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
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
you haue alreadie had and shal hereafter haue most euident demonstration The fault no dout is verie hainous wherupon he frameth so sore an inditement or els he a malitious enemie that for no cause accuseth so bitterlie If I haue not set downe euerie word of Doctor Saunders booke doth it therfore follow that I did it of an irreligious or vnconscionable intent What man pretenâ—ing conscience or religion would thus surmise seing for his life he can not shew that I haue concealed or omitted the least moment of anie one argument that I haue taken to answere in his booke If then I haue cut of in one or two Chapters some parte of his words being long and tedious for no other cause in the world but onely to auoide prolixitie what blame I haue therein deserued I put it to the verdite of all indifferent religious and conscionable men to pronounce These men in pretending to answere our bookes maie deale as they lift maie omit anie thing at their pleasure maie sert downe no more then shall like them best maie reporte things that were not written and all this shall escape in them without reproofe If we leaue out a few wordes being nothing els but wordes for cumbring out bookes and readers with multitude of vnnecessarie talke this must be made a great crime here is want of Religion and conscience and this must suffice to discredite all the rest with those that will beleeue such subtill and slaunderous persuasions The same practise he obiecteth also to Master Doctor Iewell pag. 75. the late worthie Bishop of Sarisburie of blessed memorie whoe yet I am persuaded hath dealt as faithfullie and sincerelie with Doctor Harding as anie aduersarie hath euer done with another In his Replie he hath printed D. Hardings wholl booke omitting nothing from the beginning to the end and made to all that he alledged for maintenance of his seuerall causes a moste learned and perfect answere the which as yet was neuer refelled nor neuer can be I am sure Now consider the dealing of Doctor Harding in his Reioynder which besides it is made but to one onelie article of seauen and twentie it hath in a hundred places omitted much so as in truth not halfe the Replie is intirely repeated and answered In the defense of the Apologie he hath indeede abridged Doctor Hardings Confutation being of such length and bignes as was not conuenient wholly to be printed with the defense But let them if they can shew some argument dissembled or passed ouer in silence in all that which in the impression is omitted Which forsomuch as they cannot it is no matter though manie legions of such idle words as he hath filled that booke withal were suppressed and drowned And I praie you how hath D. Harding behaued him-selfe in his detection Hath he done as you accufe M. Iewel for not doeing Nothing les Then why should M. Iewell be accounted more worthie of blame then D. Harding hauing made no other fault then that wherin D. Harding hath much more offended then he That I haue in those places omitted some wordes I graunt Master Rainolds pag. 77. c. and the cause thereof I haue trulie declared But tell me where is any part or proofe of Saunders demonstrations vnanswered If you will examine what I haue answered to euerie one in order you shall finde I haue not dealt any waies vntrulie or craftilie as you would haue men think I did but soundlie and sufficientlie disprooued whatsoeuer he hath disputed in any Chapter of those fourty demonstrations short or long If you be angrie with me for not reciting all his wordes and answering them particularlie this vnderstand that I for my parte would rather grinde in a mill all the daies of my life then be bound to answere such infinite loquacitie and garrulitie as Doctor Saunders and your selfe and other your companions vse in your writings You poure forth such floodes or rather seas of words that it is a moste intollerable wearines to wade therein although daunger of drowning or taking great harme there can be none But as to answere your wordes is a thing most tedious besides it is vnnecessarie so your reasons againe are answeared with as great delight comforte and facilitie And if you thinke I haue not thoroughlie answeared euerie demonstration of Doctor Saunders it is free for you to resume or prosecute the controuersie which no doubt at this time you would haue done being thereto so specially by your superiors appointed but that you mistrusted somewhat in your cause and in your selfe And although you promise some thing shall follow hereafter yet considering both the practize of Papists and a prouisoe which here you make I thinke we are to looke for litle more at your handes in defense of Saunders demonstrations Their practise is lest they might be thought vnhable to answere our bookes to set forth some answere to a part and then so dainlie to breake of with pretense of necessarie reason and promise of proceading further at a more conuenient season and yet neuer to performe anie such matter So the defender of the Censure in the middes of his answere picketh a quarrell to make an end for that present as though he meant at better leasure to finish the whol But it rester has he left it then and so is like to doe still So Master Rainolds purposing perhaps some such matter hath yet prouided aforehand that if he faile in further answere it shall not be taken in euill parte seeing he hath restrained his promise with that exception if he be not letted by those that haue the regiment of his life and studies It may be that they being discreet men will suffer Master Rainolds to proceed no further lest as of that which he hath written alreadie no great profit hath redounded to their cause so in that which is to follow concerning Antichrist he rather hurt them much then helpe them anie thing at all Master Rainolds concludeth his preface with a certaine Aduertisement to the Reader pag. 84. wherein first he noteth what kind of printes and editions he vseth of such bookes as commonlie he alledgeth not of the auncient fathers for of them he alledgeth verie fewe but of the late writers with whose testimonies and sentences he hath fraughted his booke from one end to another If anie man haue pleasure or purpose to peruse his authorities therein he may be something holpen by this direction which M. R. hath so carefully though not much needfullie gathered and prefixed before his booke Albeit I thinke that not many Readers of what iudgement soeuer they are in religion considering how litle waight of matter is in those allegations wil greatlie cumber themselues with seeking the impressions turning the volumes and perusing the quotations the labour being far greater then the profit Secondlie he talketh much and dispureth to and fro by what name he maie call vs Christians pa. 86. or Catholikes or heretikes
meant onelie thereby to make himselfe a chiefe Bishop ouer all Bishops and to bring vnder his iurisdiction the wholl Church of Christ and therefore it is euident that S. Gregorie vtterlie misliked that anie Bishop whosoeuer should haue an vniuersall authority ouer the whol Church which is to bring the Church in subiection vnder him That this was the meaning of that title of vniuerssall Bishop S. Gregorie himselfe doth testifie in these words who by the name of vniuersall Lib. 4. epist 38. goeth about to make subiect to himselfe all the members of Christ. And doth not you Pope affirme professe defend proclaime by all meanes possible that all the members of Christ must be subiect to him and that no hope of saluation remaineth for anie but such as continue in his obedience Then denie if you can but that the selfe same authoritie which Saint Gregory reprooued in Iohn of Constantinople your popes haue approoued in themselues euen this last 13. Gregorie who latelie deceased and therefore by iudgement of S. Gregorie manie hundred yeares agoe they are Antichristian Bishops The popes of Rome with their vniuersall supremacie long since condemned by Saint Gregorie a Bishop of Rome and not Catholike pastors of Christes Church Wrangle all ye can S. Gregorie hath plainlie condemned your Popes for taking vpon them both the name and office of vniuersall Bishops Andreas Fricius whom here againe you alledge I haue not to deale with all what thing was meant by this name of vniuersall Bishop may better be learned of S. Gregorie himselfe whoe knewe best the meaning thereof If you require further proofe consider that S. Gregorie reporteth also that the councell of Chalcedon offered that name to Leo Lib. 4. cap. 32. but he would not accept of it Did the Councell meane to take from all other Bishops of the world yea themselues all bishoplie grace and power what madnes is it thus to thinke what impudencie to stand in maintenance thereof as you doe Futher when the Bishop of Alexandria Eulogius in a letter called Gregorie vniuersal Pope Lib. 7. epist 30. Indict 1. meant he to depriue him-selfe of all bishoplie authoritie Nothing lesse And yet Saint Gregorie reprooueth him for so writing and will not suffer himselfe to be so called The name then signifieth that vniuersall authoritie ouer all Bishops and Christians which Iohn claimed and your Popes obtained and long practized and will not yet giue ouer This was vnlawfull in Iohn this Gregorie condemned not onely in others but in the Bishops of Rome also therefore your Popes by witnes of S. Gregorie a Pope are clearely conuicted of vnlawful and Antichristian vsurpation If your Pope refuseth this name of vniuersal Bishop why doth Bellarmine his greatest diuine Couâ—reon 3. Quest 4. recken this for one of the Popes names of dignitie but chieflie why doth the Pope mislike the name and allowe the thing signified by the name Concerning the two other articles pag. 164. c. of Reall presence and sacrifice you are content to saie litle which in effect is nothing For what haue you brought to prooue either of these your opinions you tell vs Saint Gregorie was a Priest and said Masse according to your popish fashion but whe will beleeue your report you haue tolde vs so manie vntruthes That Bibliander calleth him the patriarch of ceremonies that Melancthon saieth he horriblie profaned the communion that Illyricus rehearseth out of a popish writer certaine of his miracles about the sacrament that Paulus Vergerius hath written a booke against his trifles fables that M. Bale preferreth Latimer before Austen the monke whome he sent into England that the Bishop of Winchester M. Horne calleth this Austen a bussard It is not Austen that he calleth so but Bonifacius whome they name the Apostle of Germanie what maketh all this I beseech you against Master Iewells chalenge how conclude you hereof your Real presence or your sacrifice of the Masse surely your masters that set you on worke and made you an instrument to publish these thinges abused you much that you might abuse others more To Luthers iudgement of Saint Augustine pag. 166. that after the Apostles the Church had not more excellent and worthy doctor then he I willinglie subscribe but Luther accuseth the sacramentaries as he calleth them for mangling and abusing him in the question of Reall presence herein I haue nothing to answere in Luthers defense Saint Augustine teacheth no otherwise of Christes presence in the sacrament then we do as by the large treatises that haue bene written of this matter doth appeare yea neither Zuinglius nor Caluin nor anie other of our side hath more fullie and directlie written a gainst the Real and corporal presence of Christ in the supper then S. Austen hath in sundrie places That Luther iudged otherwise it was his errour which he retained of his olde leauen wherewith in time of papistrie his iudgement was corrupted Hereof what argument can you frame against M. Iewell some thing would you faine saie but your words haue no pith of reason in them Saint Chrysostome you saie hath written six bookes of Priesthood pag. 168. and none of ministerhood verilie this is a verie poore argument for the sacrifice of your Masse If this reason holde from the authoritie of Chrysostome I trust the like will not be denied taken from the authority of the scriptures In the new Testament Ministers are named six and six times priests in your sense neuer therefore no Priesthood remaineth and so by consequence no sacrifice But concerning the name of Priest how it hath bene vsed of the auncient writers not in the proper and naturall sense but after the common custome of speach I haue alreadie before declared Thus haue you M. Rainolds vttered all your skill in confutation of the Bishop of Sarisburies chalenge Howbeit if D. Harding were aliue I suppose he would thinke you had deserued small thankes Medle no more M. Rainolds in this matter the more ye stirre the lesse ye preuaile your learning is not much your iudgement is lesse you are but a weake instrument to deale with him whom D. Harding could not match M. Iewells chalenge is prooued wise true learned to the praise of Gods trueth shame of papistrie and worthie commendation of that famous Bishop whose memorie is euerlasting and most honourable among the godlie CHAP. 8. Of Bezaes translating a place of scripture Act. 3. and of the Reall presence MAster Rainolds leaueth M. Iewell pag. 170. c. and proceedeth to maintaine a quarell of M. Martine against Bezaes traÌ„slation of certaine wordes vttered by the Apostle Saint Peter and recorded by S. Luke Act. 3. v. 21. It were a vanitie to spend manie words about so small a matter and therefore suffering this man that knoweth no measure either of speaking or holding his peace to talke his pleasure I will herein vse no more wordes then the thing requireth that is as few
the blood of the new testament and this blood is the new testament in my blood If it may be lawfull for you to alter and expound the words at your pleasure then can you help your selfes wel enough but your exposition must be squared according to the wordes not the words framed to your exposition Againe pag. 240. you say where Beza correcteth Saint Luke in the latter part of the sentence I raile at the first so that betweene Beza and me S. Luke hath neuer a word right wisely considered doubties The words are right your exposition is fond and wicked The cupp you make to be the blood of Christ whoe as yet was not crucified nor his blood shed If your doctrine be true Christes blood was shed alreadie and that reallie els it could not be in the cup reallie The papists teache that Christs blood was reallie in the cup before his passion But if Christs blood was shed sitting at the table whoe was he M.R. that shed it whoe made the wound whoe opened his side who thrust his weapon in his heart whoe pearced his hands and feete This must you tell if you maintaine that his blood was then reallie shed and powred forth into the cuppe But by the cuppe M.R. is ment the wine in the cuppe which is the newe testament that is a sacrament of the newe testament in Christs blood shed for vs on the crosse This is a true and plaine sense agreeable to all analogie of faith standing with the words themselues followed of the auncient fathers When at length will you make an end of this railing it is to vnseemelie to lothsome pag. 241. to odious Indeed M.R. it must needes appeare a great absurditie to all learned godly Christians whoe know rightlie esteeme the price of our redemption that to be shed for our sinnes which was in the cup. Christs blood was shed for our sinnes which neuer came in the cup but remained in his bodie vntil the time of his death And if Christs blood was in the cuppe when he gaue the cuppe to his Apostles then must it follow necessarilie that his bodie then was without blood it being shedde already and contained in the cup. In the cuppe was onelie wine a sacrament of his blood which he gaue in the same to his Apostles to drincke whereof he drancke him selfe and so the scriptures expressely call it wine If this were the thing that was shedde for your sinnes then was true and naturall wine the price of your redemption then are you saued by wine then haue you no part in Christs blood But the true Church beleeueth her sinnes to be washed away not by that which was really contained in the cuppe but by the true blood of Christ which issued out of his body nailed on the crosse and wounded with a speare Your absurditie therefore needeth not to be further discouered it is so openlie blasphemous against the blood of Iesus Christ which was shed once not in the cup but on the crosse for our redemption If you vrge S. Lukes words as they stand in grammaticall construction I answere that as the cup is called Christs blood Christs testament that is by a figure the sacrament of his blood and testament so is it also said to be shed for vs by a figure sacramentallie But all men of skill and iudgement maie soone see that in these wordes there is some change of grammaticall disposition vsuall in the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists Your discourse about Tautologies in the scriptures is altogether vaine and friuolous To S. Basils testimonie you aunswere much in words and nothing in matter pag. 244. For what cause haue you thus to reproch Beza for his translation of these words seing you cannot denie but S. Basil hath reported that text of S. Luke euen as Beza hath translated the same and you confesse that Saint Basil hath truelie deliuered the sense thereof so all that you haue said or can say spitefullie against Beza must appertaine to Saint Basil no lesse Basil in Ethic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whome yet you will not seeme to touch But the thing truelie and indifferentlie considered Beza is no more to be accused then S. Basil you tell vs of heretikes a long tale which is no better then waste paper Vse it your selfe or bestowe it at your pleasure Of such badde stuffe base account is to be made Whereas I spake a fewe words concerning figuratiue speaches pag. 251. which the aduersaries cannot abide to heare of in the sacrament I haue as it were opened at vnawares a flood-gate to M. Rainolds flowing vtterance Quâ data porta ruit The streame is so strong and runneth so violentlie carying all manner of baggage with it that vaine it were to resist it Let it therefore passe downe and doe what mischiefe it can great harme I trust it shall not doe Thus much you must confesse that in the sacrament figures are found and yet when we oppose against your monster of reall presence a most true and euident answere that the wordes were figuratiuelie spoken and must figuratiuelie be expounded you rage aboue all measure But quiet your selfe Master Rainolds and somewhat staie your intemperate affection neuer shall you prooue while papistrie hath a man liuing to speake in defense of it either by scripture or auncient writer that these words must figuratiuelie be vnderstoode This is my blood this cuppe is the new Testament in my blood more then these This cup is shed for you Leaue your babling Figuratiue speaches in the verie words of the supper by the Aduersaries confession and speake to purpose prooue this if you can Wherefore finding in the Euangelistes wordes such manifest figures what reason haue you to condemne vs for vsing the same being a moste common and familiar kinde of speach Because it standeth not with your reall presence Let your reall presence hardlie shift for it selfe we are not bound for cause and respect thereof to wrest the scriptures to forge monstrous interpretations to change the sacrament into a reall sacrifice of Christ which heathenish kinde of doctrine neuer anie but Antichrist and his ministers maintained The scriptures the olde fathers the auncient Church of Christ taught and beleeued otherwise as hath bene shewed and prooued inuinciblie to your faces Your pages following filled with rouing testimonies I pretermitt your contumelies being no lawfull arguments require no answere CHAP. 11. Concerning the translation of the English Bibles MAster Martins boke of Discouerie is aunswered long since from head to foote in euerie part pag. 262. you haue the answere amongst you saie to it what you can with truth and learning To bragge of your fellowes booke which being throughlie and soundlie disprooued you cannot with all your skill maintaine is a childish vanitie to acknowledge no Replie which you cannot but knowe or to make light account of it whereunto you cannot truelie reioine is wilfulnes and
so partelie by vntrue translation and partelie by misplasing of the wordes hath whollie corrupted the text In the 7. Chapter v. 19. Leuit. 7.19 the flesh that toucheth any vncleane thing is forbidden to be eaten and must be burnt with fire Then immediatelie it followeth thus in your translation the vncleane shal eat therof Iramundus Mundus of late for the vnclean in your reformed editions is put cleane So your translations affirme that either the vncleane or cleane shall eate of the flesh which god commaunded to be burnt and none to eate therof an euident corruption by râ—ason of a worde omitted in all your vulgare translations both olde and newe In the booke of Numbers Chapter 4. verse 46. Num. 4.46 your translation hath whome Moses and Aaron made by name Fecit Paekad in stead of this whome Moses and Aaron numbred In the margent indeed of your latter corrected editions there standeth the word to be reckoned Recenseri for no other purpose I think but to be a witnes of corruption against your translations For if that word must be supplied and if you see and confesse your selues so much as apprereth in that you print it in the margent why might you not wel receiue it into the text it selfe If it haue anie right to stand in the margent more right hath it to be admitted into the text In Deuteronomie Chapter 4. verse 33. is a like fault to this Deut. 4.33 but something worse in your latine translations Moses saith did euer people heare the voice of God speaking out of the middes of a fire as thou hast heard and liued Vajechi Et vidisti Et vixisti your translations all haue thus As thou hast heard and seene In some copies you haue giuen vs a marginall correction but that is not much truer then the corruption of the text saue that this speaketh of liuing and the other of seing So in the. 15. Chap. 10. v. in stead of these words God shal blesse thee in all thy workes Mahbaseca your translation hath God shal blesse thee at al times first taking time In omni tempore for workes then leuing out the affix thine In the. 33. Chap. 10. v. a worde of waightie and necessarie force is omitted by your translator in declaring the office of the Leuites which especiallie consisted in teaching the people the lawe of God and so saith the true text joru They shall teach Iacob thy iudgements Israel thy Law But in your latine bookes the worde that signifieth to teach which was moste to be respected and whereupon dependeth that which followeth is both in the text and margent of your translations wanting and thus stand the wordes They haue kepte thy worde and obserued thy couenant thy iudgments O Iacob and thy law O Israell Now I appeale to the conscience of all the learned whether this be not a notorious deprauing of Gods worde where it is prescribed that the Leuites should teach Iacob and Israell the iudgements and law of God to leaue out the worde whereby they were charged to teach and whereas the dutie of teaching Iacob Gods iudgements and Israell his lawe was laid vpon them to make therof an other sense so much repugnant that they haue obserued the iudgements of Iacob and the lawe of Israell Iudicia tua ô Iacob legem tuam ô Israel Ios 11.19 Harde it were for any man in translating so fewe wordes to make so many faultes In the booke of Iosue Chap. 11. v. 19. the holie ghost hath noted that not one Citie of all the land of Canaan made peace with the children of Israel hishlimah excepting those Hiuites that dwelt in Gibeon But your translation telleth an other tale as contrarie to this as can be tolde that there was not a Citie Quae se non tâ—ae deret which did not yeald it selfe to the children of Israel An other reading in your margent of late hath bene deuised and that neither agreeing in trueth with the text as by comparing the same together any man may perceiue In the booke of Iudges Chap. 15. v. 14. When the Philistines met Samson being bound Iud. 15.14 the scripture recordeth that the spirit of the Lord comming vpon him the cordes that were vpon his armes becam as flax that is burnt with fire Your translator in steade of flaxe hath put woode Ligna Odorem and for the heate of the fire or some such like worde he putteth the smell of the fire And yet that woode is so easilie consumed with the onelie smell of fire I thinke you wil not say for maintenance of your translation against the originall text What then remaineth but to confesse as needes you must that here hath beene and is a foule corruption In the 1. of Samuel Chap. 9. v. 25. these wordes are added to the text 1. Sam. 9.25 Strauitque Saul in solario dormiuit And Saul spred vpon the top of the house and slept there being nothing in the text either of spredding or sleeping or anie such matter If therfore you wl be tryed by either hebrew or Chaldee or sundrie exemplares of your latine translation you shall confesse a corruption in this place so in deed you do but will not yet amend it How be it better were it not to acknowledge a fault then acknowledging one still to retaine the same And in the 19. Chap. 24. v. the scripture telleth that Saull put of his cloathes prophecied before Samuel and fel downe naked all that daie and night So hath the Hebrewe so the Greeke and so your owne Masters confesse it should be Which notwithstanding as it were in open and presumptuous maintenance of your corruptions against the sinceritie of the text in your bookes you read thus Cociuit and he songe naked This came to passe by negligence in the writer mistaking one letter for another But why will ye not be brought in this cleare light of knowledge whereby such grosse faults are easilie espied to amend your bookes to remoue the fault to restore the right word to his place you see belike what daunger might ensue of mending anie thing if once you should beginne you wist not how to make an end and therefore you are determined to sturre nothing for feare you bring downe all vpon your heades In the second of Samuell Chap. 6. v. 12. a number of wordes are added together in your translation 2. Sam. 6.12 more then can be found in the true text that Dauid hearing how Obed edom had bene wonderfullie blessed by keeping the arke in his house Dixitque Dauid ibo reducam arcaÌ„ cum bene dictione in domum meam said I will goe and bring back the arke with a blessing into my house These wordes may seeme to be fitte for the place it may be supposed that so Dauid either spake or thought But what of that may
make such things as are spoken in some respecte seeme to be vttered without exception as in this place and many others may be seene Your assertions are now to be examined by which you labour to strengthen the Remish slaunder of corruption against the Greeke testament Pag. 363. Three in number haue you brought of no importaunce as shall appeere so that we may easilie thinke they are indeed your owne The first is the difference of our Greeke copies now M. Rai argumēts against the newe testamente in Greeke confuted from the olde It may perhaps I graunt be prooued that in the Greeke copies of the new testament some diuersitie may be founde So was there much greater difference in the latine translations as your selfe cannot deny Then what maketh this for the latine translation against the Greeke fountaine if you say the latine was corrected I answere it was indede corrected but according to the Greeke and the Greeke nowe remaineth still which maie be prooued to be not onelie as pure as the latine but purer by many degrees For what reason haue you to saie that the latine translation euer since the correction hath bene preserued faithfullie without corruption but the Greeke text it selfe after which it was corrected became forthwith distayned and replenished with grosse corruptions Our Greeke testament for the moste parte and in a manner euerie where agreeth fullie with that copie which the auncient Greeke Church vsed and which therefore vndoubtedlie was the true originall Greeke text of the newe testament And as the olde latine Church reformed her translations according to the copies vsed in the Greek Churches so shall it neuer be prooued but that the same Greeke copies haue continued still as free from corruption as the latine translations haue wherefore the difference of our Greeke copies nowe from some olde maketh nothing against the puritie and authoritie of our Greeke Testament vnles you can shewe by euident proofe that the Greeke Testament nowe extant differeth from that which the Greeke Churches in times past generallie vsed Some difference there might be I denie not in such infinite multitude of copies But what then is no copie now therefore to be alowed Maie we not also shewe the like difference betwene these latter editions of your latine translation and some other of elder time you knowe we can and it is by your owne writers confessed acknowledged Is this then a learned obseruation is this a good conclusion is this a sound reason against the greek testament such arguments runne for currant at Rhemes where popish blindnes raigneth but being a litle opened and laid forth in the light are by and by espied to be naught Of this difference twoe examples you alledge the former is the story of the adulterous woman in the eight of S. Iohn which although some Greeke copies haue wanted as apeereth by the Syriake interpreter by Chrysostom by Nonnus by Ierome yet others of as great authoritie had it So this difference is not through later corruption nor prooueth no more that the Greeke testament nowe is to be reiected then it was in S. Chrysostomes daies And furthermore this storie being in your vulgare translation what can you deuise against the Greeke more then the latine The Greeke and latine agreeing how is the Greeke more corrupt then the Latine The other is in the Epistle to the Ephesians Chap. 3. verse 14. Wherein Saint Ierome saith certaine wordes were added in the latine Domini nostri Iesu Christi not being in the Greeke But that herein Saint Ierome was deceiued appeereth by S. Chrystome who readeth the wordes in the Greeke as you may see in his Greeke commentaries And by this one example we may further note what diligence Saint Ierome vsed some time in correcting the latine according to the Greeke that denieth wordes to be in the Greeke which yet are found in Saint Chrysostomes copies and manie moe Your second obseruation is of rashe additions which haue bene made in the Greeke text Pag. 365. If this be an argument of anie force against the testament in Greeke it must haue much more weight against your common translation which is so full of additions both in the old testament as I haue shewed and also in the new as hath bene faithfullie declared by others Your examples are but twoe the one in Saint Iohns Gospell Chap. 8. vers 59. It may indeede appeere that those last words of the verse passing through the midst of them and so departed haue bene added But this corruption may be espied and corrected by auncient copies and so in this respecte no cause to reiecte or disallowe the wholl text in Greeke The other is the conclusion of the Lordes prayer For thine is the kingdome the power and the glorie for euer and euer Amen This peece as you call it your latine hath not our Greeke copies haue That some had it not in times past I confesse that others had it is plaine by the Syriake translator if you suspecte our copy of corruption why may not weas probably suspecte the same of yours and we haue as iust cause to be offended with you for omitting this as you with vs for so glorious singing and saying of it The third obseruation is pa 3. 67. that the Greeke testaments oftentimes omit that which they should not Examples in Luc. Chap. 1. v. 35. and Chapter 17. v. 36. For the first you might haue found that in many greeke copies now extant and vsed the wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of thee are not omitted and that hath Beza noted and therefore supplyed those wordes in the greeke of the last Geneuian edition Your reproche of Anabaptisme is ridiculous The same maie be answered of the second For that 3 6. verse of Luc. 17. is extant in sundrie greeke editions as well as in your latine translation But what maketh all this to purpose Conclude hereof an argument if you can that therfore the greeke testament is more corrupted then the latine What a pitifull syllogisme will this be that must seuerallie of these places be concluded that therfore the greeke testament is more corrupt then the latine vulgar edition because the latine is in some places not so faulty as some Greeke copies either are or haue bene supposed to be Your last and principall reason pag. 371. c. why your Latine translator ought to be preferred before all other toucheth not the cause in hand as your owne wordes doe witnesse The controuesie is not which translation is best and moste to be preferred but whether this latine edition of your translator whosoeuer he were be worthely of your Church preferred before the originall fountaine Admit he was indued with such qualities as are moste requisite in faithfull translators of scripture in respect thereof deserueth greater creditte then the rest doth it therefore followe Master Rainolds that we must preferre him before the writers of holie scripture themselues was he of sounder religion
this your fashion Then let me conclude against you as you haue done against me that you are by your owne argument very Atheists such as make no account of God himselfe For otherwise this conclusion of yours that I am such a one for not honouring the name of Iesus in such sort is falssie though moste maliciouslie deuised That Iewes and Infidels haue abhorred the name of Iesus I graunt but no more the name of Iesus then the name of Christ seeing Iesus is Christ and Christ hath as much deserued to be hated of them as Iesus Christes name may a thousand times be heard amongst you and noe man mooueth capp or knee Iesus is noe sooner sounded but euerie man by and by putteth of his capp and scrapeth on the ground with his foot and yet not alwaies and in all places but in the Church and speciallie at reading of the Gospell This may breede a more dangerous opinion then it can remooue anie that Iesus is better then is Christ and more worthie of reuerence which is wicked to imagine Now Master Rainolds hauing in particular made some seelie defense pag. 516. 〈◊〉 as you haue heard for certaine of their annotations vpon the new Testament noted as notorious absurd and ridiculous conclusions because he knoweth the matter is not yet sufficienly answered addeth in the and a further proofe and confirmation of the arguments by example of the scripture it selfe wherein diuerse reasons may be found and namelie touching the resurrection which if they be examined according to philosophy and humane wisdome will followe no better then theirs haue done but may be thought as improbable weake as any that they haue made This discourse doth Master Rainolds in manie wordes prosecute with great superfluitie of speach and many opprobrious termes after his olde manner But when he hath talked his pleasure at full an answere in one word shall ouerthrow all that he hath builded and as it were cutt in sunder the threed of all that he hath sewed thus loselie together Whatsoeuer is affirmed or denied in scripture although it be moste contrarie to mans reason yet is it true and certaine and must without contradiction be beleeued because the Lord whose word is truth hath said it The resurrection of the flesh cannot I graunt be prooued by philosophicall reasons and arguments but Gods word hath set down this for a principle of our faith that our bodies shall rise againe and whatsoeuer reason iudgeth thereof faith maketh no doubte but so it shall be But now Master Rainolds what maketh this for your former collections because we must beleeue Christ and his Apostles in all that they teach though naturall reason will not so easilie yeald must we therefore allowe whatsoeuer our nouices of Rhemes haue fondlie without authoritie of Gods worde concluded in their Annotations for maintenance of Popish heresie This forsooth is your argument if you ment to make any argument at all if you thought not to driue your speach to this conclusion then haue you ranged at randon all this while and spoken neuer a word to that purpose to the which you shoulde haue directed your talke CHAP. 17. Of certaine blasphemies contained in the Annotations HEtherto hath appeered with what conscience and spirit you haue translated and expounded sundrie places of the new Testament wresting writhing moste violently the text of holie scripture to confirmation of your Popish errours and absurdities pag. 52◠Wherein I doubt not but whosoeuer shall consider with himselfe aduisedlie your manner of collection your argument your application of scripture and shall examine a litle how your conclusion followeth vpon your proofes with out all coherence or consequence of reason must needes greatlie mislike your wholl Religion that is builded vpon so weake so tickle so ruinous a foundation For vnles it be graunted that of euery thing may be concluded any thing and that the word of God may be made appliable to all purposes opinions and doctrines it is impossible that these and such like arguments of yours as you haue in your annotations gathered vpon the wordes of scripture should haue in them such strength and trueth as Diuinitie and religion requireth But further when your blasphemous audacitie in controlling the word of God shall be perceaued it must of necessitie breede in all such as feare God and reuerence his worde a far greater alienation of minde from you and from all your damnable doctrine Examples of such blasphemies some I alledged whereof now Master Rainolds in his last Chapter intreateth and with his accustomed boldnes of defending anie thing laboureth to iustifie the same The Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrewes intreating at large of Christes priesthood pag. 529. Sec. compareth Christ with Melchisedech and by this argument prooueth that Christ is a priest for euer because he is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech which he confirmeth by testimonie of Moses and Dauid In all which treatise the Apostle although he fullie sheweth what resemblance was betwene Melchisedech and Christ yet he maketh not anie mention of the masse nor of the vnbloodie sacrifice of Christes bodie and blood in bread and wine nor of anie such matter as by the papists hath beene imagined Which because our Rhemists vnderstoode to be greatlie preiudiciall to their sacrifice of the Masse they haue moste shamefullie and blasphemouslie behaued themselues in handling this scripture as to anie that compareth their annotations with the text it selfe maie easily apperee For they haue plainlie written in their annotations that all that the Apostle hath alledged concerning the eternitie of Christes person and his perpetuall intercession for vs and euerlasting effect of his death prooueth not that in proper signification his priesthood is perpetuall Hebr. 7.17 Whereof what other thing can possiblie be collected but that the Apostle hath not by sufficient reasons prooued that thing which he tooke in hand to prooue that Iesus Christ is a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech For these men boldelie affirme that all this prooueth not that in proper signification Christs priesthood is perpetuall then the Apostle in proper signification hath prooued nothing lesse then that which he went about to prooue concerning Christes euerlasting priesthood wherein all our saluation consisteth hath but vsed a sleight to make men beleeue a thing which either he coulde not prooue or at lest hath not effectuallie prooued Our papists wil haue the principall respect of resemblance betweene Christ and Melchisedech to stand in offering bread and wine whereof forsooth must arise a perpetuall sacrifice to be continued in the Church Nowe hereof the Apostle hath not spoken so much as one word nor giuen the least signification of such a matter What other thing is it then but plaine blasphemie for maintenance of an idolatrous sacrifice to charge the Apostle that he hath not prooued Christs priesthood to be perpetual which yet he hath by moste necessarie and substantiall arguments