues no not of those that certainly knew they were written by them yea and farther also had their verie principall copies written with their ownehands but for the Apostolike Church Yea this presumptuos and arrogant spirit of Pighius proceedeth farther yet and sayth that the Gospells were written by the Euangelists not to the end that those wrytings should beare rule ouer our faith and religion Non quidem vt scripta illa praeessent fidei religionique nostrae sed subessent potiùs Hoc Euangeli um inquit vnicum solumque designans Eu◠gelium esse nō que nos Matthaei Marci Lucae Ioannis que dicimus Euangelia quat uor Hier. li. 3. ca. 3. Ceusur Colonien pag. 112. Cusan epist 2. 7. but rather be subiect thereunto And yet a litle more blasphemouslie That they are not the true Gospell which Christ ascending into heauen commanded his Apostles to preach to euery creature What should I rehearse his often reprochfull comparisons of scripture to a nose of wax and a rule of lead which may easelie be turned bowed and applied euerie way at our pleasure which also the Censure of Colen hath affirmed of them in like manner And to the same effect hath Cardinall Cusane long before set downe that the Scriptures must be expounded diuersly and framed to the time and practise of the Church so that one time they are to be vnderstood and interpreted one waie and an other time an other way Which is more vnreasonable and absurd by many degrees then if one should prescribe that the Ladie must conforme hir selfe to the fashion and manners of hir handmaide William Lindane hath bene and still is a stout Champion for the Pope Lindan Pan. Lib. 1. c. 17. in whose defence he hath vttered many bolde blasphemies against the Scriptures as namelie that the Euangelists tooke in hand to write the Gospels Non vt aliquam totius Euangelij methodum insormarent non vt Christianae fisdei summam consor berent Lib. 3. cap. 1. not to the intent to set downe any forme of the wholl Gospell or to write the sume of Christian faith And that the authoritie of the word not written is greater then of the word written which question he saieth maie easilie be determined howsoeuer to some it seemeth full of difficultie and perplexitie Lib. 3. cap. 6. De to to in vniuersum sacrae scripturae corpore accipiendum and that whereas Saint Peter hath affirmed of Saint Paules epistles that in them are somethings hard to be vnderstoode the same must be taken and ment generallie of the wholl bodie of the Scriptures soe that according to this mans doctrine there is not in all the scriptures one easie sentence and S. Peter was ouerseene to saie that but somethings in the epistles of Saint Paule were hard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he should rather haue said that all things were hard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 1. cap. 22. Furthermore that it is extreame madnes to thinke the wholl entire bodie of Euangelicall doctrine is to be fetched out of those sole Apostolike letters written with incke Dementissimae insaniae Ex pusillo noui testanmenti libello and that litle small booke of the new testament Thus scornefullie wirteth this proud Papist of the diuine scriptures and exemplifieth his meaning by a notable similitude that it is as greate a want of wit to esteeme iudge that al Euangelical doctrine is comprehended in the bookes of the newe Testament as if one should saie that the wholl frame of the world is contained in some one sensible creature
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
Thirdlie you descant vpon Bene habet It is well pa. 30. but so simplie and fondlie that euerie one may see you are a trifler It is well I said that Campian could not charge Luther for denying a booke which neuer anie Church denied but for denying such a one as had beene heretofore by some Churches denied And although I seeke not herein to defende either Luther or those auncient Churches that refused the same yet is Luthers offence not so hainous as it should haue bene if this had first proceeded of him-selfe without example of other Churches If you will burthen vs with refusall of S. Luke his Gospell the knowne trueth wil easilie acquit vs of that accusation But nothing can be so falslie surmized that you will not finde in your heartes to burthen vs withall As for Atheisme I doubte not but your owne conscience doth tell you our doctrine is farre from it which when you forsooke I wil not saie how neere you approched to Atheisme in yealding to the strawne opinions at Rome but I am assured you went from Christ to followe Antichrist and of a minister of the Gospel became an open enemie of the Gospel If you repent not it had bin better for you neuer to haue bene borne Those forefathers of whome I spake haue giuen such a blowe to your great fathers of Rome pag. 13.32 as you and your companions shall not be hable to heale his wound And though he liue still and breath yet is he scarse hable to stand on his feete and carieth vpon him that marke that shall dailie more and more discouer him to the Saints of God Aerius Vigilantius Iouinianus if they taught anie thing against the trueth of Gods word let them be esteemed as they deserue We laie the grounds of our religion not vpon the writings or opinions of men be they good or badde learned or vnlearned Catholikes or Heretikes but vpon the written word of the eternall God and therefore we praie not as you doe nor offer sacrifice for the dead we worship not nor inuocate Saints we thinke the honourable estate of mariage is pleasing to the Lord as well as single life For thus haue the Prophets the Apostles the Lord him-selfe taught vs As for Marcion Cerdon the rest we abhorre them with all their damnable herisies because the word of God condemneth them the more is your fault in saying they are our fathers But you haue drawen since your departure so hard a skin ouer your conscience Foule vntrueths affirmed of vs by M. R. as you feare not to vtter anie vntrueth be it neuer so desperate You say we matche S. Luke and the Apocalyps with the booke of Iudith and that we saie most plainlie we are not bound to admit those and all the forenamed bookes but may refuse them which for shame of the world you would neuer haue written but that like an Atheist your pen is a readie instrument to publish anie vntrueth The booke of Iudith in dede admit we not and that is no blasphemie prooue it if you can But what should I require you M. Rainolds to prooue anie thing that haue taken vppon you to saie al things and prooue nothing You reason as if you had made a fraie with reason Pag. 33.34 that we are like those olde brutish heretikes called Alogi who denied the Apocalyps of Saint Iohn because we saie we know as certainelie the scriptures to be scriptures and euerie booke thereof as we know the sunne to be the sunne which is as contrarie to those Alogi as the light is to darkenes But who euer doubted of the sunne you saie that it is the sunne of Saint Iames epistle Luther doubteth and the Lutherans wherfore you saie I condemne them for the veriest sottes that euer liued Not so Master Rainolds if you could see For though we are as fullie persuaded of the one as of the other yet doth it not follow that the clearnes of this truth appeereth alike vnto all We must be persuaded assurede of many things that are not seene no lesse then of those things that we see with our eies but to such onelie as it is reueiled vnto Know you not as vndoubtedly there is a God as you know there is a sunne If not to you yet to all Godlie the knowledge of the one is no lesse certaine then of the other though we cannot beholde god with our eies as we may seethe sunne Wil you then conclude that al are stocks and stones which cannot perceiue this so cleare and euident a trueth Doe not your selues thinke all those bookes for which you contend with vs to be as truelie canonicall as that the sunne shineth you will not I am sure say otherwise Doe you then besides an infinite number of auncient writers condemne those of your side for stockes and sottes that denied them To omit the rest of whome I spake before Sixt. biblioth lib. l. Driedo de Catal serip li. 1. c. 4. ad difficult 11. was Sixtus Senensis a sotte for denying your bookes of Hester was Dryedo a sotte for denying Baruch Thus must it be or els your argument is too childish I will not saie sottish Here is brought an argument for Traditions such a one as M. R. diuinitie could afford Pag. 35. It cannot he saith be prooued by scriptures that S. Mat. S. Marke S. Luke S. Iohn his gospell S. Paules Ep. are Canonical scripture that is penned by diuine inspiration then we must beleeue some what which by scripture cannot be prooued so tradition is established I would your other traditions were of this sorte then should we sooner agree But betweene this and the rest of your infinite traditions there is no likenes For this is grounded vpon the word written the rest haue no footing on that ground Although it is not expreslie set downe in thus many words S. Matthewes gospell is Canonicall How we knowe the gospell of S. Matthew S. Marke c. to be canonicall scriptures so likewise of the rest yet that we cannot otherwise come to the certain knowledge beliefe thereof but by reporte is a vaine foolish phantasie For the historie it selfe and doctrine therein contained doe plainlie shewe conuince the booke to be Canonical that is written by diuine inspiration so as although the Churches commendation and testimonie of it may confirme our iudgement in beleeuing the same yet our faith is builded vpon the written word it selfe And so your other argument falleth of faith by hearing and hearing by the word of God Rom. 10.17 For when we heare the doctrine of these bookes preached vnto vs we beleeue the same in euerie point whereof it must needs follow that the bookes are Canonicall containing so heauenlie and spirituall doctrine as the like can not be written of anie but the spirit of God onelie so being enforced to alowe and imbrace by faith the doctrine of those bookes how can we but
acknowledge the bookes them-selues to be canonicall wherfore in that you saie we finde not this word in the scriptures vnles you thinke no word is found in them but such as is set downe in expresse tearmes you are abused For this word is found in them by necessarie collection so be not your vaine vnwritten Traditions and therfore are neither parte nor parcell of Gods diuine word But here is by the waie to be noted how this man seeking to disprooue my comparison of the sunne pag. 36. hath suddenlie ouerthrowen the principall staie of their religion which is the visiblenes of the Church That which is knowen by sense saith he is no article of faith for these two are directly opposite Then the Church is not knowne by sense and so visiblenes is not a marke of the Church For if it be then is it not an article of faith to beleeue the Church Thus sometime you can reason well but then it is against your selfe The similitude was brought not to match our beliefe of scripture with knowledge of the sunne that as we know the one by sense so the other but that we haue certaine and vndoubted beliefe of the canonicall scriptures by themselues as we know the sunne by it selfe Your beliefe in deede of the bookes of scripture is naturall and to vse your owne example such as when you beleeue Tusculans Questions to be written by Tullie For as you are ledde thus to beleeue of this booke because it hath bene so accounted in all times by constant tradition euer since so likewise you haue no better reason to discerne the canonicall scriptures from other bookes but onely this common receiued opinion of the Church which you call Tradition We haue this as well as you and we haue also an other better and surer then this which you haue not yea which you blasphemously deride the testimony of the spirit wherby the authoritie of the scriptures is sealed in our harts and we are throughly induced to receiue them as the most blessed Testament and trueth of God For example that there is a God who created heauen and earth both the Scriptures teache and the creatures them-selues confirme soe as no man ought to stand in doubt thereof Yet notwithstanding this persuasion cannot be faithfullie setled and rooted in mans hearte vnlesse it be approoued and as it were sealed vnto vs by the holie Ghost without the confirmation whereof great doubtfulnes and distrust will arise in our mindes continuallie through the greate corruptiō of our nature Euen so that these scriptures are in trueth the verie word of God not onelie them selues doe prooue by their subiecte matter argument but also the testimony iudgement of the Church which euer so esteemed them may inuinciblie argue the same And yet for all this that we faithfullie receiue them and submit our selues vnto them as to the word of God without wandring or suspicion Gods holie spirit must inwardlie perswade our heartes that this indeede is his word and therefore of vs by all meanes to be imbraced and beleeued Thus it appeereth how false it is that you haue noted in your margent that the Protestants refusing the Church beleeued not the scriptures We refuse not the Church but we knowe the Scriptures of God haue greater credit and assurance then the onelie approbation of the Church I haue allreadie answered whatsoeuer you bring out of Augustine the Councel of Carthage or any other pag. 38.39 both in what sense those bookes of the olde Testament are called canonicall by them alsoe how the other of the new Testament were refused or receiued in times past You shall neuer be able to prooue that you set down in your margent wherein the summe of your wholl speach is briefly comprised that S. Iames epistle and the epistle to the Hebrews haue beene as much doubted of as the bookes of the olde Apochryphall Testament which the Protestans reiect The moste you can alledge is that some Churches haue doubted of those epistles but I haue before shewed that the wholl Church reiected these of the olde Testament This was mine answere to M. Martines demaunde this is mine answere still which you cannot with all your endeuour take away Something you write for a colour and fashion but you come alwaies behinde with your reckning It offendeth you that I saide we haue seene we haue confuted we haue troden vnder foote all the arguments of the Papistes and whatsoeuer they could saie Vnlesse you haue some new haruest growing which yet hath not bene reaped I might truely saie as I saide for you haue vttered all your store such as it was and we haue seene and confuted it long agoe and that by the written word of god against which no tradition no religion though neuer so auncient so vniuersall so glorious may preiudice anie thing What reasons moued you to departe from vs and become a feedes-man of the Pope I leaue to the Lord and your owne conscience for any thing that I could euer see and I haue laboured to see the trueth and what could be saide against it by the best of your side I doe with al my heart reioyce in the cause which we maintaine against you and I thinke it to be the iustest and honorablest defense that euer was vndertaken What you haue learned since you went and how substantiallie you confute my bragge as you call it shall hereafter further appeare as it hath in part alreadie done CHAP. 3. Of Luther preferring his priuate iudgement before all auncient fathers HEre againe is repeated an other quarrel about Luther to no purpose in the world but onely to discredite him a litle with the simple sorte For our aduersaries are so wasted and spent for good reasons that whatsoeuer they light vpon though neuer so vnfit to frame good arguments of they handle it with great earnestnes like seelie fletchers that hauing no store of steles left in theire shoppe are saine to make their blots of euerie crooked sticke What maketh it againest the trueth of our reliligion if Luther preferred his owne iudgement before the fathers is our doctrine therefore false and yours true either in wholl or in parte Others desire to reape great profit of a litle labour but you are content to take a great deale of paine for no commoditie at al. I would not herin vouchsafe you an answere but that I haue respect to the readers weaknesse whoe by such slaunders may be abused Your title sheweth plainlie there is in this Chapter no truth to be looked for at your hands pag. 42. you say Luther preferred his priuate iudgement before all auncient fathers and Doctors wherein you would haue men thinke he was vnmeasurablie arrogant and wilfull But Luthers spirit was farre from this insolent and immoderate presumption as maie by his owne wordes appeare which you haue noted For he saith not that he more setteth by his owne priuate iudgement then he doth by al the
Christ the truth You cannot pul in sunder these two offices but if you wil needs be priests that properly according to this order of Melchis then seeing that order of priesthood hath a kingdome inseparablie annexed to it it must necessarilie followe that you are also kinges and that properlie which were a verie proper thing indeede and greatlie to be accounted of Popish priests if they be according to Melchisedechs order must not be priests onelie but also kings If you deuide these offices in sunder it is blasphemy making a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech whoeis not also a king If you take both iointlie to your selues then will euerie hedge Priest be a gentleman a lord a King As this is most absurd monstrous so is that also that you should be priests according to Melchisedechs order For then further ought you to be eternall without beginning or ending of daies without father or mother as Melchisedech is described vnto vs in the scriptures and as Christ is in trueth and onely Christ So taking vpon you this priesthood of Melchisedech you commit horrible sacriledge and treason against the person of Christ our sauiour who will in time tread such vermine vnder his feete that creeping on the earth do presumptuously chalenge to themselues his speciall prerogatiues and royalties S. Augustine calling the ministers of the Gospell Priests speaketh improperlie Pag. 65. August de eiuit dei Lib. 20 cap. 10. as hath bene answered For although he saieth that all Christians are vnproperly called Preists and others in the Church are so called properly yet he meaneth not that there are anie such preists in the Church as Melchisedech or Aaron or Christ was but onelie that they are so termed by an vsuall and peculiar name which is not in custome of speach giuen generallie to all Christians This to haue bene S. Augustines meaning and the iudgement of the Church heretofore we may learne of Peter Lumbard How the fathers cal the ministers of the Gospell Priests Sent. lib. 4. Dist 12. â— to let the auncient writers passe For Peter first asketh this question whether that which the Preist doth may properly be called a sacrifice oblation His answere he maketh thus To this may be said briefly that which is offered and consecrated of the Priest is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is the remembrance and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation that was made vppon the altar of the crosse Yf then there remaine in the Church no sacrifice in proper and natural sense of the word as your owne doctour and Master of sentences confesseth there can not be remaining any Priests that maie so be called properlie For such as the kinde of sacrifice is such is also the kinde of priesthood if the sacrifice be not a sacrifice properly the priesthood cannot be a Priesthood properly but onely by a figuratiue and vnproper maner of speach That Augustine was a priest him-selfe Pag. 66. August Cofes Lib. 9. cap. 11.12.13 you labour to prooue out of his booke of Confessions in which place though he speak of an altar and sacrifice yet he meaneth not such altares and sacrifices as you haue erected and offered in all places This sacrifice that he speaketh of is the sacrament of Christes death the altar is the Lords table the remembrance of his mother in offering this sacrifice on the altar is giuing of thankes to God for her in celebrating the Lords supper Although I denie not but the superstition of praying for the dead was then crept into the Church so that if you will needes vrge that Monica desired to haue praiers made for her I will not greatly stand with you herein But that anie real sacrifice of Christ as you meane was offered for quick or dead in those daies that I denie and you can not prooue it by this or anâ— other testimonie of S. Augustine Where I saie that Christ hath committed his Church to be ruled by Pastors and Doctors for euer and not to Priestes pag. 67. you demaund whether this appointment had effect or no giue me warning to beware as though some danger were at hand what I answere But we shall easilie I trust driue awaie this craking Annibal from the gates of our Citie who commeth only to make a shew and hath no force to hurt Ephi 4.11 Ministers of the Gospell are ueuer called priests in the new Testament That Christ ordained Pastors and Doctors to rule his Church the scripture is plaine so that you may not forshame deny it now if these were priests trulie and properlie then should they haue bene so called and by this name commended vnto vs in the scriptures But wheras their office is declared diuerslie in great varietie of names yâ—t is this name neuer once giuen vnto them in no Gospell in no epistle in no booke of the new testament And maie we thinke that if the ministers of Christ in the new Testament were by Gods institution verie Priestes as these men beare vs in hand and had commission to offer so excellent a sacrifice as no Priest euer the like saue Christ himselfe may we thinke I saie or is it likelie that this name should neuer haue bene found in all the new Testament in this sense where are so manifold titles giuen vnto them as of Elders Ouerseers Rulers Shepheards Watchmen Ministers Stewards Seruants and such like Of all which names none pleaseth their humor but Priests they wil be called accounted as though Gods spirite which appointeth offices in the Church could not haue giuen fit names vnto them but would rather giue them anie name then that which is their proper name Anie man then that hath but halfe an eie maie soone see that the holie ghost in auoiding this name so carefullie hath giuen our Popish Priests a cleane wipe and both left them out of the dore and shut the dore against them though they striue neuer so much to creepe in yet are they to be driuen awaie by lawfull authoritie and kept forth as they that haue nothing at all to do in Gods howse But here M. Rainolds hath gotten a doughtie argument which I thinke because he knew not how to bring it in fitly in some other place hath halde it in here out of place He bids me shew where this Church for many hundred yeares was gogouerned thus which is as common an argument with them to vse his owne words as Dunstable hiewaie For this reason is euen their common pack-horse to beare the wholl burthen when all other faile where was your Church where were your ministers before Luther Whereunto that you may perceiue how farre we disagree from the Donatistes of whome you speake I answere that our Church was neuer so straited but that it might be found in all countreis christened and our ministers had the chiefest roomes till Antichrist by litle and litle had driuen them out and then afterwards
causes of religiō when they dreamed of an earthlie kingdome in this world yet this opinion is contrarie to a principal article of our faith were they void of holines when they beleeued that the gospell was to be preached to the Iewes onelie which is greatlie derogatorie to the grace of God and saluation of his people Then euerie error doth not ouerthrowe all holines in the seruants of God In the primitiue Church manie holie fathers were infected with the error of Christes raigning a thousand yeares on earth who notwithstanding are worthelie accounted Saints of God Cyprian and manie godlie Byshops with him erred about the baptisme ministred by heretikes yet lost they not for all that the opinion and name of holie fathers Thus the vanitie of your chalenge appeareth in finding fault with me for calling the fathers holie whome I charged with error it being such as in them did not raze the foundation of the gospell Your argument of the Church is friuolous True it is that he that maketh a schisme in the Church and cutteth himselfe from the same cannot be saued But to erre in this point as the fathers did is neither schisme nor so dangerous to saluation as schisme Nether is it like to the errour of the Galatians altogeather For it was in the fathers only an ouersight of infirmitie by leaning somewhat too much to their owne reason and not considering the matter so deepely as they ought and yet they held not that works are to be ioined with Christ as necessary causes of our iustification and saluation but ascribing the wholl work of our redemption vnto Christ they erred a litle in applying this redemption vnto them-selues Your case is the same that was of the Galatians For as they thought to be iustified by the workes of the Law so do you as they were warned of their error so are you as they without repentance lost the benefit of Christs sacrifice so shall you Yf the fathers had bene as often plainlie admonished as you haue bene they would being holy and sincere men haue reformed their iudgement and keeping the head though they erred in some part the Lord will not impute that error vnto them for condemnation All that you alledge here out of that worthy seruant of Christ M. Luther Pag. 120. c I acknowledge for true seeing it is the verie same that the Scriptures them-selues haue taught For this is the voice and doctrine of the gospell that by faith onelie in the mediator who by his sacrifice once offered vpon the crosse hath reconciled the father vnto vs we are iustified and saued Then to liue straitlie and to do good workes with this purpose and persuasion that thereby we shall obtaine iustice or saluation is contrary to the trueth of Christs gospell and may not in anie be allowed although otherwise moste learned and godly Will you reason hereby against Luther and me because we charge the fathers with some ouersight in the trueth of this doctrine in that they thought somewhat too well of their owne deedes we must therefore repute them for wicked men and make them no better then Papists They erred not somuch as you they erred not so wilfully as you and therefore though there besome likenes betweene their error yours yet we account not of them as of you who besides that you erre in this point of iustification most damnablie haue also multiplied your errours in other articles almost left no one ground of pure religion vnshaken And therefore you greatlie deceiue your owne heart M. Rainolds when you thinke your selfe to be in the same case that the fathers were in because sometime the fathers gaue more to their works then they should haue done you trusting to be iustified and saued by the worthines and merits of your workes which the fathers did not So betwene you and them there is a great space of distance although I graunt that some things which they haue written of this matter and practized in their liues tendeth somewhat to your heresie of iustification by workes For the mysterie of iniquitie which in papistry is fullie finished began to worke in the Apostles age so continued still forward in the fathers daies vntil it came to his height and perfection in the kingdome of popery They slipt a litle you are fallen headlong into the pit they were ouerseene through infirmitie you are blinde of malice they scattered some darnell in the Lords field you haue plucked vp by the roots the good corne They haue suffred losse of this building being not agreeable to the foundation yet are saued you ouerthrow the foundation it selfe and therefore cannot in this opinion be saued The contradiction which you haue found in my wordes Pag. 124. is a knott in a rush your head is crazie I perceiue by your wandring and friuolous talke or els your wit is often verie fugitiue Although the fathers sometime doe require satisfaction by workes not onelie in respect of the Church but of God as appeareth by Saint Cyprian plainlie in sundry places and therein haue obscured the doctrine of repentance and Iustification yet they neuer meant so groslie Satisfactions in respect of God taught and practised in the primitiue time what they were as you doe that this satisfaction of theirs should be a worthie and sufficient recompense to god for their sinnes committed against his moste holie maiestie but that they ought to craue humblie for pardon at gods hands by humbling themselues be fore him in fasting and praying and punishing their bodies in this life This appeareth by the 55. epistle of Saint Cyprian as I noted Ne exoretur precib satisfactionibus who speaking of Christians committing Idolatrie saith They make intercession that Christ may not be intreated by praiers and satisfactions This godlie father ascribeth remission of sinnes to the pardon of Christ being intreated by praiers and satisfactions If remission be of pardon then is it not of satisfaction as you meane if it be obtained by praiers then is it not giuen to the worthines of our workes Againe he saieth I imbrace with readie and perfecte loue such as returne with repentance confessing their sinnes with humble and simple satisfafaction Satisfactione humili simplice What els doth he meane by this humble satisfaction but humble and earnest supplication for pardon in his booke against Demetrian he saith speaking to the heathen we exhort while there is leaue that you satisfie God And can the workes of such men make a full satisfaction vnto God No But Saint Cyprian expoundeth himselfe by by in these words Thou euen at thy howre of death and end of this temporall life intreate God for thy sinnes who is one true pardon is giuen to him that confesseth and to him that beleeueth gratious remission is graunted of Gods mercie Thus with this godlie father to satisfie God is to make humble sute and request to God for our sinnes Salutaris
three notable articles pag. 142. c. out of auncient writers against the Bishop of Sarisburies chalenge first of the Popes supremacy Where good Reader I pray the consider the wrangling and cauilling spirit of this sophister Such tricks of vntrue dealing hath M. R. vsed many Master Iewell in that sermon wherein he bad defiance to the Popish sectaries speaking against their priuate masse and single communion and hauing prooued by euident testimonies of antiquitie the contrary vse and practise of the Church in the end nameth sundry Bishops and Doctors of the Church of whome he saith we haue learned these heresies as our aduersaries account them Among other he reckeneth Anacletus and Sixtus that were Bishops of Rome Master Rainolds taking vpon him to prooue the Popes supreme authoritie by the same witnesses that M. Iewell here alledgeth bringeth in the decretall epistles set forth vnder the names of these two Byshops which no man of wit or iudgement can once imagine to haue bene written by them they are so foolish vnlearned but yet the Church of Rome maketh no small reckening of them being the best euidences she hath to shew for her vnlawfull tyrannical vsurpation To what purpose M.R. doe you obiect those Epistles in the cause of supremacie against M. Iewel speaking of priuate masse and halfe communion Haue you thus solde your selfe to deuise crafty sleights that you may abuse the simplicity of your Reader Master Iewell speaketh of one thing for proofe thereof appealeth to those two Bishops amonge others you bring against him their forged writings for an other matter Replie Arciela 4. Diuis 3. wherein Master Iewell himselfe hath alreadie shewed his iudgement of them But you saie Pag. 145. what other bookes hath he seene of theirs beside these epistles And what though he hath not sene any what though there are none to be seene might not he therfore say that we haue learned of them this doctrine which no man can doubt but they followed and practised and left to their successours behinde them for it being the cleare doctrine of Christ and his Apostles those godlie and faithfull Bishops so neare the Apostles time departed not from it De consec dict 2 peracta And a Bishop of Rome Calixtus by name reporteth that the Apostles ordained and it was the practise of the Romane Church that after consecration all should communicate vnlesse they would incurre excommunication It is but losse of time to answere such palpable cauillation as this booke hath almost nothing els And were it not for regarde I haue to the godlie that desire the aduersarie may be answered though neuer so vnworthie of answere in respect of himselfe might be offended if he should passe without answere I could easilie haue suffered M.R. to haue enioyed quietlie the fruits of his labours and otherwise spent my time more profitablie to my selfe and others Next in like manner S. Leo and S. Gregorie two other Bishops of Rome Pag. 147. c. but long after are obiected and M. R. translateth out of the Centuries a great deale to shewe that by confession of the more famous learned Protestants as he saith the Romane sea had primacie ouer all Churches in Christendome True it is that the Centurie writers in that Chapter doe largelie and plainlie discouer the mystery of iniquity Cent. 5. cap. 7. Col. 774. c. that in those daies did mightelie worke for the obtaining of that vniuersall primacie which afterwards with much endeuour was gotten And as the Church of Rome was then in great estimation and authoritie farre beyond other Churches so the Bishops of that sea vsed all occasion to encrease the credite and prerogatiue thereof especially this Leo and Gregorie also not a litle All this as it is in the Centuries discoursed we confesse and withall iustlie mislike and condemne that ambition in those Bishops but what gather you hereof M. R. for your purpose doth this prooue the Popes supremacie Great and many vntrueths auouched by M.R. doth this disprooue Master Iewells chalenge Doe the learned Protestants also confesse the same what notable and shameles vntruthes are these Not one of all these examples alledged doth argue the Popes vniuersall power or headship ouer Christs Church nor commeth neere vnto it That Leo calleth it the chiefest Church that he requireth Anatolius Archbishop of Constantinople to make relation vnto him if anie matter of controuersie should arise that he willeth Maximus Archbishop of Antioche to write to the sea Apostolike how the Churches there encrease that he reprooued other Bishops if they did ought amisse that he appointed in some places orders and ceremonies and did these and manie other such things as in his epistles is manifest although he tooke vpon him more then he might or ought for aduauncement of his owne seat encroched much vpon the libertie of other Churches yet neuer ment he to make himselfe vniuersall Bishop Though Leo delt in moe matters then appertained to him yet was he farre from the top of the papal supremacie and head of the Church which your Pope claimeth and M. Iewell denieth This was his endeauour to lift his chaire aboue the rest to be accounted a chiefe Bishop to be had in greatest regard to procure to his seate a principall reuerence to obtaine priuiledges and prerogatiues aboue others but of this pontifical power vniuersal iurisdiction which afterwards your Popes vsurped he neuer dreamed for ought that you haue alledged or can furthermore alledge out of his Epistles And though you could what had you greatlie gained against M. Iewell who requireth a lawfull and irrefragable testimonie his being partiall as in his owne matter and for his owne commoditie Yet how farre Leo was from the papall supremacie may in one example appeare that he had not authoritie to call a councell but was faine to be an humble suter to the Emperour Epist 33. that he would by his commandement summone a councell of Bishops in Italie which yet he obtained not that the same Leo fell on his knees before Valentinian Leo was of mean iurisdiction and authoritie in respect of the pope to haue a councell that a Councell by the Emperour Martian being called at Chalcedon he laboured instantlie to haue it somewhat differred vntil a more conuenient time could not preuaile Doth it not euidently hereby appeare that he was not accounted neither by the Emperour nor the Byshops of Christendom Head of the Church vniuersall Bishop And this is the thing in controuersie wherof you haue not shewed anie proofe as yet for all your childish bragging and what you will hereafter doe I need not greatlie stand in doubte For your demonstration following which you full ignorantlie and vainelie commend Pag. 150. comparing it to the brightnes of the sunne in a sommers daie hath no light at all in it to shew that thing which you haue taken in hand to prooue
l. 3. wherein first of all priuate masse vsed in the Popish synagogues â—eceaueth a blowe For Chrâ—sostome saith Christ is handled witâ— all mâ—ns hands 〈◊〉 the Popish masse the priest onelie hâ— adlâ—h all that is handled 〈◊〉 whoe is so â—imple not to see 〈◊〉 mâ—â—niâ—g of that godlie and eloquent father in this kinde of speach Doe all men handle Christ with their handes indeed doth Saint Chrysostome meane a reall handling as a man handleth bread The papistes will have Christs flesh â—andled Really do yourselues thinke thus groslie â—r els for a shew pretend you to maintaine the same That Christ may thus be handled taken vp laid downe broken eaten swallowed remoued from place to place tossed to and fro and all this as you speake really is monstrous and lothsome doctrine in the eares and harts of all godlie and reasonable men This S. Chrisostome once to haue imagined neuer shall you shew in this world Chrisostome meaneth the sacrament of Christ which we handle indeede and which in some sense in called Christ himselfe This to be moste true is plaine by Chrysostome in the same place S. Chrysostome expouâ—deth his owne meaning For he saith We see the Lord sacrificed and the people are sprinkled and made red with his blood and this done plainly without deceit in the sight of all men If Chrysostome may be allowed to expound himselfe your glosse of real handling Christ in the sacrament must giue place For if he meant as you meane that Christ is handled indeed then meant he also that Christ is sacrificed indeede in our sight that the people are dyed and embrued with blood indeed that all men see the same indeed For these speaches are all of one stampe all after one sorte to be vnderstood as one parte is true so is another Then tel vs M.R. if Christ be sacrificed indeede if the people be embrued with his blood indeede if this be euident to all men indede you maie not vrge vs so extreamlie in one and giue vs the slip in all the rest Let vs then consider what replie you make to this answere which to be true and sufficient you can not denie pag. 220.217 The papistes saie they see Christ Really sacrificed in their Church First you saie I am ignorant of the catholike faith For in the Church catholike we see Christ offered Then you maintaine that S. Chrysostome in saying we see Christ sacrificed speaketh properlie for this you saie is seene in the catholike Church The godly I graunt see in spirit this sacrifice of Christ thus the oblation of Christ is seene in the catholike Church But we speake of a real sacrifice of Christ which no man seeth nor euer shal see For a reall sacrifice prooueth a real death so Christ when he was sacrificed reallie died also reallie But no man seeth Christ dying who died but once now liueth for euer And they that really sacrificed our sauiour Christ did in that acte really wickedly murther him so your Priests if they be reall sacrificers of Christ are in the same action also reall murtherers of Christ Take both or refuse both if you take vppon you the one you must not nor cannot denie the other Murtherers of Christ you wil not be accounted yet you professe your selues to be sacrificers of Christ that openly which is al one as if the Iewes should confesse that they crucified Christ but yet they murthered him not wherefore it is in a word an heresie blasphemie to saie Christ is sacrificed in the Church otherwise then in a sacrament remembrance of that one sacrifice as both Chrysostome the fathers write commonlie in which manner and no other he is seene to be sacrificed in the Church That you adde of seeing god is poore diuinitie being admitted that we see Christ in the Catholik Church how followeth your reason therefore we see him sacrificed if you haue either wit or religion your selfe may see you speake without al wit and religion Secondlie you answere 〈…〉 that I am ignorant of the Lutheranes doctrine and then as you are wont you rehearse certaine places out of Luther wherunto I haue no nede to answere How cunning you your selfe are of that doctrine let others iudge when you saie Vntruthes boldlie set downe by M. Rainolds they acknowledge bread to be the bodie of Christ Doth Luther or anie Lutheran teach that bread is the bodie of Christ Do they adore it as you also affirme This to be false whoe knoweth not They neither acknowledge the bread to be God nor giue any godlie honour to it And that might Kemuitius haue taught you in the same place that your selfe alledge He saith we adore in spirit truth Kemnit exam pars 2. de Euchar cap. 6. not the bread but Christ in the action of the Lordes supper And so doe we also acknowledge teach that Christ in the supper is to be worshipped adored in spirit truth of all Christians That you alledge out of Master Caluine for your third answere pag. 223. as it is of vs entirelie allowed so it notably detecteth the falshood of your slaunder when you write and beare your reader in hand that we make the sacrament a bare signe and figure For we teach and euer did Caluin de coena Domini as Caluine doth in this place that it is ioyned to his truth and substance and not onelie representeth but also exhibiteth vnto vs the bodie of Christ Now then this being our doctrine touching the sacrament as your selfe may see in these wordes of Caluine plainly declared cease for shame hereafter contrary to your owne knowledge and conscience to charge vs for making the sacrament a naked and onelie figure But now Master Rainolds draw these things to the point and match them with your conclusion and then see what agreement there is betweene them Can you gather of that Caluine saith we see the body of Christ in a sacrament that therefore we see Christ visiblie sacrificed in the Church such reasons are too lamentable as here and euerie where you bring vs. Then Master Rainolds admitting this to be indeede a phrase of speach pag. 224. asketh whether it follow that therefore it is a phrase of speach also to say that Christs body is there at all I answere expounding Chrysostome by Chrysostome and that in the same place and words as Christ is handled with all mens hands S. Chrysostome rightly expounded so is he visiblie sacrificed and so are the people made red with his blood that is by way of a sacrament Therefore set your heart at rest M. R. out of this place shall you neuer prooue your reall presence That you adde of figuratiue expositions is superfluous Of Saint Chrysostomes vehemencie in amplifications pag. 226. knowen to all that knowe Chrysostome this place hath a liuely example peruse it your selfe Master Rainolds compare one speach with an
against your doctrines then the latine translation Which though M. Rainolds here closelie denieth yet in examples euerie where maie be seene and some I will sett downe partlie for M. Rainolds sake and partlie to shew I haue no neede of his excuse from a lie In the 14. Chapter of S. Iohns gospell ver 26. where our sauiour Christ telleth his Apostles The holie ghost shall bring into your remembrance whatsoeuer I haue said to you the Remish translators haue made him thus to speake shall suggest vnto you all things whatsoeuer I shall saie to you according to the latine vulgare that it might be more easilie supposed whatsoeuer the Church should afterwardes determine is from inspiration of the holie ghost Ephesians Chapter 2. vers 10. the Apostle in the Greeke writeth that we are created in Christ vnto good workes you translate after your latine in good workes This corruption is aduantage to your doctrine of good workes In the same epistle Chapter 5. vers 32. you translate this is a great sacrament to make men think that the scriptures affirme mariage to be a sacrament of the Church whereas if you had truelie translated it according to the Greeke This is a great mysterie the occasion of that surmise had bene remoued In the epist to the Pihl. Chap. 1. v. 27. the greeke word which signifieth a signe or token or proofe is in your latine vulgare translated a cause and this translation do you keepe the rather thereby to induce your readers to beleeue that as the malitious dealing of wicked aduersaries against the godlie maie truelie be said to be the cause of their perdition so likewise the patience of the godlie is a cause of their saluation whereas the Apostle onelie saieth in this place that the raging of the enemies against the Church is a manifest argument of their condemnation and the constant suffering of the godly is a certaine signe and testimony of their saluation who seeth not herein what cause you had to like better of the latine translation then of the originall text Luke Chap. 10. v. 35. the words are in the Greeke whatsoeuer thou spendest more which you translate whatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate This corruption maketh some shewe for your workes of supererogation Luke Chap. 1. v. 48. the blessed virgine saith God hath looked on the lowe estate of his handmaid you translate the humilitie of his handmaid This corruption helpeth your doctrine of merites So an other corruption in the same Chapter v. 28. tending to the same purpose where you haue translated Haile full of grace the Greeke and originall texte hath onelie Haile thou freelie beloued In the Epistle to the Hebrewes chap. 13. v. 16. you translate with such hostes god is promerited which is both a fonde and false translation the Greeke words being with such sacrifices God is delighted meaning almes and distribution In the second Ep. of S. Peter Chap. 1. v. 15. you haue strangely translated the Apostles words I will doe my diligence you to haue often after my decease also that you may keepe a memorie of these thinges and vpon this disordered translation you haue made a long note of Peters care and protection of the Church after his death whereas the Apostle in his owne wordes saith no more but that he would endeuour dailie that they also might haue remembrance of those things after his departure A pretie sleight in translating for aduantage where the Apostle saieth he would endeuour that they might remember those thinges after his decease to make him saie that he would haue them in remembrance after his decease and then of this false translation to note what a pastorall care S. Peter hath for the Church after he was deceased In the epistle of S. Paule to the Romanes chap. 11. v. 6. the common translator hath left out this whol sentence together But if it be of workes it is no more grace or els were worke no more worke and these wordes haue you also in your English translation cleane omitted as though they were no parte of scripture being the Apostles vndouted words no lesse then the other that went before What cause was there of this dealing but onelie to smother that cleere opposition between merite and grace which the Apostle hath in his owne words declared if he might be suffered to speake all A number such places could I alledge where the vulgar translation differing and swaruing from the vndoubted originall text is by you followed because it carieth some sound and shewe of your opinions and errors Manie excuses may you make for your selues your translatours haue in their preface handsomely laid out their excuses which I doubt not shal be weied and examined throughlie but soone may anie man perceiue what cause indeede moued you to be so friendlie to the translation and soe harde to the text because the texte doth plainlie discouer your nakednes the translation bringeth some small ragges to hide it Before you answere my arguments alledged for defense of the Hebrewe and Greeke texte pag. 285. you set downe certaine words of mine wherein I seeme you say to auouch that onelie to be the worde of God which is written in the language wherein first the holie ghost by the Prophets and Apostles vttered it No cauill so simple which M.R. will not vse My words are plaine Master Rainolds my meaning cannot seeme ambiguous you seeke not for truth but for a cauill The word of God I know maie be vttered in other languages then wherein first it was by writing deliuered to the Church and translations agreeing with the originall texte are the word of God For Gods worde is not the language but the doctrine Howbeit translations set forthe by sundrie persons are so farre forth onelie the word of God as they faithfully expresse the meaning of the Authenticall text the which being written by the Prophets and Apostles chosen instruments for that purpose is wholly and vndoubtedlie the worde of God Then it may worthelie be wondered at in you whoe taking vpon you to translate the new testament into englishe haue not translated the text of the Apostles and Euangelists but the translation of S. Ierome or some other you know not whome which translation in verie manie places is corrupte and therefore in those places cannot be the word of God Religion and reason would haue required that in translating the scriptures you should haue followed the originall fountaines Absurd to translate a translation of Scriptures rather then the fountaines yea although the latine translation hadde bene much perfecter and purer then it is how much more ought you to haue soe done seing it be wrayeth soe manifest and manifold corruptions as it doeth But your reasons pag. 287. whereby you labour to iustifie your doing in this behalfe must be examined M.R. reasons why they might translate according to a translation answered Our Sauiour the Euangilists Apostles you say cited places of the old testament
not according to the Hebrew but according to the Septuagints First Master Rainolds your comparison is not equall What are ye to Christ to his Euangelists and Apostles will you be bolde to take as much vppon you as they might herein doubtles you haue not so wiselie be thought your selfe Then shew if you can a place alledged by our sauiour Christ or anie Euangelist or Apostle swaruing in sense from the Hebrew They cite not alwaies the words but they keepe most truelie the sense and meaning euer more Lastlie it is one thing to translate the scripture and an other to cite a place of scripture In citing a place it is sufficient to obserue the true meaning in translating it is necessarie to keepe the wordes as neare as maie be Our sauiour his Euangelists and Apostles were no translatours of scripture but they truelie deliuered the sense of such places as they alledged out of scripture The Apostle you say alledging a place out of the psalme Psa 19.5 Their sound is gone into all the earth followed not the Hebrew First I answere the sense is all one Rom. 10.18 whether you translate their sound or their line is gone forth secondlie Iohn Isaac can tell you Contra Lindā lib. 3. p. 148. that the hebrew word Kau must signifie not onelie a line but also as much as Kol a sound which if it be so Act. 13.41 then hath the Apostle kept the verie word The place in the Actes which S. Paul citeth out of the Prophet Habacuc hath no difference in substance The Prophet saith Behold among the Gentiles c. The Apostle citeth the place thus Habac. 1.5 Behold ye scorners Howsoeuer some diuersitie maie appeare in the wordes the purpose of the Prophet and Apostle is all one and this was the thing which the Apostles regarded in alledging authorities out of the old Testament Your third example in Saint Iames sheweth Iam. 4.6 that the Apostle cited the words of the Greeke not of the hebrew which is graunted to be oftentimes in the new Testament vsed But to alledge the sense of a place therin to follow some translation is another thing then to translate the text it selfe The Hebrew text is to this sense He mocketh the mockers and giueth grace to the meeke Pron 3.34 Saint James rehearseth the wordes thus God resisteth the proud and giueth grace to the humble The sense is not altered seeing these mockers are the proude men of this world and God mocketh them when he resisteth them But tell me now whether you think the Hebrew in these places to be corrupt or no. I think you dare not so affirme seeing your latine vulgar which you account authenticall agreeth with the Hebrew for the two last places Then what is your argument out of these examples gladly would I vnderstand if you could tell That Christ and the Apostles cited places out of the olde testament according to the Greeke Haue an eie to M.R. conclusion and it shal appeare he speaketh beside the purpose was it because the Hebrew was contaminated as you speake If it were then must you confesse your latine translation which you so much esteeme to be full of corruption Would you translate these places according to the Greeke because you finde them cited by the Apostles according to the Greeke Expound your dreame Master Rainolds your selfe and tell vs what you saw Caluine you charge for cutting the place of Iames cleane awaie Lay not the Printers fault vppon Caluine If he had meant as you surmise he would haue cut the same sentence out in Saint Peter also But there you haue it set downe in the text and expounded in the commentary Your spposes haue small weight to ground an argument vpon pag. 290. you may deuise and imagine any thing what you liste Euery canonicall booke of the olde testament is extant in the same language wherin it was written As for your bookes of Tobie Iudith Machabees it is no matter in what tongue or by whome they were set forth That S. Matthewe writ his Gospell in Hebrew is affirmed I graunt by auncient fathers but affirmed onelie not prooued and arguments there be manie to the contrarie But admit that so it were the Greeke was set forth in the Apostles daies as the same authors confesse and by them commended to the Church as the true and authenticall history written by S. Matthewe and of vs is so to be accounted As for the Hebrew of that Gospell now extant your selfe beleeue not I thinke it is the same that Saint Matthew writ if he writ anie at all in Hebrue Looke now to the force of this supposition a litle better your selfe if you haue grace to consider it aright which you saie is wanting in me you will confesse it prooueth nothing My words by you translated I acknowledge pag. 291. c. out of which three things you note First that I confesse you refuse not the fountaines but because you thinke them to be corrupt which yet is not by me any where confessed The fountaines indeed you refuse and of this refusall the reason you pretend to be that they are corrupt Yet thinke I not that so you are in trueth perswaded it being contrarie to all reason that the translation generallie should be more pure and incorrupt then the fountaine it selfe from whence it is deriued Secondlie that I affirme you thus to say because the fountaines be not so commodious for you as the translation This to be the true cause in deede any man may soone perceiue that throughlie indifferentlie considereth your dealing this in some examples I haue alreadie shewed and can more at large declare when occasion shall require Thirdlie that I tell you the fountaines are more pure and holesome then the latine edition Verilie this I beleeue and this can I prooue and this shal in the discourse following appeare whatsoeuer you haue alledged or can alledge to the contrarie In your entrie to the question you thinke to gaine credit to your vulgare translation by S. Ieromes authoritie pag. 294. who was requested by Damasus Bishop of Rome to correct the latine translation of the new Testament Hier. in prefat in nonū Test S. Ierome I reuerence Damasus I commend the worke I confesse to be godlie profitable to the Church But if Ierome or Damasus maie bring anie waight of commendation to your latine translation how much more ought we to haue in high and holie reuerence the Hebrewe and Greeke text which was written not by Ierome or anie such father of meane credite but by the Prophets by the Apostles and Euangelists not at the request of Damasus or other like Bishop but by commaundement from God and direction of the holie Ghost S. Ierome tooke paines at Damasus request in the foure Euangelists of his owne accord in manie bookes of the olde Testament but this maketh nothing for your assertion but
and refuge c. Now in the hebrew no such wordes are found no truelie nor neuer were which I proue because they are not in your latine translation And this against you is an argument strong enough that maintaine your latine text to be the authentical word of God If anie thing want it wanteth as much in your latine Bibles as in the Hebrew and so no more corruption here in the Hebrew text then in the latine Againe the Greeke now extant hath them not whatsoeuer can be said no more shal be proued against the veritie and synceritie of the hebrew fountaines then of the latine translation in this behalfe so no aduantage shal redownde to your opinion and defense The second place out of Ieremie the 11. Chap. v. 19. is by your owne confession void of corruption in the hebrew bibles now extant Your argument for reall presence out of this place is singular The Prophet you saie calleth Christs naturall bodie vppon the Crosse by the name of bread That is vntrue he speaketh not of Christs bodie nor of the Crosse nor of reall presence in the sacrament And was Christs naturall bodie hanging on the Crosse nothing but bread was bread crucified for you Els how maketh this for your reall presence A straunge presence a goodlie religion a wonderfull argument The last place in the 95. psalme v. 10. is no otherwise in the hebrew now then not onelie in the Greeke but in the vulgar latine and Saint Ieromes translation also The wordes a ligno From the woode your owne fellowes haue confessed not to be of the hebrew veritie but of Christian deuotion Then is it plaine enough that whatsoeuer Iustinus supposed the hebrew text was not corrupted And so your argument from Iustinus authoritie is sufficientlie cleared and it is shewed that these three examples proue nothing against the Hebrew originall text now extant That from S. Ieromes age errors corruptions haue stil encreased multiplied Pag. 345. you affirme to be very probable This was something faintlie and doubtfullie spoken That it maie seeme vnto you probable is not sufficient to cause you cast awaie the Hebrew texte and take in stead thereof a latine translation which to be since S. Ieromes time shamefullie corrupted is not onelie probable but verie certaine and euident as shal appeere So although it could be prooued not onelie by probable coniectures but by cleare and substantiall demonstrations that the Hebrewe Bibles were somewhere corrupted yet for al that no reason haue our aduersaries to make greater account of their latine translation then of the Hebrew fountaine seeing it may and shall effectuall◠be declared that the same vulgare latine translation which by them is preferred to the rome of the authentical written word of God before the Hebrew and Greeke originals is full of grosse faults errours corruptions Where I demaund how the Church can saie she hath kept faithfullie the word of god if she haue lost the originall text thereof Master Rainolds answereth she hath conserued the scriptures faithfullie although not in this or that language But why in the Latine language more then in the Hebrewe Greeke or anie other hath she conserued the scriptures what thinke you of the Greeke Church Did shee lose the worde of God in her owne tongue and kept it in the latine And must she nowe al other Churces in the world fetch their text of scripture out of the latine translation must onelie latine among them be vsed in sermons lectures disputations and all other such exercises as your fathers of Trent in their late meeting haue appointed Or graunt you them rather no vse of the scriptures at all nor iudge them Christians because they will not be obedient to your Pope whatsoeuer you saie no reason can you shewe whie the Church should keepe the word of God and Testament of Christ her spouse in an other tongue rather then that wherein it was written and deliuered vnto her whie in the latine more then in some other language and speciallie the Greeke seing that Church euer was larger in number and circuite then the latine and now not anie latine Church at all in the world remaining That which followeth in certaine pages is nothing els but rouing talke not worthy the reading where no argument is framed nor reason vsed no aunswere can be required Gregorie Martin hath his answere long agoe pag. 355. his Discouerie is disprooued and his obiections refelled throughly orderly and learnedly It wil be too greate and troublesome a worke for you to maintaine that quarel better it is to leaue it to some other that can doe more therein then your selfe if anie such be amongst you As for that notable corruption of great moment and importance by him obiected out of the 22. Psal v. 17. read the answere Verie like a letter was mistaken in the writing and printing as maie fall out in bookes set forth with greatest diligence and conscience soe Genebrard your Hebrew professor at Paris imputeth not the corruption of this place to wilfull malice in the Iewes but to chaunce Genebrard in Psalm 21. by reason the two letters were soe like and prooueth by testimonie of learned Iewes that the best and truest copies had Caaru Caaru they digged not Caari as a Lion Caari and that when Caari is written it must be redde Caaru Who euer denied but some fault by this meanes might come into the Bibles Fortuiò casis such as in your translation are plentifullie found is this a reason then of moment importance to prooue the Hebrew Bibles soe full of corruption errours that they must be cast away the latine translation Canonized for authenticall scripture and receiued in their place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and much worse Consider now peruse the summe of your wholl discourse Verie fewe places can the aduersaries finde in the hebrew text that maie probablie be once suspected of corruption Let vs graunt that these by you hetherto rehearsed are indeede corruptions which yet is plainelie false and not anywaies to be graunted but let vs for your cause suppose such a thing Tell vs I pray you how many corruptions haue you found score them vp and let vs know the number with al your skil labour conference yet were you not able to obiect ten places out of the Hebrew Bibles which you might probablie charge with corruption A manifest proofe and certaine argument of rare and notable puritie in them far aboue not onelie the diuerse translations of olde time but also your vulgare latine edition which you notwithstanding boldly but moste vntrulie maintaine to be sounder and purer then the Greeke text in the new testament and the Hebrew in the olde Let vs therefore somewhat examine your latine Bibles whether in them such corruptions may not be found as you haue charged the originall text withall whereby it shall appeere that there are in your Bibles of
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
setting forth the Bible in Hebrew and other languages I graunt you haue not disgraced the tongues but the scriptures written in those tongues you haue indeauoured as much as in you laie to disgrace although doe what you can you shall neuer be able to disgrace them truly And herein may you firlie be compared to the Iewes for as they keepe the Hebrew text moste carefullie but yet haue lost the true meaning thereof soe you haue indeed printed the old and new testament in Hebrew and Greeke with diligence and great cost but in the meane time you deny them to be the authenticall word of God This treatise you conclude ful discreetly that first we must be sure of our faith That is a verie good thing but how this should be wrought you tell vs not The latine translation is for this purpose no fitter then the Hebrew and Greeke fountaines but rather manie waies more vnfitte being onelie a translation and that an vnperfecte a corrupt an obscure translation though it were as excellent as euer any translation could be which God knoweth is far otherwise yet might it not attaine to the diuine perfection of the originall text that was written and published by the wisdome of Gods holie spirit and ministery of the Prophets Apostles and Euangelistes But saie you let vs holde the Church then our Greeke and Hebrew may do vs some good let vs departe from her our Greeke and Hebrew will turne to our perdition And I graunt M. R. that to talke of the Greeke and Hebrew vnles we hold the right faith in the true Church helpeth vs nothing but rather increaseth our condemnation But this is true no lesse I am sure of your latine then of the Greeke and Hebrew vnles there be some secrete vertue in that which is not in the other that to talke of it though a man hold not either faith or Church may be a profitable thing If this be not your meaning then haue your words no sense nor force of reason in them a meete conclusion for such a discourse CHAP. 15. Of the new testament set forth in the Colledge of Rhemes AS Master Rainolds hath heâ—herto defended with great indeuour pag. 443. c. and smal successe their latine vulgare translation so now is he come to maintaine in like manner their Rhemish late English translation of the new Testament whereof himselfe may seeme to haue bene a principall author or at least some speciall dealer in the worke First he rehearseth my words at large written in my preface concerning that translation and setteth vpon them six markes whereof he intendeth in order and seuerallie to speake But before he come to the particulare scannig of my wordes he breaketh out into immoderate and immodest railing wherein is nothing worthie answere and therefore suffering him to plaie his parte with Aiax or Hercules of whome he speaketh let vs procead to the seuerall points and so shall it appeere whether I haue vttered any thing but a certaine trueth or whether he had cause thus strangelie to behaue himselfe First I saide that since the world was made neuer was there set forth such a translation pag. 445. whereupon this man taketh occasion to talke of newe Testaments and translations hereof set forth 5000. yeares agoe And haue we not iust cause to admire his wisdome and granitie that could deuise and handle in this sorte such a simple fantasie of his owne braine since the world was created neuer was found such a translation as the Rhemish is therefore saith Master Rainolds there haue bene translations of the newe Testament euer from the creation of the world If anie man els can so vnderstand it I am content to let it be so taken To me it seemeth straunge that anie man of reason should thinke and write thus absurdlie thus peeuishlie thus falsely vnles it were to make him selfe ridiculous and odious to all the worlde But of this so foolish a conceit of his we neede not to speake moe words Now will Master Rainolds prooue indeed that worse translations of the newe Testament haue bene by vs set forth of late then theirs is and therefore that I haue saide vntruelie that theirs is worst of all His argument is thus framed pag. 450. c. a translation that transformeth God into a deuill must needs be worse then theirs But seuen of our translations whereof some haue bene set forth within these fiue yeares transforme God into a deuill Therefore these are worse then theirs His assumption he prooueth by a place translated in the first of S. Peter Chap. 2. ver 8. And here is made a great sturre with long sentences out of Illyricus Beza Castalion The indifferent reader wil be content with a short replie when a longer is not requisite Now then what is this hainous fault of our translations Because they haue translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto the which thing they were ordained A greeuous accusation but a faint proose the translation is right and no more transformeth God into a deuil then doe S. Peters words themselues which were written by direction of Gods moste holie spirit Here is no place to make discourse of this question whether God be author of sinne which as it is a most impious assertion so haue you moste falselie obiected it vnto vs sundrie times and neuer could prooue it once This place of S. Peter we cannot otherwise translate vnles we would willinglie translate amisse S. Peters owne text being sound our translation agreeing fullie therewith cannot lead men into any such damnable opinion as that is whereof you speake Yet saith M. R. verie confidentlie finde you anie so wilfull and horrible an Atheisme in ours and hardlie set a fire on them all Take heede what you speake Is this wilfull and horrible Atheisme are all your bookes worthie to be burnt if anie such can be found in them will you stand to this How then haue you translated the place your selues Let vs looke now on your translation thus it is wherein also they are put This cannot be true following your latine which hath quo for quod and therefore in your margent you mend it thus whereto also they are orderned And how differeth this from ours what Atheisme is in ours more then in this or why deserueth ours to be burnt rather then this Burne your owne if you list Master Rainolds and if you speake as you thinke you haue pronounced them in your iudgement worthie to be cast into a fire and so perhaps you could be content so that ours might burne withall for companie The three points following pag. 455. c. 2.3.4 are hudled vp and answered together concerning vnaccustomed and monstrous nouelties of wordes whereof their translation hath such examples as the like in no other can be found so as a man may iustlie call it a new fangled and ridiculous translation deuised rather to amaze the readers and make the worde of God a laughing stocke
the English with the latine and all is right For he affirmeth and by some vnfitt examples would prooue that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to defend and Defendo signifieth to reuenge alledging also some Dictionaries for his opinion But to make a short replie let M. R. bring vs foorth any one example out of good author Greeke or Latine wherein the wordes are so vsed as he teacheth then shal we easilie yeald in this case By implication and consequence I graunt the one word maie perhaps be vsed sometime for the other but I appeale to all learned Grecians and Latinists in the worlde whether it be not true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properlie signifieth onelie to reuenge and not to defend and so likewise Defendo to defend and not to reuenge Therefore to translate the one for the other as it is altogether vnproper so is it moste daungerous in the scriptures because thereof may followe errors in iudgement and practise of life And it appeereth that Thomas of Aquine tooke the word Defendentes in the proper signification expounding it by Christs precept that if we be striken on the one cheeke we must be so farre of from defending our selues that we must be willing rather to turne the other also to him that smote vs and by Christs example who being buffeted on the face defended not him selfe Yet after he sheweth that some defense is lawfull by example of Saint Paule who procured him selfe to be defended from the Iewes that laie in waite for him Thus we maie see that your Saint Thomas vsed the worde simplie and properlie and thereby was faine to seeke some newe exposition which he nedd not to haue done had he bene as good a grammarian as you Master Rainolds are The other example is in S. Matthewe pag. 470. c. the 4. Chapter 16. verse wherein you haue also followed the Greeke rather then the latine translating not according to moste of your latine Testaments which I haue seene the people that walked in darknes but after the Greeke the people that sat in darknes A small matter in it felfe I graunt yet great enough to shew that you haue not so preciselie followed the latine translation as you would seeme which also in other places appeereth by comparing your translation with that For in the verie first Chapter of S. Matthew the 19. ver you haue omitted these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vir cius Her husband which your latine bookes haue truelie translated according to the greeke Wherof reason it were that you should be accountable for what cause you haue remooued those wordes cleane out of the text if they were not rather left out by ouersight For I trust you are not ashamed that Ioseph should be called the husband of the blessed virgine Marie Againe in the 13. to the Rom. v. 9. instauratur you translate is comprised by no grammar I am sure nor dictionary I think The sense I graunt is true and well agreeth with the Greeke but the latine worde is left If you listed not to translate is renewed or repared as the word signifieth you might haue kept the worde and according to your new found manner of translating and speaking haue translated instaurated Such examples are there in your translation manie moe if we should peruse the wholl which is not necessarie Neither haue I much blamed your translation in this respect Master Rainolds for not iumping alwaies with your latine as you haue vntruelie tould your reader but for leauing the Greeke and following the latine translating onely a bare I wil not speake as you doe a bald translation and for translating it after such a fashion as neuer scripture was translated nor any other booke I suppose and for applying the text moste absurdlie and violentlie to some colourable maintenance of your Antichristian Church and religion CHAP. 16. Of the faults found in the Annotations of the new testament FRom the translation which how vaine and childish it is hath bene declared now let vs proceed with you to the Annotations which are meet handmaides for such a maistres But before you come to speake of the particular faults that were found therein you discourse of many matters according to your common custome idlely and railingly whereunto it booteth not to make answere and therefore passing ouer what you haue written of M. Iewell M. Horne c. of Tower and Tiburne disputation of the Churches stabilitie of M. Foxes monuments of Luthers iudgement concerning the sacramentaries I will come to examine your defense of those faults that were noted and that as brieflie as I can reserning these causes to the large confutation of those Annotations which in conuenient time through Gods goodnes wil be I hope performed to Gods glorie defense of the trueth and disproofe of popishlies and heresies Three kindes of faults were obserued the first of errours in matters historicall the second of false conclusions and arguments the third of certaine blaspemies against the holie Apostle In the first order were reckened certaine traditions pag. 484. c. which hauing no ground in Gods word nor much differing from mere fables are in your Rhemish Annotations notwithstanding gloriouslie auouched as behouefull for all Christians to beleeue And first of the wisemen that came from the East to visite our sauiour Christ three things are affirmed first that they were kings secondlie that they were three Popish traditions full of fables and vanities and lastlie that their names were Gaspar Melchior and Baltasar as now commonlie they are called For the first Master R. demaundeth a reason why I should thinke they were no kinges himselfe not hable to shew any why he should saie they were kings But if reason may rule him for which he calleth as though he would yeelde vnto it if it were giuen him three reasons will I propounde wherebie I am mooued not to beleeue that these men were kings First because the Euangelist calleth them by noe such names The wise me that came to worshippe Christ said to be kinges against reason which yet he would not haue omitted if the truth had bene according to your tradition considering how this would haue made for the honour of Christ that so soone as he was borne kings should haue sought him far and done vnto him homage and worship And when you maintaine your opinion by this argument for that it is honorable to the person of our sauiour Christ that so we should thinke of them you charge therein the holy Euangelist for omitting somewhat that might haue greatlie aduanced the honor of Christ if he had truelie and fullie reported the same Secondlie it is not credible that Herods would haue admitted into his kingdome and chiefe Citie three Kings with their troupes especiallie there being enemity betwixt him and the kinges of Persia neither could they haue so secretlie come to our sauiour Christ and escaped out of the countrie againe but that being kings and therefore