apostasie from Christ these later hundred yeres vpon which as I haue said dependeth the verie substance of this his booke is an absurditie in Christian religion so foule monstruous and abominable that it can not be defended of any man except he first of al deny the very incarnation of Christ his preaching his death and passion his eternal kingdome priesthod the sending of the holy Ghost the entier summe of all whatsoeuer hath bene written by the Apostles or foretold by the prophetes For to what end was Christes incarnation but to ioyne him selfe vnto a Church from which he would neuer be separated To what end was his preaching but to erect and instruct such a Church To what end his death and passion but to redeeme sanctifie such a Church leaue vnto it an euerlasting remedie to blot out her sinnes and offences How is he an eternal king who hath not an eternal people obeyng him and obseruing his lawes how an eternal priest whose priesthod and sacrifice for so many hundred yeres was applied to none auailed for none and to what puâ—pose was the holy Ghost sent but to remayne vvith the church for euer and leade her into al truth And vvhat is the summe of the gospels but a declaration that Christ by him self by the holy Ghost by his Apostles founded such a church in vvhich his wil should euermore be openly preached his sacramentes rightly euermore ministred true faith and religion alvvaies preserued a certain vvay for conuerting infidels to the faith for coÌ„futing errors and heresies be continued and al true ChristiaÌ„s maintained by lawful pastâ—rs in vnitie of his true faith against al blastes of vaine doctrine euen vntil his coming to the general iudgement Finally that such a citie and common welth it should be so coÌ„stant so stroÌ„g so vnmoueable that it should vpholde the glorie and name of Christ â— gainst Princes against Potentates against Kings and Emperours against al the force of the world the deuil though they al with might and mayne applyed their whole power to the suppressing and rooting out of it And the self same is the effect of al the auncient Prophetes that the preachers of Christes catholike church should neuer cease day nor night to preach the truth that howsoeuer darknes couered al other nations yet the light there of should neuer be extinguished that the spirite of God and truth of doctrine should neuer depart from it but remayne in it froÌ„ one generation to an other euen for euer that it should neuer be brought in to a narow roume as was the synagoge of the Iewes but should be diffunded thorough al prouiÌ„ces of the earth that the course of heauen of the sunne of day and night should rather faile then priests and preachers of the new testament that albeit other monarchies had an end were altered as the Assyrians the Persians the Macedonians the Romanes yet this should neuer suffer any such a teration but should stand vnchangeâ—ble for euer Wherefore to affirme that this Church hath failed is to affirme that Christ his Apostles Prophetes are al liers that what soeuer is written in the old and new testameÌ„t is all vaine and fabulous For touchâ—ng the straunge deuise of an inuisible church which some of them haue of late imagined it is nothing els but a mere poetical fansie a fansie vvhich consisteth only vpoÌ„ their ovvne vvord and credite for profe vvhereof they neuer yet brought any scripture couÌ„cel father doctor chronicler or writer nor euer shal be able a fansie by which any sect neuer so horrible may defend them selues to be a Church as wel as they a fansie framed and patched together of mere contrarieties and contradictions a fantastical opinioÌ„ which being long since abandoned of the learned protestants in other countries as most vvicked and pestileÌ„t is novv I knovv not vpon vvhat miserie and necessitie receaued of our English Diuines VVhensoeuer vve thinke of the church saith Melanchthon let vs beholde the company of such men as are gathered together vvhich is the visible church nether let vs dreame that the elect of God are to be found in any other place then in this visible societie For nether vvil God be called vpon or acknovvledged othervvise then he hath reuealed him self nether hath he reuealed him self els vvhere saue only in the visible church in vvhich only the voice of the gospel soundeth Nether let vs imagine of any other inuisible church but let vs knovv that the voice of the gospel must sound openly amongst men according as it is vvritten Psal 18 Their sound is gone forth in to al the earth Let vs knovv that the ministery of the gospel must be publike and haue publike assemblies as it is sayd Ephes 4. Let vs ioyne our selues to this company let vs be citizens and members of this visible congregation as vve are commaunded in the 25. and 83. Psalme VVhich places and other the like speake not of Platoes Idea but of a visible church c. And in sundry other places refelling this mad fansie he euer concludeth Necesse est fateri esse visibilem Ecclesiam de qua filius Dei c. It is of necessitie that vve confesse a visible church whereof the sonne of God saith Matth. 18 Dic ecclesiae Tel the church vvhereof Paule saith 1. Cor. 4 VVe are made a spectacle to the vvhole vvorld to angels and to men VVhat a spectacle I beseech you is that vvhich is not seene and whereunto tendeth this monstruous speach vvhich denieth the visible church Delet omnia testimonia antiquitatis abolet iudicia facit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 infinitam illam Cyclopum politiaÌ„ in qua◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vt est apud Euripidem It abolisheth al testimonies of antiquitie it taketh avvay al iudgementes it causeth an endles confusion and induceth a common vvelth of vnruly ruffians or Atheists vvherein no one careth for an other And Caluin interpreteth the article of our creede Credo Ecclesiam CatholicaÌ„ of the Catholike visible Church saith furthermore that the knowledge therof is so necessary that there is no hope of life by grace in this world except we be conceaued brought forth nourished aâ—d ruled by her so long as we liue Adde quod extra eius gremium nullae est spâ—randa peccatoruÌ„ remissio neque vlla salus teste Iesai c. 37. vers 32. Ioel. ca. 2. v. 32. Ezechiel ca. 13. v. 9. psal 106. v. 4. Adde here vnto that out of the lap of this visible church no pardon of synnes is to be hoped for nor any saluation as vvitnesse Isaie Ioel Ezechiel and the Prophete Dauid And OecolaÌ„padius writing vpoÌ„ the Prophete Isaie and those wordes ca. 2. Fluent ad eum omnes gentes Create is the dignitie saith he of the Christian church aboue the synagoge of the Ievves in that it shal
obiecteth and so maketh an end His wordes are The like boldenes they vtter in that most goodly place of S. Paule vvhere thus he vvriteth to the Romanes Stipendia peccati mors donum autem Dei vita aeterna The stipend of sinne death but life eternal is the gift of God Here the Sorbonists of Rhemes haue noted that the sequele of speach required that as he sayd the stipend of sinne is death so on the contrarie part he should haue sayd the stipend of iustice is life eternal And this to be true they plainely affirme vvhereas it is manifest that S. Paule spake in this sorte that he might leaue no place to merites and he vseth such a vvorde as vtterly excludeth al respect of stipend for that vvhich is a free gift can in no case be a stipend and repa◠to merites To answere this as al the rest there needeth nothing els but to compare our wordes with his Thus we say Rom. 6. vers 23. The sequele of speach required that as he said death or damnation is the stipend of sinne so life euerlasting is the stipend of iustice and so it is and in the same sense he spake in the last chapter That as sinne reigneth to death so grace reigneth by iustice to life euerlasting But here he chaūged the sentence somevvhat calling life euerlasting Grace rather then Revvard because the merites by vvhich vve attaine vnto life be al of Gods gift and grace Augustin epis 105. ad Sixtum Because the sense and summe of the annotatiō is takē out of S. Austin I wil set downe his owne wordes although they be somevvhat long because they may help the reader both to vnderstād the truth of this point vvithal discouer M.W. notorious ignorāce Thus vvriteth S. Austin in the place quoted Eternal life vvhich in fine vve shal obteyne for euer is repayed to merites going before yet because those merites vnto vvhich it is repayed are not gotten of vs by our ovvne abilitie but vvrought in vs by grace therefore life eternall is called grace for no other reason but because it is geuen gratis not because it is not geuen to merites but because those merites are geuen to vvhich life is geuen That eternal life is called Grace vve find in S. Paule Rom. 6. The stipend of sinne is death life eternal is the grace of God See hovv vvarely he put these vvordes For vvhen he had sayd The stipend of sinne is death vvho vvould not haue thought he should haue sayd most aptly and conueniently The stipend of iustice is life eternall And true it is For as to the merite of sinne death is rēdered as the stipēd so to the merite of iustice Life eternal is rendered as the stipend Vnde merces appellatur plurimis sanctarū scripturarum locis Quod est autem merces operanti hoc est militanti stipendium Sed Apostolus aduersus elationem c. And so it is termed merces vvages in very many places of scriptures For that vvhich is called Stipendium Stipend to a souldiar that is called merces vvages to a labourer But the Apostle vsed that vvord against the pride of men c. Thus far S. Austin of vvhose vvordes our note is only a short sūme abbridgment and so vvhatsoeuer sport M. VV. maketh to him self of the Sorbonists of Rhemes it nothing toucheth vs but good S. Austin the Sorbonist of Hippo. And yet not to rest there S. Austin quitteth him selfe vvel inough frō that drye iest vvhen he affirmeth the same to be taught Plurimis sanctarum scripturarum locis In very many places of holy scriptures For if they be Sorbonists that say Vita aelerna est stipendium iustitiae or vvhich is the selfe same Vita aeterna est merces bonorum operum then not only S. Austin is a Sorbonist vvhich to say perhaps you streine not greatly for in this place so you cal vs in word S. Austin in deede but long before him the Prophetes were egregious Sorbonists in whom both in sense and word this proposition is cōmonly founde Salomon was a Sorbonist Dauid a Sorbonist Esay a Sorbonist Ieremie a Sorbonist S. Peter a Sorbonist S. Iohn a Sorbonist S. Paule a notable Sorbonist who hath it more oft then the rest that I name not our Sauiour for honors sake who notwithstanding in the gospel many times teacheth his Christians this Sorbonical conclusiō But as for M.W. if he continue in this simplicitie or rather stupiditie that he suppose eternal life not to be the stipēd of iustice or good workes because it is the grace or gift of God I wil geue him a quittance for euer deseruing the name of a Sorbonist For I thinke there is scant any boy frequenting the Sorbone schole that is so dul and ignorant as to doubte but that heauen is the gift and grace of God though he trust to atteine it by his good workes I meane that knoweth not how to reconcile these two propositions together heauen is the stipend of good workes and heauen is the gift of God which in deede to euery lad wel catechised is no harder then it is to beleeue that the father is God the sonne God and the holy Ghost God yet there is but one God Christ is God and yet Christ is man our Lady was a mother and yet a Virgin our bodies are corruptible and yet shal liue for euer and almost any other article of our religion But hereof I haue spoken more at large before to which place I refer the the reader And this is the last intolerable blasphemie vvhich M. W. hath found in the Annotations common to vs vvith Christ him self and euery prophet Apostle Euangelist Father and good man that since Christs time liued in the vnitie of his Church THE CONCLVSION AND thus haue I examined and I trust answered sufficiently whatsoeuer faultes M. W. hath found ether in the Testament of late set forth by vs or the Annotations adioyned or M. Martins booke of the Discouerie vvherein I haue bestowed somwhat longer time then ether so smale a trifle required or my self at the beginning intended partly for the more cleare defense of truth and fuller instruction of the reader partly also because in the diligent perusing of his discourse his manifold errors and ouersightes multiplied far beyond my expectatiō And withal I vvould not haue him or his brethren so far deceaue them selues as to suppose they may set forth against this Colledge freely hand ouer head what they list without controle or gainsaing For howsoeuer we be loth to spend our time in such contentious disputes and gladly vvould imploy it otherwise to our better commoditie yet the zeale of God and honour of his Church regard of truth and loue of our countrimen vvhom vve see so pitifully seduced and due obedience to Superiors vvil and must enforce vs to take some paines that
shaken Alleage the auncient fathers not one or other but al together affirming one and the self same thing they answere If you argue from the vvitnesse of men be they neuer so learned and auncient vve yelde no more to their vvordes in cause of faith and religion then vve perceaue to be agreable to scripture Nether thinke you your self to haue proued any thing although you bring against vs the vvhole consent and svvarme of fathers except that vvhich they say be iustified not by the voice of men but of God himself And it is their common maner as to make smale accompt of any author that is against them so least of al of the old auncient fathers whom some of them are not ashamed in most despiteful sort to cal Pillorie doctors But this their behauiour towards the auncient fathers and Doctors that be of our Church may seeme in the iudgement of many to stand with reason For why may it be said should they be bound to our Austins HieroÌ„s and Cyprians more then we wil be bound to their Luthers Caluins and Melanchthons At the least then say we they ought to be ruled by doctors of their owne such as they cal and honour for Apostles Euaâ—geâ—istes of their new church and beleefe Yet when the authoritie of such is pressed against them it weigheth no deeper then of those other whom they cal pillorie doctors For how freely contemne they Martin Luther how freely reiect they Hulderike Zuinglius VVe receaue M. Caluin saith T.C. and vveigh of him as of the notablest instrument that the lord hath stâ—rred vp for the purging of his churches and restoring of the playne and sincere interpretation of the scriptures vvhich hath bene since the Apostles time And yet vve do not so reade his workes that vve beleeue any thing to be true because he saith it but so far as vve caÌ„ esteeme that that vvhich he saith doth agree vvith the Canonical scriptures The very self same answere geueth the contrary part wheÌ„ the same mans iudgement is obiected against him I reuerence M. Caluin saith D.W. as a singular man and a vvorthy instrument in Christes church But I am not so vvholy addicted vnto him that I vvil contemne other mens iudgmentes in diuers points not fully agreing vvith him c. vvhen as in my opinion they come neerer to the true meaning and sense of scripture then he doth And because the course of this new diuinitie is now brought to rest most of al on the credit of these reuereÌ„d fathers and doctors and in steede of the auncient forme of alleaging T. us saith S. Chrysostom thus S. Augustin thus S. Basil the fashion is now to alleage Thus saith M. Caâ—uin thus M. Bucer thus M. Bullinger therefore thorough varietie somewhat to avoyde tediousnes and not greue to much the eares of their auditors by flat denyal diuers wayes and reasons haue they to passe ouer when they please the authoritie of such their owne doctors and maisters One way and the same very playne is to refuse them because they were men As for example If you presse me vvith M. Martyrs and M. Bucers authoritie I first say they vvere men and therefore though othervvise very vvatchful yet such as slept somtymes A second way is because they had some other error as M. Bucer you say allovveth priuate baptisme and consequently the baptisme by vvomen It may be that as M. Bucer although othervvise very learned hath other grosse absurdities so he may haue that A third because some other doctor of as good credite and estimation is of a contratie opinion as M. Musculus a learned man is of your iudgement and M. Caluin as learned as he and diuers other are of that iudgment that I haue alleaged This is no great profe on your side nor reprofe of ours A fourth and the same most sure is to chalenge the libertie of the gospel and therefore not to admitte their verdict but at pleasure as Touching M. Bucers M. Bullingers Illyricus allovvance of holy daies if they allovv them in such sort as M. Doctor vrgeth then that good leaue vvhich they geue the Churches to dissent from theÌ„ in that point I do take it graunted vnto me being one of the same church Although as touching M. Bullinger it is to be obserued that since the time he wrote so there are aboue 35 yeres since vvhich time although he hold stal that the feastes dedicated vnto the lord as of the Natiuitie Easter and Pentecost may be kept yet he denieth flatly that it is lavvful to keepe holy the dayes of the Apostles If these serue not the turne a man would thinke their martyrs those who were so ful of the spirite that they willingly shead their bloud and suffered death by fier for confâ—irmation of their faith these mens testimonie should be irrefragable for iustifying of those pointes especially for which they lost their liues But nether want they their old ordinary meanes to shift of the authoritie of these martyrs were they neuer so glorious For although they vvere excellent personages say they yet their knovvledge vvas in part and although they brought many thinges to light yet they being sent out in the morning or euer the sunne of the gospel vvas risen so high might ouersee many thinges vvhich those that are not so sharpe of sight as they vvere may see c. And if they had died for this or that article yet the authoritie of their martyrdome could not take avvay from vs this libertye that vve haue to enquire of the cause of their death Martyrs may not be said to seale their errors vvith their bloud or vvith the glory of their martirdome preiudice those which vvrite or speake against their errors For this is to oppose the bloud of men to the bloud of the sonne of God What remayneth now for the last cast but the maiestie not of one or other doctor or of a few martyrs but of great and ample reformed churches as of France of Germany of Zurike or Geneuâ— yet euen these also passe with like maner of answere And they haue as general a rule to reiect such as they haue the poorest doctor that commeth in their way As for exaple when other reformed churches are brought to reforme the disorders of the English church To vvhich reformed church saith the ansvverer vvil you haue the church of England framed or vvhy should not other reformed churches as vvel frame them selues vnto vs For vve are as vvel assured of our doctrine and haue as good groundes reasons for our doing as they haue except you vvil bring in a nevv Rome appoint vs an other head church and create a nevv Pope by vvhom vve must be in al thinges directed And againe I haue told you and novv I tel you againe that there is no cause vvhy this church of England
answere to the next demonstration where to S. Austin and S. Hierome reaching Peters chayre and succession of Priests in that Sea to be the very rocke vvhich the proud gates of helâ— ouercome nor which thing they affirme vpon manifest warrant of Christes wordes he answereth vpon warrant of his owne vvord that that succession of priestes is not the rocke the gates of hel haue prevayled against that church so as the faith vvhich somtimes florished there novv appeareth no vvhere in it long since is departed into other places Whereas D. S. replâ—eth this to be false and and that church euer to haue reteyned the same true faith and neuer to haue brought in any heresie or made any chaunge of doctrine vvhich he proueth by al historiographers that euer liued in the church Eusebius Prosper Beda Regino Marianus Scotus Schafnaburgensis Zonaras Nicephorus Cedâ—enus Sigebertus Gotfridus Viterbiensis Trithemius and many others against them al this only censure he opposeth Historias vestras Sandere non moramur vve regard not M. Sanders your stories and yet him selfe for his ovvne side bâ—ingeth not so much as one story So that against scriptures reason councels fathers old and nevv historiographers al kynd of vvriters him selfe euer cometh in as an omnipotent and vniuersal Apostlâ— Doctor Father c. as though in his only vvord consisted more pith then vvas in al mens that euer liued since Christes time And now somwhat farther to descrie the incredible vanitie folie pride and selfe loue of the maÌ„ let the reader note the grosse and barbarous impossibilitie of that paradox vvhich by this his supreme authoritie he vvould defend He graunteth the Church of Rome to haue bene pure godly christian for six hundred yeres after Christ as before hath bene declared VVhen then grew it to be so impure wicked and Antichristian ten yeres after For thus he writeth Six hundred and ten yeres after Christ or there about Bonifacius the third gouerned the Romane church VVhat vvas he to ansvvere truly very Antichrist In which wordes ioyned together thus much he saith in effect That whereas within the space of ten or twelue yeres before the Romane church was religious and euangelical in such sense as they vnderstand it that is abhorred the Popes vniuersal iurisdiction as Antichristian and limited his power within the precinctes of his owne Patriarkship reuerenced euery prince as supreme head of the church within his owne dominion detested the sacrifice of the masse as iniurious to the death of Christ acknowledged no iustification but by only faith allowed mariage of priestes and religious persons as agreable to the libertie of the gospel held for sacramentes none other but Baptisme the Eucharist and Baptisme an only signe not remitting synnes and the Eucharist a sole figure from which the truth of Christes body was as far distant as heauen is from earth and so forth according to the rest of the articles of their reformed faith within the decourse of so few yeres al these thinges were turned vpside downe the contrary faith planted in steede thereof That is the Romane church of late so sound and perfite sodaynly became most corrupt and impure she approued the vniuersal authoritie of the Romane Bishop and appointed no boundes or limites to his iurisdiction which was mere Antichristian she tooke from Princes their Supremacie she brought in the sacrifice of the masse and highly aduaunced it against the death and sacrifice of Christ she acknowledged iustification to proceede not of only faith but of workes also she established the single life of priestes and votaries and condemned their mariages as sacrilegious and execrable for two sacramentes she admitted seuen to baptisme she attributed remission of sinnes and in the Eucharist she beleeued the real and substantial veritie of Christes presence so forth according to the articles of Catholike religion or papistrie as these men terme it Now whereas thus much is comprised in their paradox of making the succession of the Romane bishops Antichrist whereas such weight lieth in the matter which of it selfe to common intendement is so absurd vnreasonable and in deede vnpossible whereas we also bring forth Fathers Councels and Doctors auouching the contrary gather thou Christian reader whether vve haue not iust cause vtterly to discredite them in this so blunt sensles assertioÌ„ vntil we see their Chronicles their monumeÌ„ts their aÌ„tiquities some maner warraÌ„t besides their owne in a matter of such importance Whereas they allow vs no such and yet chalenge to be credited vpon their owne vvord assure they selfe reader their dealing in this behalfe is not only foolish vnlearned and ignorant but also inhumane furious and diabolical Notwithstanding whereas M.W. besides those former profes which to any indifferent man may seeme more then sufficient requireth of vs farther declaratioÌ„ that in these later ages the Romane church hath not departed from that faith which in her first time she professed to content him if any thing mâ—y content him and make more euident the inuincible equitie of the Catholike cause I wil proue the same by such â—istoriographers as him selfe I trust wil allow for vpright and nothing fauorable to our cause Those witnesses I meane to be first of al him selfe and then Iohn Calum Peter Martyr Martin Luther Flacius Illyricus with such other pillers founders of his owne congregation Out of him self this I gather That to haue bene the true and Christian faith which the Romane church maâ—ntained the first fiue hundred yeres at what time that church vvas must pure excellent preserued inuiolablâ— the faâ—th deliuered by S. Peter and S. Paule This proposition is commonly found almost in euery page of M.W. answere to the second DemoÌ„stration Out of the other Caluin Luther c. this I gather that the Romane church in her first primitiue puritie maintained and beleeued the Popes Supremacie the sacrifice at the masse the same to be auailable for the dead priesthode the real presence c. no lesse then we do now This thou shalt find witnessed by their seueral confessions and approued at large hereafter in places conuenient The conclusion hereof rising is this first that these are no pointes of false or AntichristiaÌ„ doctrine but such as Peter Paule taught the primitiue Romane church Next that the later Romane church hath not departed from the former but hath kept inuiolably the self same faith without chaunge or alteration And so the false supposal whereupon this booke standeth being by such euideÌ„ce refuted the rest of the building must needes come to ground Now I say farther that this point which M.W. taketh for a most certaine and cleare veritie that is the fal of the vniuersal church for after the fal of the Romane church they can shew none that stoode and it is their general both preaching and writing that she corrupted the whole world with her errors and her
scriptures and Caluine more execrable then the rest addeth that the aūciēt Church expressed the verie forme and type of the Aaronical Leuitical sacrificing eo excepto quòd panis hostia loco animalis vtebantur sauing that insteed of a beast they vsed bread all which proueth that in propre maner of speache they sacrificed and therefore by your owne definitiō in propre speache were priestes And finallie doth not Illyricus with his companions confesse in worde proue by deede that sacrifices were ordinarelie offered to God in the flower of the primitiue Church in the middest of the persequutions for the soules departed in the honor of Saintes for general and particular necessities as is now vsed in the Churche of Rome Thus write they To this end S. Cyprian in his third booke and sixte epistle to the priestes of Rome willeth those dayes diligentlie to be noted wherein the martyrs departed this life In the same place he speaketh of oblations sacrifices obserued in the memories of martyrs Let vs be informed sayth Tertullian vvhat be those dayes vvherein our blessed brethren by glorious death passe to immortalitie that vve here may celebrate oblations and sacrifices in remēbrance of thē And there is verie cōmon mētion of oblations in Tertullian as in his booke de corona militis vve offer sacrifices yerelie for the dead and for byrthdayes S. Cyprian saith that oblations and sacrifices vvere yerelie made in the remembrance of martyrs lib. 3. epist 6. lib. 4. epist 5. li. 1. epis 9. he speaketh of sacrifice for the dead And to end with one sentēce of S. Cyprian by them alleaged thus they cite him Our lord Iesus Christe sayth S. Cipriā lib. 2. epist 3. be is the high priest of God the father and sacrifice to God the father he first offered and commaunded the same to be done in remembrance of him And that priest trulie executeth Christs steede or roome vvho doth imitate that vvhich Christ did and thē in the Church offereth he a true and full sacrifice to God the father if he begin so to offer as he seeth Christ himself to haue offered Thus ascēding from our time vp to the primitiue and most pure and vncorrupte age of the Church yet we finde not the performance of that promise order set by Christ that his Church should be gouerned by pastors that were not priests And here by the waye to put you in minde because in this preface so freshlie you prouoke M Martin now departed and renew M Iewels challenge may it please you being put a litle besides his byas of comparing phrases together which was the verie bones and marrow of M. Iew. diuinitie to waigh how wel you can make his challenge agree with the manifest confessions of these your own doctors and if it lyke you to vew Caluine in the booke before quoted yow shal there find fiue Doctors within M. Iewels compasse by name S. Ireneus Arnobius S. Athanasius S. Ambrose and S. Augustine not the least or meanest of the fathers ether for ātiquity or holines or learning reproued and checked by Caluin for this great ouersight forsooth because to proue the vnbloudie sacrifice of the church which they beleued els would they neuer haue applied the scripture to confirme it they misinterprete and falsly applie the scriptures ita vidiculè these are his wordes vt dissentire cogat ratio et veritas so ridiculously as both reasō and truth constraineth me to dissent from thē whereas if he had lyued vntil this time and had bene acquainted but with half those phrases which in the 17 article M. Iew. hath raked together of which benefite by your labours he might now haue bene partaker he neuer neded to haue runne into that desperate vaine of bidding plaine defiance to al the primitiue church And thus much being spoken by the way through occasion of M.I. challēg renewed by you let vs returne to conclude if it may be our former matter from this age vnto the primitiue church we find not as you see pastors without priests then it foloweth say we that Christ neuer appointed anye such For then surelie in some age yea in euerie age they would haue appeared And how you wil lose this knot I muche doute yet I feare you wil take Alexanders sworde and cut it a sunder and now applie that to your self which before you yelded to Luther that when your iudgment agreeth with scripture you set more therby then by a thousand Augustines a thousand Ciprians and al the churches If you thus say as I thinke you haue nothing els to say yet remember that besides these many Augustines and Ciprians and churches you haue one Christ standing against you who promised and apoīted as you confesse far otherwyse But passe we on what scripture haue yow against priestes S. Paule vvho saith that Christ is an eternal priest after the order of Melchisedec and hath his priesthode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what gather you of this you leaue the word in greeke as though it were so much the more terrible and able to confounde al priestes then if it were in latin Our old interpreter translateth it sempiternum Beza perpetuum Caluin immutabile Castalio nunquam transiturum the Englishe bible of one yere vnchangeable of an other euerlastinge make the best of it and take which you list or all if ye please The sense of the Apostle is easie inough by the comparison which he there prosecuteth that as Christ had many excellent prerogatiues aboue the priestes or priesthode of Aaron so amonge many other this was one that whereas the priesthode of Aaron passed from one to an other from father to sonne by reason of death Christ neuer dying but euer lyuing neuer departeth from his priesthode but reteineth it for euer To make the reader better conceaue this which though it be many times read in your congregations yet is perhaps neuer or seldome wel vnderstoode of the minister himselfe the priesthode of Aaron is brieflie to be recalled to memorie In the booke of Numbers God thus speaketh vnto Moyses Take Aaron and his sonne vvith him and leade them into the mountaine Hor. And vvhen thou hast taken from Aaron his priestlie vesture thou shalt put it on Eleazarus and Aaron shal die there Moyses did as our lord commaūded c. And vvhen he had spoiled Aaron of his garments he put them on Eleazarus and Aaron died there In this short storie is noted the nature and state of the leuitical priesthode passing from father to sonne and ending in the first by death in lyke sort as any other facultie of life or bodie ciuil or naturall endeth But in Christ it is not so who euer liuing keepeth euer his priesthode as wel as his life neuer departing with it to anie other as did Aaron to Eleazarus he to Phinees and so one to an other in course of succession So
the spirite of grace CHAP. V. Of Penance and the value of good vvokes touching iustification and lyfe eternal NEXT in place foloweth Penance wherein M.W. keepeth his accustomed speaking so doubtfullie and ambiguouslie that he semeth not fullie resolued what to affirme yet in fine as commonlie his maner is he yeldeth sufficient matter to ouerthrow him selfe M. Martin here noteth him of two faultes one that he iniurieth the fathers the other that he contrarieth him selfe the iniurie done to the fathers is this that he affirmeth S. Ciprian and other fathers to haue depraued the doctrine of penance Before he come to iustifie this accusation he falleth into a common place common to all sortes of protestātes taking to him selfe supreme iudgement ouer the fathers complayninge of the Catholikes that so it fareth vvith them that excepte those thinges may preuaile vvhich in the fathers are most corrupte or vitious they are not able to maintaine their cause Whereunto I answere that so it fareth with the protestantes that except they may be soueraigne iudges of fathers Councels Church and al they must hold their peace and say nothing for this is as stale a tricke and currant amōgst any sect as any thinge hitherto spoken of to protest much reuerence to the fathers whē they are not against the word of God that is against their cōceiued heresies marie thē boldlie to stande with the word against them and say they were all beetle-blynd and saw nothinge for when and wherein the fathers hold with them then in such matters they were worse then madde altogether voyde of common sense if they would thus inueigh against thē In the last question presse them with the fathers and the primitiue Church touchinge external pristhod and the sacrifice it was their error saith Caluin Illyricus Zuinglius and Bale Presse the sacrilegious vowbreakers with the consent of the primitiue Church for condemnation of their vnlawful mariages I knovv saith Peter Martir and declared no lesse to my auditors in Oxford that Epiphanius vvith manie others of the fathers erred in that they helde it a fynne to breake the vovv of virginitie and they do ill to number it amongest the Apostolicall traditions Charge the English Puritanes with the consent of Antiquitie for obseruation of feasts holy-dayes in honour of Christ and his Saintes M. T. C. answereth VVhereas M. D. VVhiteg citeth Augustine and Hierom to proue that in the churches in their tymes there vvere holy-daies kept besydes the Lordes day he might haue also cited Ignatius and Tertullian and Ciprian vvhich are of greater aunciencie and vvould haue made more for the credite of his cause for it is not to be denied but this keepinge of holy-dayes especially of Easter and Pentecost is verie auncient and that these holy-dayes for the remembrance of Martyrs vvere vsed of long tyme. but these abuses vvere no auncienter then other vvere grosser also then this and therefore I appeale from these exāples to the scriptures Charge the Trinitarie Protestantes the Arians of Polonia Seruetus with the Coūcel of Nice and Crede of Athanasius the Councell of Nice say they vvas a congregation of Sophisters and the Crede of Athanasius may more iustlie be called the Crede of Sathanasius the first Nicene fathers vvith Athanasius inuented this tripartite God they vvere all blind Sophisters Ministers of the Beast slaues of Antichrist and bevvitched vvith his enchauntmentes for that the Pope is Antichrist in that as in verie manie other pointes they are iust of M.W. faith In like sorte dealeth the Lutherane Vbiquitarie against vvhose monstrous heresie vtterlie destroyng the mysterie of Christe Incarnatiō vvhen Bullinger vrged the consent of al the auncient fathers Brentius presētly gaue this general answere The fathers altogether in this question are of no vveight or authoritie They vvere taught not in the schole of the holy Ghost but in the schole of Aristotle they vvere deceiued and blynded by Aristotle humaine reason of celestial matters they haue childish imaginations and grosse dreames earthlie fansies and carnal conceites Thus answered Brentius and thus saith Bullinger of him Inuenit compēdium ad omnia veterum testimonia respondēdi A shorte compendious vvay hath he founde to solue all places of the fathers thus sayth euerie heretike touching euerie controuersie wherein the fathers stād against him the selfe same way hath M.W. taken But because this way is ether to large therefore to daūgerous as lying wide open for euerie kind of heretike that hath bene is or cā be or to straight if M. W. wil make it priuate to him self and deny it to all others let him therfore without this preiudicate condemnation geue reason whie he offereth the fathers this intolerable iniurie for so it must be called vntill he proue the cōtrarie his reasons are these Penance consisteth not in certaine externall penalties or in a certaine exquisite seueritie of discipline vvhich the Apostle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvherebie the bodie is chastised vvith certaine voluntarie punishmentes but in internal dolour conceiued through remembranco of out sinnes and in amendmente of lyfe and the fathers vvhen they supposed that by such greuous penalties their sinnes should be acquited and God pleased they erred greuously and somevvhat diminished the force of Christes deathe and bloud by vvhich onlie our sinnes are expiated for pardon of sinnes is to be expected of nothinge but of the bloud of Christ In which wordes three thinges I note his description of penance his reason prouinge the same and the sequele or absurditie which he inserreth thereof wherein stoode the auncient fathers error His description of penance is partlie affirmatiue as that he requireth internal greefe of hart and correction of life partlie is negatiue as that he remoueth from it all externall chastisement or discipline In the first we agree with him in the seconde we say he erreth and vnderstādeth not the scriptures As without the first the second is worth nothinge so ioyne them bothe together they greatlie please God are highlie commended in the Gospel our Sauiour when he denounced vae to Corozain and Bethsaida sayng if the miracles vvrought in thee had bene done in Tyre and Sidon they had not onlie done penance longe agoe but they had done it in beare-cloth ashes he sheweth this external afflictiō to be verie commendable and to make the penance more auaylable and withall pointeth the Iewes to their Prophetes who willed them with such external humiliatiō to prostrate them selues before God thereby the sooner to procure his mercie Conuert ye to me sayth the Prophete Ioel vvith al your hart in fastinge and mourninge and lamentation and rente your hartes and not your garmentes saith our Lorde omnipotent In the later parte of which sentence as he disproueth externall signes without internall remorse as being hipocritical reiected of God by
the Prophete Esaie so in the first part coupling both toghether he sheweth what is perfect penance as likewise doth our Sauiour in S. Matthew where he condemneth that Pharisaical error but that wickednes being remoued the thinges in them selues he approueth calleth them the iustice of Christians who for the same haue their revvard vvith God and that M. W. replie not this to haue bene a Iewish ceremonie and therefore abrogated he may learne if he know not or he may remeÌ„ber if he haue forgotten that this is a duetie morall and therefore practised not onlie in the law but also out of the law and before the law and after the law both in the tyme of nature and grace Touching the lawe of nature before the law of Moyses I referre him to S. Hierome in his booke against Iouinian partlie because those examples are by him wel set forth and vrged against Iouinian partlie because M.W. may withall finde that his opinion is not new but was of old defended by that fleshlie heretike This morall duetie grounded on the law of nature God confirmed and established by his writteÌ„ law as we reade in the booke of Numbers Thus vnder the law the prophet Dauid did penaÌ„ce Thus out of the law the Niniuites did penance and God approued their doinge Thus that wicked Kinge Achab did penance the scripture alloweth him therin Thus in the time of grace S. Paule chastised him selfe and enioyned penance to others The Apostles vsuallie enioyned fastes before they ordered priestes as appeareth in the Actes This kinde of fast and penance vsed Timothe wheÌ„ though otherwise weake feeble he altogether abstayned from wine so far forth that the Apostle S. Paule thought it needeful to appoint require him to vse a litle vvine because of his vveake stomake and manie infirmites Touchinge which place were it not that M.W. hath already condemned the fathers as erringe in this point I could wish him quietlie and consideratlie to reade S. Chrisostomes notable homelie tom 5. Homelia 1. ad popul Antioche Finallie in one worde that true Christians should thus doe that is vse prescript kinde of fastinge and discipline in the new testament our Sauiour euidentlie foretelleth when he saith in excuse of his Apostles because they fasted not as did S. Ihons disciples Can the children of the bridegrome mourne as long as the bridegrome is vvith them but the dayes vvil come vvhen the bridegrome shal be taken avvay from them and then they shal fast which fast must necessarilie be vnderstoode of a fast dâ—ffering from that which they obserued with Christ And so nether can be vnderstood of the fast from sinne for so Christ would not allow them to breake their fast nether of fast as fast signifieth temperance in diet for Christ neuer allowed them excesse or intemperance and brieflie caÌ„ signifie no other fast but such as the Church after Christes departure vnto these dayes hath and yet doth obserue Agaynst al this M. W. alleageth two Greeke wordes of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is accordinge to his sense seueritie of discipline in punishing the bodie the English Testament tourneth it sparing the bodie whereunto the Apostle opposeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the same place is traÌ„slated satisfying of the flesh And what meaneth M.W. by this allegatioÌ„ thinketh he that the Apostle discommendeth the first and exhorteth men to the second is he so verie an Epicure that he can but once imagine of S. Paule that he should wish men to pamper vp their bodie and employ them selues to satisfie the flesh if he meane so let him speake plainlie that men may see to what filthines this new Gospel tendeth If otherwise why alleageth he those wordes in this place and against fasting and penance why at all alleageth he the bare wordes without a coÌ„mentarie Touchinge the sense let the reader peruse the Annotation vpon the same in the Catholike English TestameÌ„t he shal quickly see what pithe there is in M. W. greeke citations with which I know not to what purpose he would seme to illuminate his writinge Verie wel and succinctlie Theodorete geueth the sense of that place otherwise obscure and hard Oportet sua sponte abstinere non tanquam ab abominandis sed tanquam a suauissimis The Apostle meante not to withdraw men from abstinence they must abstaine from meates and drinkes not as from things impure and abominable for that is Iudaical but as from things pleasant and delectable to the flesh and this is Christian His reason why he disliketh the former workes of penance is because they are iniurious to Christs passion ond death the onlie price and satisfaction for sinnes This argument is al one with the last of priesthode and therefore in parte is satisfied alreadie For a surplusage I adde that these and the lyke reasons procede rather of ignorance then ought els therefore if he would first learne what is the meaning of the Catholike Church and all Christians he would neuer so idlie trouble the world with such stuffe nor so wickedlie controule the learned auncient Bishops and withal he might ease him selfe of some labour Verie diuinelie saith the holie Councel This satisfaction vvhich vve vndertake for our sinnes is not ours so that it is not by Christ Iesus for vve that of our selues as of our selues can do nothing by his cooperatioÌ„ vvhich strengtheneth vs can do al things so man hath not vvhereof to glory but al his gloriation is in Christ in vvhom vve liue deserue and satisfie doing fruites vvorthie of penance vvhich of Christ haue force by him are offered to the father and by him are accepted of the father Thus the Councel whose doctrine wel vnderstoode maketh far more for the honour of the Crosse and bloud of Christ then doth our aduersaries without comparison And surelie ether our lucke is euill in these our dayes whose happe is to fal amongst such peruerse aduersaries that what-soeuer we can do one way or other wil gnawe at it or els our aduersaries lotte is strange and maruelous amongst whom scant any one can frame an argument against vs but presentlie he hath a brother of his owne that is readie to pul him by the sleeue and cal him foole for his labour M.W. reproueth the fathers and in them al catholikes for that by our workes we pull from Christ and diminish the vertue of his bloud Contrary-wise that most graue and learned father Iohn Brentius so M. Iewel calleth him inueigheth against vs for that by our workes we geue to much to Christ and magnifie more theÌ„ we ought the vertue of his Crosse and in truth if there were any fault in the doctrine of the Church BreÌ„tius reason carieth far more probabilitie theÌ„ M.W. Thus he reasoneth Iactat Sotus se Christo nihil detrahere sed potius glorificare sed coÌ„tra
verū est c. Sotus braggeth that he taketh nothing frō Christ but rather glorifieth him but the contrary is true that Christ by him and his felovves is iniuried vvith great cōtumely For to attribute vnto Christ that not only he by his death hath deserued the expiation of our sinnes but also hath imparted that merite vnto our good vvorks this is to attribute much more to Christ then ether he acknovvlegeth or the thinge it selfe can suffer and it is comtumelie not onlie to detract from the glorie due to any thing but also to ascribe to much praise and glorie to it and the lavv of God manifestlie signifieth that in seruice of God it is a sinne to decline not onlie to much tovvardes the lefte hand but also to much tovvardes the right Thus he howbeit Andreas Fricius the Kinge of Poles Secretarie a great learned and zelous Zuinglian disprouinge both the one and the other both M.VV. the Zuinglian and Brentius the Lutheran geueth vs testimonie that in this parte our doctrine is sincere and holdeth the iust and goldē mediocritie and bendeth to much nether to the one hand nor yet to the other for thus he writeth Although Christ take not avvay all infirmitie from such as be regenerate yet renevving them by his spirite and planting in them vertues of nevv life and imparting to them merite and his iustice most truelie and vvith singuler fruite he is sayd to liue in them anh by this meanes the glory of Christ is not obscured but clarified the Crosse of Christ is not euacuated but made more copious the price of the bloudshed for vs is not diminished but increased vvhereas that vvhich by his ovvne nature is not so great by his goodnes is accōpted for such so far he truely and according to gods word and therefore by your warrant I may not thinke otherwise if a thousand Caluins and thousandes of any other protestantes should striue to perswade me the cōtrarie much lesse can I be moued with such seelie and pitifull sophismes as you shuffle together for thus you goe on Atque hic insultas c. And here you triumph S. Paul saith our suffering vvith Christ is necessarie to saluation M.VV. saith it is a derogation to Christes suffering vvho M. Martine may not vvonder at your egregious subtiltie but I ansvvere heauenly lyfe and glorie is the gift of God ergo it is not gotten by our trauayls and the Apostle calleth vs heyres of God coheires of Christ ergo the kingdome commeth to vs freelie by inheritance and adoption in Christ. hereof it folovveth that our sufferinges are not the efficient causes of saluation and glorie as you M. Martine foolishly reason yet are they necessarily to be vndertakē of vs except vve vvil be excluded from grace and glorie c. if you could haue distinguished the meanes frō the causes efficiēt you vvould neuer haue reasoned thus Certainly M. W. if some aduersary would haue made a booke in mockerie of your diuinitie I thinke he could not possiblie haue more disgraced you then you shame your selfe you heape vp absurdities together so grosse and so thicke one in the neck of an other that whereas I should by appointment haue gone thorough with this pamphlet in a few howres I weene I shal not riddle my handes of it in many dayes When Stancarus the Archheretike of Polonia began to breake from Caluine in the article of the blessed Trinitie and Caluine ether through malice or ignorāce fel into greater wickednes in that mysterie then he and amongst other raylinges and scorneful reproches obiected to him his studie in Peter Lombard the Maister of the sentences Stancarus after much spoken in the commendatiō of that writer comminge at length to Caluin and the great Rabbines of your new Church God saith he hath deliuered you vp into a reprobate sense so as you say teach vvrite and persuade others such things as are naughtie vvicked and heretical for I tel you one Peter Lombard is more vvorth thē a hundred Luthers thē tvvo hundred Melancthons then three hundred Bullingers then foure hundred Peter Martyrs then fiue hundred Caluins vvho al if they vvere pounded together in a morter there vvould not be beaten out of them one ounce of true diuinitie especiallie in the articles of the Trinitie the incarnation the Mediator and the Sacramentes I wil not applie this odious comparison against the Englishe writers of our tyme. but this I protest in my cōscience touchinge you that I suppose neuer mā of any account set penne to paper to publish a thinge in printe to the vew of the world who vttered such notorious ignorance as euery where appeareth in this your discourse whether the fault be in me that I haue not hetherto so narrowly examined others as I haue now cause to examine you or whether the thinge in truth be so as I imagine or whether you in your other writinges vtter more substantial matter in this through much hast haue ouershot your self as canis festinans caecos parit catulos I see that much you couet to be counted a quick dispatcher of bookes or whatsoeuer els may be the reason for scarce any sentence haue you geuen forth which carieth not with it some marke to the shame of the maker In this paragraph you cōmit as many errors as lightly you may For first you vnderstand not M. Martin Secondarily you vnderstand not S. Paule alleaged by him Thirdlie you vnderstand not S. Paule alleaged by your selfe Fourthlie you vnderstand not the state of the question of which you talke And last of al you vnderstand not your selfe the doctrine of your felowes You vnderstand not M. Martin whē you make him to conclude that good workes be the causes efficient of saluation because they be necessarie to saluation M. Martine maketh no such argument nether hath he in that place any cause to talke thereof and so that distinction of causae efficientes media is pulled in by you to make a shew whē it needeth not M. Martins argument is this plainly you say good workes are iniurious to Christes passion he proueth they are not because the scripture requireth them and that as necessarie to saluation And how can you be so blynde as not to see this argument good workes are necessarie to saluation therefore they derogate nothing from Christes passion for cleare it is if they derogate from Christes passion they sette vs forwardes to damnation helpe vs nothing towardes saluatiō You vnderstand not Sainte Paule alleaged by M. Martine when you make sporte with the argument drawē from the Apostles wordes and would seeme to shake it of so lightly for though M. Martine not talkinge of that question which you for ostentation of a litle skil now hale in vrged not the place so farre as to proue workes the causes efficient of saluation yet the place proueth it
inuinciblie for when S. Paule saith vve are coheires vvith Christ yet conditionallie that is if vve suffer vvith him that vve may also be glorified vvith him he sheweth the excellēt dignitie which in Christ we are called vnto beinge graffed into that vine and made members of his bodie and partakers of the diuine nature he doth shew and deduce this that as Christ our head suffered first and those his sufferinges were not only media meanes but also causes efficient of his glorificatiō in some respect so from him the lyke vertue is deriued vnto vs his members for as it behoued Christ to suffer and so to enter into his glory as he humbled him selfe to the death of the crosse propter quod for vvhich cause God exalted him so his members by tribulations folow where he is gone before and not by faith only but also by patiente suffering inherite the promises and such sufferinges workes of charitie are semen and fundamentum the verie foundation and seede growing to life euerlasting as the Apostle calleth them And in this comparison cōsisteth the dignitie of our Christianitie as in S. Paule euery where appeareth for vvhom he hath foreknovven he hath also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his sonne that he might be the first borne in many brethrē And albeit the sufferings of this life wayghed in them selues are short and transitorie and therefore can not be condigne to the glorie to come vvhich shal be reuealed in vs yet being wayghed as rysing and wrought in vs by the spirite of God sanctified in the bloud of our Sauiour and applied to his honour so this our tribulation vvhich presentlie is momentanie and light vvorketh aboue measure exceedinglie an eternal vveight of glorie in vs. And S. Paule els-where most diuinelie conioyneth both these in one so as a man can not deny this effect to Christian mens workes but first he must deny the same to the workes of Christ vve see Iesus saith the Apostle because of the passion of death crovvned vvith glorie and honour that through the grace of God he might tast death for all for it became him for vvhō all thinges and by vvhō all thinges that had brought many children into glorie to consummate the author of their saluation by his passion for be that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified all of one for the vvhich cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren In this diuine discourse S. Paule compriseth the maner of Christes glorificatiō and of Christians of him as the head of vs as the mēbers of him as the roote first begotten brother principal anointed with oyle of exultation prae participibus aboue his felovves vs as braunches seconde brethren inferior receiuing of his fulnes yet so that we alway continue in the same race and course according to our measure and proportion and so are made conformes conformable to our head vvho is the firste borne amongst many brethren The sum of al is this that as in the place cited by M. Martin glorification in Christ sheweth his workes to haue bene the causes efficient thereof and in Christ passion and glorification are so compared together as the cause and the effect and one inferreth the other so in vs Christians his members compassion in the Apostles sense and conglorificatiō proueth lyke cause and effect and one is concluded of the other and this shal appeare more plainlie by that which ensueth You vnderstand not S. Paule alleaged by your selfe when of his wordes Donum Dei vita aeterna eternall life is the gift of God you conclude ergo it is not gotten by our trauails fot the Apostle meant nothing lesse then any such illation which in so manie places he refelleth And if these two grace and vvorkes be so opposite in Christians that one must destroy the other then consider I pray you the force of these argumentes In feare and trembling vvorke your saluation sayth S. Paule ergo our saluation is of workes and therefore not of grace our afflictions and calamities susteined patientlie vvorke our glorie ergo it is not of grace he that sovveth sparinglie sparinglie also shal reape and he that sovveth in blessinges of blessinges also shall reape that is he that geueth almes aboundantlie shall haue in heauen aboundant reward and he that geueth lesse shal haue his reward proportionable ergo heauen is not of grace Come ye blessed saith our sauiour receaue my Kingdome why so for what cause for because you haue done the workes of charitie you haue fed the hūgrie harboured the stranger visited the sick succoured the diseased c. ergo heauen is not of grace he that is not a hearer but a doer of the lavv shall be blessed in or for his vvorke ergo not by Gods grace and mercy and so forth infinite such argumentes might be made after the paterne of M. Whit. and proue as wel and yet notwithstanding how many so euer they be be they a carte-loade they are all wicked and not worth a straw and no more is his And the Apostle intended nothing els in so sainge but to commend the grace of Christ which is the true cause of merite or good workes and not to deny the value of good workes as he might haue learned of S. Austine noted vpon that place in the new testament were it not that he disdaineth him and plainly accompteth him a superstitious and Sorbonical papist for geuing that sense and interpretation And vpon these his good argumēts fourthlie I say M. Whit. vnderstandeth not the state of the question where of he writeth for if he had he woulde neuer talking of Christians regenerate by the spirite of God haue imagined a contrarietie betweene grace and vvorkes mercy and iustice inheritance and purchase which although perhaps it is not so easelie conceiued in buying a peece of lande yet is it not hard to be conceiued in buyinge or procuringe heauen no harder then it is to beleeue that we shal enioy heauen by Gods infinite grace and mercy yet for al that by right and iustice because Christ our sauiour hath trulie and fully paid for it and S. Paule and S. Austine of old haue many tymes notified vnto vs the recōciliation of these two which to ignorant men seeme so opposite That heauen is of grace S. Paule cited by M. W. proueth that it is of vvorkes any one of those places sheweth which last of all I noted and in the same epistle whence M. W. taketh his argument the same S. Paule most euidentlie declareth where he saith In the iust iudgement God vvill render to euerie man according to his vvorkes to them truly that according to pacience in good vvorkes seeke glory honour and incorruption life eternall but to them that are of contention and that obey not the truth but geue credite to iniquitie vvrath and indignation Tribula tion
obserued novv vvith so much seueritie rigour as the heremites as Hierome Austine Gregorie Bernard FrauÌ„cis Dominike many others obserued it litle perhaps should I profite by my doctrine of faith against that state of papistrie yet neuertheles after the example of Paule inueighing against the false Apostles in apparance most holy and good men I ought to fight against such Iustice vvorkers of the papisticall Kingdome and say though you liue a chast life and vvearie your bodies vvith much exercise yea though ye vvalke in the humilitie and religion of Angels yet are ye bondmen of the lavv of sinne and the deuill ye are to be cast out of the house because you seeke for iustice and saluatioÌ„ by your vvorkes and not by Christ Thus Luther and this being the general doctrine of the Protestantes in al their treatises of iustification and M. W. pretending to be of the number supposing the fault to be true which he layeth to the fathers if he folowed the iudgment of S. Paule S. Ciprian S. Augustine al Catholike ChristiaÌ„s he must needes accompt them aduersaries of Christ prophane and wicked cast out eternally from the face of God if he folowed the vniuersal sway of his owne doctrine teaching only faith and iustification thereby he could not but with Luther hold them for impious hipocrites bondmâ—n of sinne and the deuil idolaters vvithout knovvledge of God as il as any monke Turke Ievv or Anabaptist And certainly no monke except perhaps some Apostataes as Luther him self Bucer P. Martir or such founders of this new Gospel liuing in his order thought euer so ethnicallie of Christes passion as by M.W. iudgment S. Ciprian and those fathers did And therefore I see not how he so excusing the fathers in this point and calling it a light error or none at al caÌ„ him self be excused from plaine Atheisme whether he be arraygned before his lawful Iudges S. Paule S. Ciprian S. Austine and their successours Catholike Bishoppes or before Luther that Apostata vvhom he honoreth for his father the rest of that coÌ„fraternitie except perhappes he wil pleade in his defence that he knew not this which is so coÌ„monly knowen to al and so to quitte him self of so foule impietie wil condemne him self of notorious ignorance But howsoeuer he shift the matter M. Martins charge standeth vndischarged that to say that the fathers tooke from Christ ascribed to them selues the office of his mediatorship satisfaction and remission of sinnes and iustice before God and yet to cal them most holie is as plaine a coÌ„tradictioÌ„ as to say such a man seeth most sharply yet both his eyes are out of his head he geueth consaile excelleÌ„t wel in any coÌ„trouersie of law mary his head for al that is a mile of from his shoulders And yet to mende the matter presently and fast vpon the former talking of the same thinge he stumbleth in to an other contradiction as grosse as the other For labouring to make our faultes more odious and to seuer vs as far as may be from the fathers thus he writeth the fathers vvrite sometimes that it is our part to do satisfactioÌ„ vnto God that God is pacified vvith our satisfactioÌ„ that thereby vve promerite him and redeeme our sinnes vvhich albeit they are not verie conueniently spoken yet by these they vvould haue no other thinge vnderstood or signified theÌ„ that pardon of sinnes and Gods grace vvas to be requested and craued of vs vsinge also those external actions of penance teares fastes vvatchinges almes vvhich thing may appeare by Ciprian alone in many places most euideÌ„tly in his 55. epistle in his booke against Demetrian and in his sermon de lapsis what sense you deuise and frame to your self I know not nether skilleth it greatly but surely the discourse of S. Ciprian and his words be as much against you as possibly may be deuised and especially in the places by you quoted to geue the reader a tast of your sinceritie thus he there writeth By satisfaction and iust mourning our sinnes are redeemed and our vvoundes by teares are cleansed our lord is to be prayed vnto our lord is to be pacified by our satisfaction let euerie man confesse his sinnes vvhile his confession may be admitted vvhile satisfaction and pardon geuen by the priestes is acceptable before God let our soule prostrate her self before god and satisfie him by sorovvfulnes let vs pacify gods vvrath and indignation by fasting lamentation mourning as he him self hath vvarned vs. The prophete Daniel by fasting endeuoured to deserue gods fauour and the like haue done al humble vvel-meaning and innocent men Thinkest thou that God is so easely pacified vvhom vvickedly thou hast denied Thou must pray and intreate him earnestlie thou must spend the day in mourning the night in vvatching lamentations prostrate on the ground in ashes and hearecloth thou must imploy thy self vpon iust vvorkes by vvhich sinnes are purged thovv must geue much almes by vvhich soules are deliuered from death In this sort the faith florished in the Apostles tyme. in this sort the first faithful Christians kept Christes coÌ„maundemeÌ„tes to be short for a great part of that treatise de lapsis runneth after this maner thus he endeth the same he that thus shal do satisfaction to God c. being heard and holpen of God shal not only deserue pardoÌ„ of him but also a crovvne in heauen Thus S. Ciprian which how it should most clearly make against satisfaction and workes satisfactorie M.W. knoweth belike for I gladly professe my self therein to vnderstaÌ„d nothing But graunt we the conclusion let S. Ciprian speake meane as you would haue him looke a litle backe consider how palpably you contradicte your self for if it be most euident that S. Ciprian meante vvel though he spake not so conueniently if he vnderstoode nothing els but that vve ought to request pardon for our sinnes at Gods hand and craue his grace vsing vvithal these externall actions of penance fasting vvatching almes why sayd you immediatly before that Ciprian vvith the other fathers corrupted the doctrine of penance why sayd you that they greuously erred somevvhat diminished the force of the death and bloud of Christ by vvhich only our sinnes are expiated how is it not a sensible lye when you say that by their penitentiall vvorkes they derogated not a litle froÌ„ Christes death attributed to much to their ovvne inuentions when you haue quitted theÌ„ of that superstitious opinion of merite satisfaction which commonly you obiect to them how can the actions seeme any way reproueable to any maÌ„ except he be worse then Epicurus or Diagoras do these holie actions being done with a good minde and intent such as you now graunt to the fathers corrupt the doctrine of repentance doth fasting in it self derogate from Christes death doth watching detract from his passioÌ„ do almesdedes
do these former of Christ his deitie It is touching his passion and our redemption and sheweth that the Protestantes them selues esteeme more of our translatiō not only then of al the hebrew bibles which are now currant but also then those that were in S. Hieroms time And therefore to answere your misapplied allegations by your owne English translations confer you your English bibles in the 53. chapter of Esaie with your hebrew fountaines Our translation hath thus Generationem eius quis enarr abit quoniam abscissus est de terra viuentium propter scelus populi mei percussi eum VVho shal declare his generation for he is cut of from the land of the liuing for the sinne of my people haue I smitten him A plaine testmonie that God laid vpon our Sauiour our iniquities which is the sūme of the chapter that he therefore was true man and withal as before is declared that he was true God whose generation was inexplicable for so do the fathers cōmonly expound that parcel So that in this one verse we haue the true effect of Christs death and passion besides his diuine and humaine nature The 70. translate it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the iniquities of my people he vvas lead to death The hebrew bibles in S. Hieroms time did reade thus Generationem c. propter scelus populi mei percussit eos For the sinne of my people he stroke them The hebrew bibles in our time though in sense agree yet in reading seeme to differ hauing thus A preuaricatione populi mei plaga vel percussio ipsis Because of the transgression of my people a vvound vvas geuen to them which inuerteth the sense and maketh a great alteration as euerie man may see The English bible of the yere 1577. translateth it vvhich punishment did go vpon him for the transgression of my people of the yere 1579. For the transgression of my people vvas he plagued And this sense commonly others folow as Castalio the French the Geneua bible c. which is the sense word of our latin translation not of the hebrew text Only the English translator of the yere 1562. foloweth nether the 70. not greeke nor latin but the brainsicke fansie of his owne head making a mingle mangle and thrusting in a patch of his owne Thus he goeth to worke vvhose generation yet vvho may number he vvas cut of from the ground of the liuing vvhich punishmēt did go vpon him for the transgression of my people vvho in deede had deserued that punishment where in deede he deserueth a whippe plaieth not only a foolish but also a wicked part in adding that later sentence to the text only because he would seeme to come somewhat nye the hebrew which for al that he toucheth not Luther vvho folovveth the error of the hebrew copies exclaimeth vpō the Iewes for their old spitful malicious māgling of this text as of many other Thus he translateth cōmenteth vpon it Propter trāsgressiones populi mei plaga eis for the sinnes of my people a vvoūd to them This place is somevvhat obscure and hard because of the novvne of the plural nūber lamo The 70. read pro sua iustitia vel potius malitia ductus est ad mortē For his iustice or rather malice he vvas lead to death Wherein I marueile at Luthers reading of the 70. For S. Hierom citeth them far othervvise and far othervvise is it in the common prints novv extāt for ought I can find Which agree vvith the citation of S. Hier. before noted But proceede we on Our interpreter saith Luther meaning the latin vsed in the Church turneth it thus propter peccata populi mei per cussi eum For the sinnes of my people haue I smitten him An excellent sentence but the Grammar doth not vvel beare it Much here are vve beholding to the deuil and to the Ievves vvho haue not only depraued filthily but also cōfoūded this as much as is possible by their diuisions And those that studie hebrevv must note this that the Ievves vvheresoeuer they can depraue the meaning of the prophete by their vvicked expositions vvhere they can not do so by their distinctions or diuisions as in Daniel The 70. vveeks are abbridged there a man vvith his fingers may feele their corruption vvhere they separate and teare a sunder these thinges that are to be ioyned and al this in despite of the Christians VVherefore I leaue this to those that be studious of the hebrevv tōge that they marke the malice of the deuil and the Rabbines vvhose only studie and labour is to depraue teare a sunder and turne vpside dovvne the prophetical and Christian sense In vvhich chapter againe he calleth them corruptores scriptorum propheticorum corrupters of the vvritings of the prophetes And in this one place besides the authoritie of Luther besides the general rules vvhich he deduceth vvilling vs euer to bevvare of the Rabbines and Ievves vvhose vvhole studie is to abuse deface the scriptures in despite of vs and our religion and therefore smale reason hath M. W. to make so much of them as he doth I note tvvo sortes and maners of their corruption The first is by plaine alteratiō of points and letters and sillables For certaine it is our translator and the 70. neuer trāslated these hebrew vvordes vvhich now stand in this text or as vve find in S. Hierom. The second vvhich specially Luther noteth in Daniel is by diuiding vvordes vvhich by the prophete vvere ioyned vvhich is as vile and desperate a corruption as may be So for exāple Seruetus auoided the authoritie of the Apostle S. Paule affirming Christ to be God For being vrged vvith these vvordes Ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem qui est super omnia deus benedictus in secula Of vvhom that is of the Ievves race is Christ according to the flesh vvho is God blessed for euer which contayne a sure testimonie that Christ vvas not only man as Seruetus vvould haue him but also God most blessed he vvel acquainted vvith Bezaes maner of correcting the testamēt ansvvered after this Ievvish tricke that he beleeued vvith al his hart vvhat so euer S. Paule that elect vessel of the Lord had vvritten mary it seemed to him that S. Paule said not so and pleaded his greeke testament vvhere thus stoode that sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of vvhom is Christ according to the flesh vvho is aboue al. And there making a ful distinction then folovveth the rest as a thankesgeuing The Lord be praysed for euer amen And thus haue the. Ievves done in very many places of scripture by Luthers verdicte Sundrie other particular errors could I note vnto thee Christiā reader in the hebrew had I but a peece of that insolent vaine which many of our aduersaries haue and vvherein they triumphe against men of great and excellent learning such as of vvhom