vvorthely through his owne vvilfulnes be deceaued Now vvhether part fayleth in perfourmance of that vvhich it vndertaketh vvhether vve geue not The sense of holy scriptures according to the Apostolike tradition the expositions of holy fathers or vvhether he conuince vs of Desperatnes and importunitie and such contamination as he threatneth this is that vvhich the reader concerning ether side hath ro note and consider Of the vvise men thus vve say These three sages being principal men of their countrie represent the vvhole state of Princes Kinges and Emperours that vvere according to the prophecies of Dauid and Esay to beleeue in Christ to humble them selues to his crosse to foster enrich adorne and defend his church vvhere vpon it is also a very conuenient and agreable tradition of antiquitie and a receiued opinion among the faithful not lacking testimonies of auncient vvriters and much for the honor of our Sauiour that these three also vvere Kings to vvit ether according to the state of those countries vvhere the princes vvere Magi Magi the greatest about the prince or as vve reade in the scriptures of Melchisedech King of Salem many other Kings that dvvelt vvithin a smal compasse or as Iobes three frendes are called Kings These are commonly called the three Kings of Colen because their bodies are there translated thither from the East countrie Their names are said to haue bene Gaspar Melchior Baltasar In these wordes thou seest reader vpon what ground and with what moderation we speake of that matter not precisely auouching them to be Kinges in such sort as we commoÌ„ly esteeme of that name but after an other sort and some inferiour degree Albeit if we affirmed them to be as great monarkes as the Kinges of Fraunce or Spaine or the great Sophie of Persia we might so affirme for ought he bringeth to the contrarie But because M. W. maketh his first entrance with this matter as though it were so absurd let vs search out wherein lieth the great absurditie and fault committed in this note Is it trowe you in that we cal them Kinges or in that we saie they were three or in that by our reporte their names are sayd to haue bene such If because of the first let him shew his reason why that can be so harmeful what it maketh against the honor of Christ what against the veritie of the scriptures the faith of the church tradition ecclesiastical the maners of meÌ„ or any title point or dependence of Christianitie and Christian profession The like I affirme of the second the like of the thirde the like of al three ioyned together VVe cal them kinges and why not seyng the scripture wel beareth with that appellation and the auncient fathers haue so called them many hundred yeres before vve vvere borne So Tertullian in his 3. booke against Marcion calleth them so S. Cyprian calleth them in his sermon De baptismo et manifestatione Christi And S. Chrysostom proueth by scripture that they vvere kinges thus he writeth The vvisemen offered giftes to this child Christ according as the holy Ghost had testified before of them saing Esai 60. They shal come from Saba offering gold and frankencense pretious stone VVe acknovvledge that the vvise men euidently fulfilled this prophecy Dauid quoque de his ita testatur psal 71. Reges Thaersis et Insulae munera offerent Reges Arabum et Saba dona adducent Dauid also vvitnesseth of these psal 71. The kinges of Thaersis and the Isles shal offer gifts The kinges of the Arabians and Saba shal bring presents And S. Hierom applieth that text of the psalme to them in like maner And Tertullian against the Ievves vvho seemed vvith M. W. to enuie al this honor of Christ vvriteth thus Dauid also spake of this offring of gold vvhen he sayd ps 71. there shal be geuen to him of the gold of Arabia and againe the kinges of Arabia and Saba shal bring him gifts Nam et magos reges serè habuit Oriens For the East part had commonly such vvise men for their kinges S. Augustin plainely nameth them kinges so doth Claudianus so doth S. Isidorus so doth S. Remigius so doth Theopâ—ilactus so do generally the writers that haue liued in the church this later 500 yeres as we learne by S. Anselme who speaketh De istis tribus regibus Of these three kinges as of a thing most vsual vulgar And Conradus Gesnerus directeth you to certaine writers who haue made treatises De tribus Magis De tribus sanctis regibus Of these three vvise men Of these three holy kinges And among these auncient and Catholike fathers to alleage one new Zuinglius holdeth it as very probable that they were kinges Thus he speaketh of them writing vpon the 2 chapter of S. Matthew Magi saith he sunt sapientes et astrorum et omnium rerum peritissimi huiusmodi homines ferè administrationi rerum publicarum adhibuerunt gentiles Magi are vvisemen skilful in astronomy and al other matters The gentiles made such men commonly gouerners of their common vvelthes After al which for vs to cal them kings how can it in any sort be hurtful or preiudicial to any truth of Christian religioÌ„ Nay on the contrarie side whosoeuer carpeth at this certainely he maligneth the glorie of our Sauiour he secretly detracteth from his honor and malitiously pincheth and snarleth at the auncient and Apostolike church which in this sorte witnessed such prophecies to haue bene fulfilled But perhaps M. W. is offended at the number of three vvhere vpon S. Augustine so sweetely alludeth vnto the mystery of the Blessed Trinitie and that Christe was King God and yet should dye as a mortal man This is that great corruption which so greueth him But who would be greued here at except some detestable Arian Trinitarian Libertine or Anabaptist against whose religion only for ought I know that note maketh And touching the story that they were three S. Austin plainely affirmeth it Tres erant So saith S. Leo the Great and first of that name aboue a dozen times in his sermons vpon the feast of the Epiphanie And whereas the EuaÌ„gelist speaketh of them not in the dual but in the plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fewer they could not well be and more we neede not to beleeue except we see more reason theÌ„ yet appeareth And touching the last part vz Their names are said to haue bene such how could vve haue spoken more moderatly For who hath heard them called by any other names And I suppose they were not namelesse And if they had names why not Gaspar Melchior Baltazar rather then William Iohn and Thomas or any other that M. W. list to imagine whereas the common opinion of our forefathers maketh for the first no probabilitie or reason can be brought for the second And if M. VV. beleeue that the Ievvish Sinagoge erred not in continuing by
that taketh avvay the sinnes of the vvorlde Call S. Iohn to M. VVhitakers consistorie he wil â—â—â—ke him recant his speach For first Christ is no lambe because he hath no woll on his backe It is the self same reason which here is vsed against S. Luke about the meâ—â—all of the chalice Then being driuen from that the adsurditie of tautologia still remaineth Behold this lambe is the lambe of God what an idle speache is this what is this double lambe therfore sende it to Geneua to be cast a new in Bezaes forge The Catholiks of old time to proue distinction of persons in the deitie vsed that place of Genesis pâ—uit dâ—miâ—â—â— aâ— domino our Lord rayned from our Lord to proue the Trinity of persoÌ„s they vsed the place of the psalme Benedicat nos Deus Deus noster benedis at nos Deus God our God blesse vs our God blesse vs. This to a Trinitarian is absurda sententia and induceth a pluralitie of Gods vvhereas S. Paule saith vnus Deus vnus Domâ—nus oâ—â— God one Lord what remaineth theÌ„ but that according to the arrest of this supreme arbiter we fall to newe casting of the scripture and so in short space no doubt we shal growe to perfectioÌ„ that is to the Turks Alcoran if we be not come so farre already The scriptures are full of such absurdities which neuerthelesse are absurdities only to carnal cogitatioÌ„s to Sathan Sathans ministers but to theÌ„ that haue learned in the schole of the holy Ghost to subiect their vnderstanding to the obedience of faith they are nothing so And M.W. if he had in him any droppe of religion fayth he should thus thinke Howsoeuer I can reconcile two or three Gods with one the bloud shedd on the crosse with that which was in the chalice were it bloud or wine let Christs wordes stande as he spake them and the Euangelist wrote them and let vs afterward in the name of God be we Lutherans Zuinglians Caluinists Trinitaries or Anabaptists eche according to his priuate spirite search for the sense as wel as we can Christes soule went downe to hell saith our Creede and S. Luke It is absurde sayth Beza and papisticall and therefore for soule I haue translated carcas and for hell graue whom in so doing the English congregation approueth That Christ ascended into heauen it is a fansie of Aristotle and Mahomet sayth Brentius and to the Lutherans it is absurda sententia shal they now leaue out that word and put in the text for ascendit euanuit or disparuit he vanyshed out of sight in steede of he ascended which to them is the true and only sense of the place and which they may and ought to do by like reason and authoritie But S. Basil you say readeth as you translate graunt he did so but what translate you S. Basil or S. Luke if S. Basil you haue done wel to folovv your greeke copye If S. Luke then do you vvickedly to alter S. Luke vpon coniecture of one greeke doctor all greeke copies and doctors being to the contrarie And vvhat if S. Basil in an other place reade otherwise shal we not make a vvise patching of scripture if vpon euerie particular doctors citation vve alter the holie text S. Aug. in many places S. Bernard and other good men dravv exhortatioÌ„s for their frends or monks or people and commonly they do it in the verie phrase of scripture yet because they knitte together many sentences of scriptures that be in diuers places they must of necessitie adde some words or parcels of their owne Nether is it material if ofteÌ„times they leaue out one worde or a fewe words But if by such authoritie we should alter our text we should in short space haue so many texts that in deed we should haue no text because we should haue no certaine text whereunto we might trust And why remember you not that which in this self same place M. Martin tolde you out of Beza who noteth it to be the custome of the auncient fathers in citing scriptures to alleage the sense not to sticke precisely vpoÌ„ the words And that therefore how soeuer they reade that is no certaine rule to reforme or alter the vvordes of scripture But here you make your aduantage of M. Martins words and say if Basil cited not the vvords but the sense of the scripture theÌ„ Beza vvhen he so traÌ„slated missed nothing of the sense so M. Martin doth novv plainly acquite Beza vvhoÌ„ before he accused For if Basils vvords geue a true sense and the interpretation of Beza and ours all agree vvith Basils vvords then your accusation is false that vve had corrupted the sense of the scripture Somewhat you saye and this hath some appearance more then any thing that you haue sayde hitherto yet you reache not home and you are ouer hasty in your conclusion S. Basil geueth a true sense I confesse whether you respecte the particular matter whereunto he applyeth the place or the generall doctrine of the catholike church For his wordes are sufficieÌ„t for the one and the other And so are the wordes in our vulgar Latin and English and may well be taken as agreing with S. Basil hic est calix nouum testamentum in sanguine meo qui pro vobis fundetur This is the chalice the nevv testament in my bloud vvhich shall be shedde for you And whosoeuer readeth and taketh these later wordes as referring them to the bloud of Christ shedde on the crosse he thinketh very well and truly and no man would euer finde fault with such a sense or citation if it stayd there For this nothing impayreth the other truth whereof we speake that the same bloud is in the chalice But when there riseth vp a new heresie by one truth ouerthrowing an other and by one part of the sentence destroyng an other as it fareth betwixt vs this circumstance so farre altereth the case that the old father alleaging the text without any thought or imagination of heresie did well and christianlike the new heretike enforcing the same in defence of heresie doth nâ—ughtely sacrilegrously as for example If some good man as S. Basil or S. Bernard to induce his auditors to the loue of Christ had vsed this sentence of the Apostle In this appeared the benignitie of our lord sauiour tovvards vs that not by the vvorkes of iustice vvhich vve did but of his infinite mercie he saued vs. This place according to the sense had bene well trulye cited For albeit infinite is not in the text yet that is no hinderance to the meaning and although I name not Christ god yet nether that worde hindereth any thing because in a Christian audience it is all one to say our lord and sauiour Christe or our god and sauiour Christe But if there rose vp some Nestorian heretike that should diuide Christ from god and make two
that she vvil in short time leaue this zeale in preaching the Catholike religion and thereby that your congregatiō shal gather strength and stabilitie and vvise men vvil fal in good liking thereof then your ignorance is great vvho knovv nether the nature of our Catholike Church religiō nor of your ovvne heretical faith and congregation Not of ours because you may learne or remember that from Christs time hitherto nether by persecuting Emperours nor by vndermining heretikes othervvise qualified thē are the Lutherās or Zuinglians of these days it vvas or could euer be subuerted but rather the more it vvas assaulted the better irresisted the more it vvas gainsaid the more it florished vvhē suttle heretikes vpō temporal fauour vvere most insolent then she most excellently did defende her self Examples you haue of the times of S. Augustine against Pelagius the Manichees S. Hierō against Iovinian and Vigilantius Lanfrancus against Berengarius and al the Primitiue church against Constantius Valēs and Arrius Ignorant you are of your ovvne faith and gospel because you may remember that nether had it euer any stay or stabilitie since it vvas first begotten nether can it haue so longe as it endureth the very pillers vvhich vnder proppe it being such rottē matter as of it self quickly corrupteth falleth in to dust For when in king Henries raigne it first set foote in our realme vpon occasions which I am content to passe ouer though M. Fox to the euerlasting shame both of such a gospel and such gospellers haue recorded them and committed them to eternal memorie hovv variable a state it had your elders know he much complaineth Euē as the kinge vvas ruled saith he gaue care sometime to one sometime to an other so one vvhile religion vvent forvvard at an other season as much backvvard againe sometime cleane altered and chaūged for a season as they could preuaile vvhich vvere about the kinge So long as Q. Anne liued the gospel had indifferent good successe And not only Queenes but very meane gētlemen and doctors of phisicke were then able to craze your gospel and set it backward or forward as pleased them For so much also is recorded in M. Foxes storie in the ende of king Henries life Thus writeth he So long as Quene Anne L. Cromvvel B. Cranmer M. Denny D. Buts vvith such like vvere about the King and could preuayle vvith him vvhat organe of Christes glorie did more good in the church thē he Againe vvhen sinister vvicked counsel had gotten once the foote in thrusting truth veritie out of the princes eares hovv much as religion and al good things vvent forvvard before so much on the contrary side al reuolted backvvard againe And this gospel as M. Fox calleth it which King Henrie left established as he thought most assuredly by Acte of Parlament in his sonne King Edwards daies went cleane vpside doune In Q. Maries daies came a new alteration vnder the Q. Maiestie that now is an other cleane contrarie And at this present finde you not a general murmuring euen amongst the Protestants against the Communion booke and state of religion which in the beginning of hir Maiesties raigne was brought in If the Catholikes said nothing haue you not the Puritans most eagerly detesting your faith and were it not for the Princes sword like to dispossesse you of chayrs and churches And what stabilitie can that gospel haue which altogether dependeth of the good allovvance of the Prince and her councel in Parlament which we know within these fiftie yeres so often to gaine said one an other And if it should please God to turne the Quenes hart to the catholike faith for which we incessantly pray vvere not the face of your religiō streightvvaies altered turned quite vpside downe must nor the inferiour partes of the body turne and frame them selues according to the head would not the same statutes which now are vniustly executed vpon Catholikes without alteration of any one word be much more iustly executed vpon the Ministers Superintendents if so be they called her Maiesty Scismatike or Heretike Wherefore litle reason haue you to imagine that wisemen wil fall in liking of your new deuised fansie which as it altogether dependeth vpon the Fauour of Court and Courtiers so for this very reason must needes euer remaine as chaungeable as the Court and Courtly beneuolence is And your father Luther who best knew the nature of his children and qualitie of your religion geueth such a sentence of it as I doubt not at this present is allowed of al the wisest of our Realme and much confirmed by your maner of writing The arguments and reasonings of the sacramentaries saith he are such vaine vvordes vvithout witte that I can not maruaile sufficiently hovv learned men can be moued vvith such lyes truly they do their matters vvith so fearful a conscience that they seeme to vvish they had neuer taken them in hand Equidē opinor si eis esset potestas de integro cōsulēdi quòd nūquam inciperent Verily I suppose if they vvere to consulte of the matter a fresh they vvould neuer begin their sacramētarie heresie And I verely suppose if the wise gouernours of our Realme who now may see the issue of your gospel what wickednes and iniquitie in lyfe confusion and Atheisme in faith contempt of God and man it hath brought with it if they were now to consult of the matter a fresh I beleeue verily with your father Martin Luther that amongst al heresies of name at this time currant in the Christiā world they would least of al haue admitted yours as being the most grosse most licentious and most vnprobable of al others But come we to the particular faultes historical committed by vs. Things alvvays accompted false or suspected vve set forth as most true articles of the Romane religiō as that the vvise mē vvhich came from the East vvere 3 kinges and had such names That S. Iohn Baptist vvas father of monkes That a stone vvith vvhich Steuen vvas stoned to death is reserued at Ancona c. Before I come to make āswere I wish the reader to carie in remembrance first the greatnes of his accusation against vs That neuer any thing came forth in print More contaminate then these annotations That vve haue shevved herein great desperatenes and importunitie That things alvvays accōpted false or suspected vve affirme as most true articles of the Romane religion c. Then what we promised in these ānotations Touching which in the preface of the new testament thus we write In these annotations vve shevv the studious reader the Apostolike tradition the expositions of the holy fathers the decrees of the Catholike church and most auncient Councels vvhich meanes vvho so euer trusteth not for the sense of holy scriptures but had rather folovv his priuate iudgment or the arrogant spirit of these Sectaries he shal
1. cal 4. v. 27. see before pag. 59 The end of M.W. doctrine touching Antichrist If the Pope of Rome be Antichrist there be many worse Antichristâ— in the world M. Iewels maner of answering D. Harding He leaueth out the best part of D. Hardings booke An vnconscionable way of answering Apud Sander pa. 764. Sander pa. 767. Ibid. pag. 770.771 â—â—g 774. Vnreasonable mangling corrupting and falsifying Apud Sander pa. 785. Apud Sand. pag. 789. Illyr Luther Luther To. 7. Defensio c. contra fanaticos sacramentariorum spiritus fo 381. The Protestants forbid the reading of scripture See after pa. 459. The heretikes alter their workes continually Of the name Protestants and Sacramentaries Ful. in the Answere to M. Martins preface pa. 17. Pag. 653. 1717. Those that professe the English religion are not Catholikes Brentius et Lutherani passim See before pa. 39. Nor Protestants Sleidan li. 6 fol. 102.101.109 Ibid. lib. 7. fol. 110. et 114. et lib. 8. fol. 128.131 Those of the English fayth are most properly called Zuinglians or Sacramentaries Apol. Ecclesiae Anglicanae d. â— Protestants Hussites Gospellers See before pa. 16. Actes and monumentes pa. 901.902 Ibid pa. 993. aeditionis postremae Sacramentaries Lutherans Zuinglians These names them selues vse besides a more general name vsed and confirmed by Act of Parlament see before pag 21. Sleid. lib. 8. fol. 128.131.133 et lib. 9. fol. 150. Ibid. lib. 7. fol. 107. et lib. 20. fol. 368. lib. 21. fol. 382.390 ibid. lib. 5. fol. 75.78 The proceding of the new gospel In prefat pag. 2. In respons ad episto Campiani prefa pag. 2. The Heretikes corrupt their ovvne vvryters Anno 1568. Colloq Alt. in respo ad excusa cor fol. 227. 2. RespoÌ„ ad Hipothe a fol. 284. ad fo 290. fo 353.355.441 442.443.526 Ibi. Saxoni ad respons de difcess fo 539.540 Vvestphalus in apologia contra caluÌ„ Cal. ca. 46. pag. 458. The vvorks of Luther corrupted by the Caluinistes in Geneua Detruncaeti Bull resp ad Cocle. ca. 3. Pag. 4. Ibid. Manifest contradiction Duraeus fol. 8. S. Iames epistle denyed by the ProtestaÌ„ts Pomeran ad Rom. ca. 8. In Annot. in â—o Test pag. vâ—i S. Iames epistle the Apocalips lefte out of the Protestants bibles Câ—â— 1. li. 2. c. 4. colum 54. Cent. 2. ca. 4. colum 71. Luther 10.5 in 1. Pc. ca. 1. Muscu in locis coÌ„mu ca. de lusti num 5. pag. 271. pag. 4. M.VV. notable vvranglinge pag. 3. Illirieus in praefa Iac. Had it not bene a goodly matter vvorthy the labour of such greate men in the Tovver disputations to discusse vvhether Luther called S. Iâ—mes Epistle stramineâ— made of stravve simply or oÌ„ly in comparison * Cont. Campi pag. 198. Pag. 4. Whit. cont Camp pag. 17 1â—.19 Cal. in argument ep Ia. The Heretikes sit in iudgemente vpon the scriptures allovv disallovve as they find moste fit for their sectes Whit. pag. 5. The reason why the english cleargie admitte some books of scripture and refuse others Aug. de doct chri li. 2. c. 8. A ca. 2. vers 4. vsque ad finem 7. ca. Pag. 5. Contr. CaÌ„p pag. 9. vide ibi pa. 10.12 M. VV. reasons make most against him selfe pag. 5. The summe of the Tower disputation touching the scriptures The fourth dayes conference Whit. pref pag. 4. 5. con Camp Pa. â—0 Ibi. A. 2. â— Ibi. 3. b. 8. The firste dayes conference in the Tower D. 1.2 Sundrye bookes of the scripture denied by the protestantes S. Lukes gospel doubted of Contr CaÌ„p pag. 9 exagitat The open way to deny al scripture pag. 24. Aug. de heresiâ— heresi 53. Epiph. here 75. Hiero. cont Vigilanti Ioâ—iniat The protestantes as in suÌ„dry other partes of their doctrine so in denying certaine books of scripture imitate the auncieÌ„t heretikes The 4. daies conference Epiph. here 42. Epiph. her 51. W. contra Cam. p. 28. Insti li. 1. ca. 7. ¶ 4 The protestants refusing the authoritie of the church can neuer geue reason how they know some bookes and not other to be canonical scripture Cont. Campian pag. 9. I. Tim. 3. v. 15. The protestats refusing the churche beleeue not the scriptures See after chap. 16. Rom. 10. ver 17. 1. Cor. 15. ver 11. Somewhat is the word of god besides scripture Aug. de doc Chris l. 2. ca. 8. Con. Cart. 4. ca. 47. Con. Laod. can 59. The epistle of S. Paule to the hebrewes as much doubted of in the primitiue Churche as that of S. Iames. and bâ—â—n as much as those books of the olde testament which the protestants reiect Hier. in Esai cap. 6. et 8. Latina coâ—suetudo IdeÌ„ in Hier. cap. 31. Hiero. in Catalogo Caius CoÌ„ei Laod. can 59. Pap. 24. M.VV. brag of coÌ„futing the catholike doctrine vayne and impossible Mat. 13. v. 14 Mat. 7. v. 6. Mat. 16. Luc. 22. Luther tom 2. contr Regem Angl. fol. 342. The coÌ„mon vaine spirit of euerie Secte of protestants Henricianae ecclesiae Pag. 6. Luthers extreme hatred against the Sacramentaries Zuinglians Cleâ—â—â—ius a Zuinglian made a booke intituled victoria venitatis â—utiâ—a papaâ—us Saxonici an 1561 Confess orthodox Eccles Tigâ—r tractat 3. â—o 108. Immaniter contra nos expuit Ibid. in prefat fol. 3. â— Lauatieâ— in historia Sacram. fol. 32. Luther reiâ—cteth the bible translated by the Zuinglians how much more ought catholiks to auoyded the same In coÌ„fessio Tigur vers supra fo 30. Confes Tigur tract 3. fol. 108. The Zuinglians condemne them selues in defending Luther M.W. distinctioÌ„ wheÌ„ Luthers iudgemeÌ„t is to be preferred before al the Church The folie of M.W. distinction Cone Chal. actio 1. Lirine cont haeres ca. 43. Mat. c. 4. v. 6. Ioan. c. 14. et 16. Ephes cap. 4. b. c. Esa ca. 59. v. 21. In this case the authoritie of the deuel as wel as of Luther is better theÌ„ all Fathers or al the angels of heauen Gal. 1. Ierem. 31. g. 33. d. Luthers iudgement with scripture against the Sacrametaries Luther to 7. A defence of the literal sense of our Sauiours wordes etc. against the fanatical sprites of the SacrameÌ„taries Ibi. fol. 383. The Sacramentaries enemies of the gospell by Luthers iudgmeÌ„t coÌ„firmed with scripture Euerie protestant soueraine iudge of scripture CouÌ„cels doctors old new See the 5. chap. in the beginning pa. 7 Mat. 10. v. 24. pa. 6. Who are truly priests Melchisedec did sacrifice The sacrifice of Melchisedec denied generally by the protestants though confessed by M. W. Gen. 14. Heb. c. 7. v. 6 Mus in loc com cap. de Miss papist pa. 492. Bib. printed anno 1579. Corruption of the scriptures Cal. in com in episto ad Heb. c. 7. v. 9 Ibid. Caluin reiecteth the auÌ„cieÌ„t fathers touchinge the sacrifice of Melchisedec Cal. in psal 110. Heb. 5. v. 11. 1. Cor. ca. 2. ver 5. ca. 3. ver 2. Hier. ep 126 ad Euagri Greg. Nazi Christ did sacrifice at his
groundes of disputation such as are vsed ether in our church or in their owne and how far these men be groweÌ„ to a headstroÌ„g desperatnes beyond the maner of al the auÌ„cient heretikes For when S. Austin and the old fathers had to dispute with such as Donatistes ArriaÌ„s Manichees Pelagians and others they vrged them with the authoritie of Gods Church with the iudgement of the Sea Apostolike the Succession of bishops in the same with the determination of general Councels finally with the name Catholike and that which was so called of al men and the heretikes seemed to be moued therewith and acknowledge such maner of argument But the heretikes of our time conteÌ„ning impudently al these Church Sea Apostolike Succession of bishops general Councels and whatsoeuer els may be inuented are come so far that they now despise and treade vnder foote the name Catholike which the Apostles by diuine wisdome found out and by their Creede sanctified appropriated to true ChristiaÌ„s members of Christs only Catholike and Apostolike Church in so much that in the sinode holdeÌ„ at Altemburg betwene the Diuines of the Palsgraue of Rhene and the Duke of VVirtemberg when one part brought forth a text of Luther against the aduersaries they perusing the place at large and finding there the word Catholike streightwaies reiect the whole as corrupt and counterfaite because Luther was neuer vvont to vse that vvord Ista verba catholicè intellecta non sapiunt phrasin Lutheri say they and vpon this only reason conclude that booke not to haue bene made by him And yet would to God our aduersaries could be content to yelde to the very scriptures them selues such peeces I meane and bookes as they leaue vnto vs and hetherto with vs acknowledge for Canonical VVouâ—d to Gâ—d they could frame them selues humbly to admitte such scriptures when of theÌ„ selues they are playne for vs against them For so surely buâ—ldâ—d is the Catholike cause that by such helpe she is able sufficiently to defend her selfe and confound the aduersaries But whereas besides the reâ—usal of al the forenamed witnesses both of our church and of their owne as though none euer besydes them selues in particular no Saint or man ether in heaueÌ„ or earth had wit learning or grace whereas I say besides al this they expound the same scriptures by plaine partialitie fantasie frensye whereas they make them selues the only arbiters both what bookes are Canonical what Apocriphal and which is the true sense of them whereas in examining the sense they runne sometime from greeke to latin sometime from lâ—tin to greeke sometimes vrge one or other greeke example against innumerable latin sometimes prosse one or other fathers reading against al greeke commonly corrupt the sense both of latin and greeke sticke only to certaine heretical versions made by their maisters in fauour of their seueral heresies whereas they are groweÌ„ to such extreme folly hardnes impudency it may seeme nothing els but wast of vvords to deale vvith men whom contention pride ignorance malice and obstinacie against the Church and her pastors hath so pitifully blinded Novv if I may vvith the readers patience descend from this vvhich I speake generally of the English protestants to apply the same more specially vnto the party vvhose booke I haue to examine it shal both iustifie more clearly that which hetherto hath bene said touching their irreligion want of faith and withal set forth the practise of those proud and arrogant rules of answering which I before haue noted and besides shew what stuffe is contained in his booke of Antichrist wherein he so vainely and insolently triumpheth It hath bene an old disease of auncient heretikes first of al to inuade the cheefe pastors of the church that they being remoued from the gouernment them selues might more freely spoyle the flocke as witnesseth S. Cyprian And for like reason their maner hath bene more malitiously to barke at the Sea Apostolike as saith S. Austin In this as in many other mad partes the heretikes of our age haue not only matched but also far surmounted the heretikes of auncient time For when as vpon their first breach from the church spreading of this new heresie they were reproued by their cheefe pastor and gouernor vpon malice and spite and desire of reuenge they brast forth into this rayling to cal him Antichrist not meaning for al that to cal him Antichrist in such a seÌ„se as the church and faith of Christian men vnderstandeth vvhen vve speake of Antichrist vvhich shal come in the end of the vvorld and of vvhom S. Paule to the Thessalonians and the scriptures in some other places specially do meane but in such a general sense as S. Iohn intendeth wheÌ„ he saith that novv there are many Antichristes and vvho so denieth Christ to haue come in flesh he is Antichrist But the later Protestants going beyond their maisters as commonly it fareth in euery heresie to make their cause more plausible and iustifie their schismatical departure from the church more assuredly haue taken vp the proposition in the more extreme and desperate sense and now hold the Pope of Rome to be that singular Antichrist of whom S. Paule and some other of the Apostles fore-prophecied This wicked and shameles assertion being refuted at sundry times and of sundry men namely of D. Sanders not only as false vnprobable but also as heathenish vnpossible M. Whitaker hath now taken vpon him to make a reply against his argumentes and maintaine that former assertion of his brethren but after such a sort as partly argueth in him want of al religioÌ„ and conscience partly declareth him to haue deepely impressed in his harte a vvonderful pride and coÌ„tempt of al others a principal note and marke of Antichrist And to beginne vvith the later I vvil shortly runne ouer one or tvvo of the first demonstrations and M. W. ansvveres framed there vnto First of al D. Sanders disputeth that the succession of the Romane bishops can not be Antichrist because Antichrist is one man vvhich he confirmeth by sundrie good testmonies of scripture vvherevnto he ioyneth the vniuersal consent of al the auncient fathers His vvordes are Denique omnes sancti patres Graeci Latini Syri quiper tot saecula vel in Oriente vel in Occidente vel in Aquilone vel in Meridie vixerunt secundùm fidem traditionem ab Apostolâ—s acceptaÌ„ de Antichristo locuti sunt velut de homâ—ne vno Briefly al the holy fathers Greeke Latin Syrian vvho for so many ages liued ether in the East or VVest or North or South according to the faith and tradition receaued from the Apostles haue spoken of Antichrist as of one man VVhat is M. VV. answere to this After certaine cauils made to the places of scripture thus at a clappe he dischargeth the fathers writing according to the faith
and maye retaine external peace and ciuil concord vvith the Zuinglians in matters temporal but quoad spiritum eos ad extremum vsque halitum deuitabimus arguemus damnabimus pro idololatris verbi Dei corruptoribus blasphemis deceptoribus c. touchinge the soule and matters spiritual vve vvil auoide thē as long as vve haue a day to liue vve vvil reproue and condemne them for idolaters corrupters of Gods vvorde blasphemers and deceauers and of them as enemies of the Gospel vve vvill sustaine persecution and spoile of our goods vvhat-soeuer they shal do vnto vs so lōge as God vvill permitte And in the same leafe it foloweth immediatelye aptlye may vve say to these men offeringe vs peace as Christe saide to Iudas in the garden Iudas vvith a kysse betrayest thou the sonne of man So this is the very peace and kisse of Iudas for offeringe vs their friendship they vvoulde vvithal obtaine of vs to holde our peace and in silence beholde the fyers and slaughters vvhereby they thrust headlong infinite thousandes of soules dovvne to hell Here is Luthers iudgmente and that with scripture for againste al communion with the Zuinglians he in this place vrgeth the wordes of our sauiour Math. 10. vers 34. Luk. 14. v. 26.2 Cor. 6. v. 14. Eph. 4. v. 5. May Luther now prefer his iudgmente thus qualified before a thousande Caluines a thousand Peter Martyrs or who-soeuer els be the greatest doctors of your congregatiōs before all Zuinglian churches Or if Luther may so do may not we do the like and thinke of you as he doth and that by vvarrante geuen vs from your ovvne mouthe Maye vve not saye to you vpon like grounde Scripturam Lutherus protulit cui nullus mortalis resistit c. Luther hath brought scripture vvhich no man can vvithstand and vvhich at lenght shal be the bane and ouerthrovve of all the Zuinglian and Caluinistical opinions Now if which is the extreme refuge you wil say that Luthers iudgmēt against you is not agreable to scripture and therfore not so deepely to be accompted of then see I beseeche you how finely and suttely you haue fet this matter about for now the sense of your distinctiō is that whē Luther affirmeth any thing agreable to the scriptures by iudgment of your selfe he ought to esteeme more of it thē of a thousand Austines a thousād Ciprianes an innumerable cōpany of catholike churches And thus whiles you first geue Luther power to iudge ouer al Fathers Doctors and Councels and then make your self iudge ouer Luther to approue reproue him as you please who seeth not that in fine you make your self supreme iudge of altas before of scriptures so now of Fathers and Councels old and new Catholike and heretike no lesse of your owne doctors then the auncient fathers and doctors of Christes church which is in deede the verie last refuge and extreme resolution of all your new diuinitie Finally because it greeueth me to spēde time in such vnreasonable pelfe may it please you at your better leysure to consider the sense of this parcel to put it downe somewhat more intelligiblie and if you can so do and saue your selfe from the note of much foly for from beinge an heretike by Luthers iudgment what soeuer the answere be you shall neuer saue your selfe you shal performe a matter of more difficultie then perhaps you are aware of In the meane season as it standeth it carieth with it grosse faultes as manie welnie as it hath lines whether you oppose Luther to the auncient primitiue Churche as it seemeth and as doubtlesse he meante or to the catholike churche of our time whiche you woulde inferre or to your owne deuided Zuinglian congregation which by like sequele doth folow or whether you consider Luther in this case only as one principal author of your Gospel so make this priuiledge common to him with other or rather consider him singularly by himselfe because he was the first that brake the yse and opened the waye to this soule Apostasie which is now so far spread or finally whether you thus aduaūce Luther but euer holdinge the raynes in your owne handes which I weene must be your laste refuge and final determination CHAP. IIII. Of priesthode end the sacrifice continued after Christ in the state of the nevv testament and that it derogateth nothing from Christ THE difference betwene you M. Martin aboute priestes is no priuate but a general controuersie betweene all Catholiks and Protestants your minister like termes of Baalites and Antichristian sacrificers I cōtemne am cōtente to dissemble many breaths more stronge and ranke then this we muste gladly abide or els we are not such as by Goddes mercy we hope professe our selues Comfortably saith our sauiour the disciple is not aboue his maister nor the seruante aboue his lorde if they haue called the goodman of the house Beelzebub hovv much more them of his housholde therefore feare ye them not For to comforte our selues withal if we be Baalites and Antichristians in respecte of oure priesthode then certainly Christe is the capitaine Baal Antichriste from whom our priesthode descendeth And that will I proue in few principally and first by your owne wordes secondarilye by manifeste deduction out of the scriptures A priest you define thus Sacerdotes ii verè propriè sunt qui sacrificia faciunt qualis fuit Aaron Aaronis filii Melchisedechus quem illi adumbrabant Christus Priestes truly and properly are they that offer sacrifices such as vvas Aaron and the sonnes of Aaron Melchisedech and Christe vvhom they prefigured Those that offer sacrifice you acknowledge to be priestes truly and properly not onlye by abuse of speeche as in this place againste S. Austine you falsly cauille In the number of such priestes that offered sacrifice you reckē Melchisedec after him Christe of vvhom Melchisedec vvas a figure This you woulde neuer haue said had you bene skilful ether in your owne diuinitie or in the faith of the Catholike Church for although hetherto we haue many wayes laboured and vsed all possible meanes of proufe that Melchisedec offered sacrifice yet we could neuer obtaine so much of your brethren because they wel saw that therein was included the manifest confirmatiō of the Catholike faithe touching priesthod the vtter ruine of your Geneuiā Ministerye For if Melchisedec sacrificed then was it in bread and wine for other sacrifice of his neuer man imagined and the scripture proueth it inuincibly which mencioneth that no other nor by worde sillable or title geueth the leste insinuation of any besides Then how necessarilie it muste folow that Christe sacrificed in like maner and how from him power to do the same is deriued vnto priestes of the new testament this shal be shewed hereafter First of all that of Melchisedecs sacrifice beinge most certaine of you graunted and of vs beleeued
that Christ hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sempiternall euer lasting vnchangeable or vnremoueable priesthod far otherwise then Aaron and the Leuitical priests had This being the Apostles reason and sense and word what foloweth hereof or what would M.W. inferre I see not what may be concluded but ether it is so true that we wil neuer denye it or it is so foolish that he should be ashamed to mention it if he say Christ is a priest for euer we affirme no lesse that his priesthod passeth not from him it is our beleefe that the force and vertue thereof endureth foreuer we liue and die therein and all the baptismes recōciliations sacrifice sacramentes al grace vertue sanctification which is in the church Catholike dependeth of this faith and floweth from the eternity of this one euerliuinge priest and priesthode But will he inferre hereof that therefore there ought to be no other inferior priestes and that this derogateth from his priesthode this lo is so chyldish that amongest meane learned diuines it deserueth rather laughter then answeare Christe is a priest for euer therefore there are no priestes whie then let vs argue Christ is a true man for euer therefore we are not or he hath a soule for euer therefore we haue none or he is a kinge for euer therefore let vs depose all princes and remoue princelie authoritie Christ is our doctor maister and teacher for euer and so farewel al maisters and doctors so the Eschequer shal saue that which the Q. Maiestie bestoweth on the Vniuersitie readers finallie because Christ liueth for euer therefore let vs rid our selues out of the way lest we derogate from Christ For as Christ in most excel lent sorte hath the one that is priesthod so hath he all the rest bodie soule kinglie power prophecie to be a maister doctor and teacher all agree to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that eternallie vnchangeablie and vnremoueablie But ô miserable people whose soules are committed to such teachers most vnfortunate church where such doctors possesse the principal chaires where the very learned mē who should be lightes to the rest are so blinded with heresie that they see not so much as ether common knowledge of meane diuinitie or the continual practise of ciuil policie or their verie Communiō booke thrusteth into their eyes and cares for how is it possible that a learned man hauing any sense of diuinitie should be moued with this new deuise hanging vpon one Greeke or Latine worde which so many hūdreds of learned fathers Greeke and Latine could neuer yet espie but though they knew both this particular controuersie and generallie all truth by many degrees more fullie then possiblie can any of these sectaries or secte-maisters yet were they so far from anie such collection that euermore in saynge and writing in teachinge and confutinge in lyfe and death they practised the contrarie And what reasonable man castinge his eyes vpon the Q. maiestie should not by and by descrie the vanitie of this sophistication for if she may conferre vpon some of her subiectes in euerie shier of her realme authoritie and gouernemēt to rule to imprison to chastise to correct to release to decide controuersies to arraygne in iudgement to condemne and execute euen vnto death al this with out empayringe or diminishinge her princelie authoritie nay to the much greater shew declaration thereof for so much as her subiectes doinge these offices vnder her hauing al their power depēding of her she absolutely rulinge dependinge of none by these so manye litle riuers as it were doe more excellētly set forth the largenes of the mayne springe how much more easelie may we conceaue this of Christ our vniuersal and absolute kinge and priest in the regiment of his Church that he without empairinge of his supreme euerlastinge and incommutable priesthode may communicate these sacred priestlie functions with his ministerial officers for the benefite of his subiectes the Christiā-Catholikes dispersed thorough out the world and so much the more as in euerie holie action wrought in the Church in euerie consecration in euerie sanctification in euerie reconciliation in euerie baptisme in euerie sacramente and sacrifice whatsoeuer is done to the benefite of mans soule Christ our high priest hath therein a more true and effectual operation concurring with his minister then hath any prince vnder the sunne in lyke case in regiment of his owne realme And if this can not sinke into their heads how is it that they consider not their verie Cōmuniō booke where the Parlamēt from whēce that booke hath his authoritie geueth power to the minister in some case to remitte sinnes then which nothing is more proper to Christ nothīg more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing more neerelie vnited to his diuine person And yet thus it is appointed there Here shal the sicke person make a speciall cōfession if he feele his consciēce troubled vvith any vveightie matter after vvhich confession the priest that is the minister shall absolue him after this sorte And so foloweth a verie forme of Absolutiō borowed from the vse of our Catholike Church Our Lord Iesus Christ vvho hath least povver to his Church to absolue al sinners vvhich trulie repente and beleeue in him of his great mercie forgeue thee thine offences And by his authoritie committed to me I absolue thee from all thie synnes in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holie Ghost Amen Wherefore if ether reason or sense or experience or humanitie or diuinitie preuaile with M. W. he can not vpō Christs sempiternall priesthode make any probable coniecture against the priesthode of the Church or say it derogateth from Christ Contrarywise if he wil stand ether to his owne writing or to the iudgement of his felow-zuinglians Martir Bale and Caluin or to the proofes and testification of the lutheranes his brethren for so he calleth them Illyricus wigandus c. or will admitt the vniforme consent of the fathers in the primitiue Church or the veritie of Christs promise he must needes acknowledge not onlie that in S. Augustines time but euen from the Apostles time priestes properlie so called were pastors rulers of the church and haue had their origine from Christ And therfore as before so here I tell him againe that in calling them Baalites Antichristians he calleth Christ Baal he calleth our Sauiour Antichrist And therefore if I thought my counsaile might preuaile with such prophane ministers geuē ouer I feare into a reprobate sense and vessels of damnation I would say as S. Peter said to Simon Magus Repente thee of this thy vvickednes and pray to God if perhaps this cogitation of thy harte may be remitted thee For in this blasphemous sentence most certaynly he hath troden the sonne of God vnder foote and esteemed the bloud of the Testament polluted vvherein he is sanctified and hath done contumely to
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
Next let him note that this his argument is the very shipwracke of Christian religion roote of al Paganisme destroyng our redemption destroyng our resurrection confounding and destroyng al the articles of our faith although it pretend the honor of god as wel writeth Caluin of Seruetus and the Anabaptists For what is the first corner-stone of the Seruetan and Anabaptistical buylding against Christes Incarnation Euen that which M. W. here tendereth them and was squared before to their handes by Zuinglius the Sacramentaries The Anabaptists I say vrging the selfe same Philosophical and Phisical rules obiect that the Papistes beleefe of Christes IncarnatioÌ„ of the Virgin besides that it is base and attributeth to much honor to that woman besides this is also against the rules of Phisicke and Philosophie and implieth a contradiction For ex arte medica Philosophia out of Philosophie and Physicke rules they fynd that vvomen are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore to say that Christe had a true humaine body as is ours and yet of a virgin without the seede of man was to saye he had a true humaine bodie in worde denie it in deed And if M.W. waygh the matter well he shal find their argument better then his and that it toucheth more intrinsecally the essence and origin of our nature to be conceaued of the seede of man that to be formed of a virgin is much more repugnant to nature and sith the beginning of the world hath bene wrought more seeldoÌ„ theÌ„ a body to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof he talketh so peremptorily or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which others of his secte vrge is more to the purpose that is not circumscript nor visible nor local where of the first was practised in the self same body in his natiuitye resurrection ascension and in S. Peter Actorum 12. The second is more common and was not only in our Sauiour wheÌ„ the Iewes meante to haue throvven him dovvne headlong from the hill and he passing through the middes of them went his waye but also in Elizeus when the hoste of the King of Syria hauing him in the middes of them yet saw him not in S. Felix a martir priest of the citie of Nola of whom S. Paulinus bishop of the same citie writeth that in time of persequutioÌ„ when the citizens such as were infidels wel acquainted with him would haue appreheÌ„ded him they could not see or discerne him being in the middes of them although which is more straunge the faithful at the same instant saw him knew him and perceaued in him no difference or chaunge at al. So that at one and the self same time he was visible and inuisible knowen and vnknowen endued with his accustomed figure proportion and lineaments yet altered chaunged and so forth subiect to other such maruelous accidentes as M.W. fondly and falsly nameth contradictions The third is so far beneath the omnipotency of God that by the vulgar opinion of Philosophers the first heauen being a perfect natural body is notwithstaÌ„ding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in no place and therefore much more may we yeld this prerogatiue to Christ the Lord of heauen and earth whose worde wil is the very rule squyre of nature And let M.W. see how vrging so vehemently his proposition Chriâ—tes body is per omnia nostris corporibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sauing glory and immortalitye and he hath all the propertyes of a true and humaine bodye how he will free him self from the filthy and wicked heresies of the Ebionites Nestorians Who vpon this general proposition may must inferre their opinions that Christ was begotten betwene our Lady Ioseph as other men are they may and must infer that Christ assumpted as wel the person as the nature of man the personalitie being a thing much more nylie and essentially ioyned to the nature theÌ„ are these accidental qualities of visible and circumscript which here are obiected Thirdly I answere that this absurdity was forseene by the auÌ„cient fathers who for al that were neuer induced to inueÌ„t this distinctioÌ„ that you haue fouÌ„d out that is to deny the verity of Christes presence Let vs euermore beleeue God saith S. Chrisostom albeit it seeme absurd to our sense cogitation that vvhich he saith albeit his vvords surpasse our sense and reason Thus as in al things vve ought to doe so especially in the sacramentes not beholding those thinges vvhich lie before our eyes but holding fast his vvordes For in his vvordes vve can not be beguiled but our sense is easely deceaued Therefore sith he said This is my body let vs beleeue it vvithout casting any doubt and vvith the eyes of our vnderstanding conceaue the same The lyke is vsed by diuers other fathers which they neuer needed to haue spoken nether could haue spoken with reason had their faith bene so agreable to the rules of Philosophie as you would now make it Fourthly I say that your owne brethren and maisters though in other heresies they agreed with you yet in this kind of argument detested and abhorred you So the Historiographers of Magdeburg in their fourth Centurie where they proue by many authorities of S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Hilary S. Epiphanius S. Nazianzen S. Basil and others the verity of Christes presence dedicating the same to the Quenes Maiestie thus they speake vnto her And this most excellent Quene is not to be ouerpassed that vvhereas novv there grovv euery vvhere diuers as it vvere factions of opinions amonge vvhich some flatly by Philosophical reasons make voyd and frustrate the testament of our lord so as they take avvay the body bloud of Christ touching his presence and communication according to the most cleare most euident most true and most puissant vvordes of Christe and deceaue men vvith marueilous aequiuocation of speach principally your maiestie hath to prouide that the sacramentes may be restored vvithout such pharisaical leaueÌ„ c. And MelanchthoÌ„ whom Peter Martyr maketh equal for learning and godlines with S. Austin S. Hierom S. Leo the auncient fathers debating this matter with Oecolampadius There is no care saith he that hath more troubled my mynde then this of the Eucharist And not only my self haue vvayghed vvhat might be said on ether syde but I haue also sought out the iudgemeÌ„t of the old vvriters touching the same And vvhen I haue laid al together I find no good reason that may satisfye a coÌ„science departing from the propriety of Christes vvordes You gather many absurdities vvhich folovv this opinion as here we see in M.W. but absurdities vvill not trouble him vvho remembreth that vve must iudge of diuine matters according to Gods vvorde not according to Geometrie And not far after in the same booke I find no reason hovv I may depart from this opinion touching the real
persons of this one sauiour from which heresie Beza was not farre as you know now this heresie maketh that citatioÌ„ though otherwise good and sound yet not so perfect and absolute as it had bene to put in the worde god Because in this tyme and against such an heritike the place thus alleaged is more forcible S. Bernard erred not in citing the first but this heretike playeth the verie heretike in pressing it against the later Take an other example to make the thing more manifest In S. Luke we reade that the angel thus speaketh to our blessed Ladie Spiritus sanctus superueniet in te etc. ideoque quod nascetur ex te sanctum vocabitur filius dei The holy Ghost shall come vpon thee c. and therefore that vvhich of thee shall be borne holy shall be called the sonne of god who doubteth but S. Bernard or S. Thomas and some auncient copies albeit they leaue out the wordes ex te of thee neuertheles meane the true and perfecte sense of the place that our Ladie through the power of the holy Ghost coÌ„ceaued of her body and brought forth the sonne of god Now ryse your frindes the Ana baptistes and amongest other heresies spreade this that Christ brought his flesh from heauen and tooke it not of our blessed Lady but passed thorough her as water thorough a cundit pipe or according to your auncient comparison when you first began your gospel Christ was so in her as saffron in a saffron bagge And they being pressed with this place answere as you aÌ„swere for Beza that the true reading is to leaue out those two syllables ex te and so the place proueth nothing And this they would proue by better argument then you pretend any hauing for them some auncient copies both greeke and latin besides the reading of more fathers then one Can not you in this case easily conceaue how those fathers and writers gaue a true sense and far from the Anabaptisticall heresie and yet the Anabaptists are wicked heretiks in vrging this correction of the text why so because the fathers spake truly and meant entierly the full truth although the sense be not so full and absolute to all purposes and in euerie respecte namely of this new heresie whereof these fathers neuer dreamed as is the text it selfe in his naturall strength and force put downe in those words and syllables as it was first by the holy Euangelist the Anabaptistes speake falsly and meane detestably when by that alteration they will seeme to confirme their heresie take from the Catholike church so good a grouÌ„d refelling the same which those other fathers neuer entended This is your very case and so S. Basil meant truly and simply and as a Sainte and a Christian though Beza and you deale in the selfe same matter falsely and subtilly and as it becommeth heretikes And yet one step farther vvhen you haue done spoke al al that ye doe speake is nothing to the purpose For suppose ye sinâ—e many Basils and many greeke copies reading as you vvould haue it yet shall you be neuer for al that able to iustifie Beza because he coÌ„fesseth vvhen he so translated he neuer savv any and therefore vvas not moued by any such reading And therfore your pâ—ying searching for fyg-leaues to couer his filthines can no more serue the turne then if a man should excuse Iudas for betrayng Christ by reason of the good vvhich came thereby to the redemption of mankinde Because vvhatsoeuer vvas the euent of that actioÌ„ he sinned thâ—rin damnably vvho regarded no such matter but only for malice and gayne of xxx pence sold his lord and maister and the selfe same is to be saide of this Iudas vvhose honestie you vvould so fayne sane For vvhatsoeuer may be the successe of your labours in this argument he certainely plaid therein the parte of a damnable corruptor of gods holy vvord vvho for malice against the truth and loue of his heresie vvithout any such knovvledge committed so sacrilegious an acte And the reason vvhich you make helpeth the matter neuer a vvhit but so muche the more discouereth your folly Thus you argue If by the cuppe you vnderstande not the cuppe it selfe but the bloud of Christe in the cuppe is not this a trope vvhy then are you offended vvith vs vvhen you your selues graunt that there is a trope in these vvords Is it lavvfull for you to inuent tropes is it vnlavvfull for vs to appoint one necessarie trope Whereunto I ansvvere first that this is also from the purpose For be your Zuinglian heresie most true as it is moste false it furthereth you nothing nor abbettereth his rashnes in altering the text For vve may not make the scripture speake euerie truth in euerie place much lesse may vve make it speake vile heresie in any place Then the forme of your reasoning is so lose that if a man vvould studie for an argument to make sport vvithall he could not deuise one more fond and ridiculous We allovv of a trope vvhen vve interprete the cuppe to be the bloud or the thing conteyned in the cuppe Ergo vve ought to allovv your trope in the other parte of the sentence that the bloud shed for vs should signifie a cuppe of vvine What vvit reason probabilitie or sense induceth you so to talke vvhence riseth the coherence and connexion of this consequent Is it this because in one part of the seÌ„tence there is a trope or figure therefore the other part is figuratiue also as for example S. Paule sayth by the lavv I am dead to the lavv vvith Christ I am nayled to the crosse and agayne VVe that are baptised are buried together by baptisme in to death vvith Christ in vvhich sentence the Apostle ioyneth tvvo seuerall truthes in the first Christ vvas nayled to the crosse and I am nayled to the crosse vvith him in the next Christ vvas buried and vve that are baptised are buried vvith him Novv is this your argument S. Paule vvas nayled to the crosse mystically and this a trope ergo Christ vvas nayled to the crosse in such maner and that is also a trope vvhen the baptised are sayd to be buried vvith Christ it is a figure ergo that Christ vvas buried is likevvise a figure If this be the knitting of your argumeÌ„t you see vvhat pith is in it Or is it because of one particular figure you may infer an other then also you haue your aunsvvere geuen you partly in that vvhich is hovv sayd partly before by your father Luther that it is as substantiall a reason as if I should saie Peter vvas an Apostle ergo Pilate vvas an Apostle the blessed virgin brought forth and remained a virgin ergo Sara did so Or meane you that your trope hath as good reasoÌ„ to support it as hath ours if so vve geue you infinite difference because vpon our trope to vvitte that the
theÌ„ Christ would haue obiected that vnto them as he did other faultes Nor the second because S. Hierom had the hebrew veritie as he ofteÌ„ speaketh Nor the third because our hebrew bibles agree with those of S. Hierom. The aÌ„swere I say is easye because whether part of the three so euer a man take he can not misse For errors grew in those bibles some before Christ more after Christ vntil S. Hieroms age and yet more from S. Hierom afterwardes And wel it may be that Christ obiected the same vnto them though it be not recorded in the Testament as certaine it is many thinges he preached vnto theÌ„ and reproued in them whereof no written record is extant And wel it may be that both Christ obiected and the Euangilist noted so much when he writeth as spoken of our Sauiour informing his Apostles and reiecting the doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees You haue heard that it vvas sayd to them of old Thou shalt not kill Exod. 20. v. 13. you haue heard that it vvas sayd to them of old Thou shalt not coÌ„mitte aduoutrie Exo. 20. 14. It vvas sayd also VVhosoeuer shal dimisse his vvife let him geue her a bill of divorcement Deut. 24. â— Againe you haue heard that it vvas sayd to them of old Thou shalt not commit periurie but shal performe thy othes to our Lorde Exod. ca. 20. v. 7. You haue heard that it vvas sayd An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth Exod. 21. v. 24. You haue heard that it was sayd Thou shalt loue thy neyghbour and hate thy enemy Leuit. 19. v. 18. Where our Sauiour ioyning this later precept Thou shalt hate thy enemy with those other preceptes of the law written in the law as Thou shalt not kil Thou shalt not coÌ„mit aduoutrie He that diuorceth his vvife let him geue her a bil of diuorcement Thou shalt not coÌ„mit periurie Thou shalt performe thy othe An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth sheweth playnly that the pharisees taught this later to be the law of god as wel as the former therefore no marueil if they put it vnto the law with the rest as by christs words it seemeth most lykely they did And whether this were so or not certaine it is through the intolerable negligence and iniquitie of Priest Prince and People that in the tyme of Manasses not one peece or parcel but the whole law was lost for many yeres together as appeareth in the booke of Kinges at length as it were by great chaunce was it found out againe in the tyme of Iosias which crime our Sauiour for ought we reade neuer charged them with al. And therefore if likewise he neuer charged them with this it were no great marueil More corrupted might it be after Christ by how much that nation was more alienated froÌ„ the fauour of God And S. Hierom him selfe acknowledgeth some corruption howsoeuer in comparison he truely accompte the hebrew most pure and sincere in such sort and for such reason as hath bene touched And S. Iustinus the martyr in his coÌ„ference with Triphon talking of the very hebrew bibles not of the translation of the 70. only as some ansvvere Ex scripturis quae pro confessis apud vos habentur testimonia petam saith he I vvil bring proofes of that vvhich I say from those scriptures vvhich your selues acknovvledge for such of their corruption he geueth three examples One out of Esdras A secoÌ„d out of Ieremie A third out of the Psalmes Out of Esdras this Esdras spake vnto the people This Pascha is our sauiour refuge And if you shal persvvade your selues and this shal enter in to your hartes that you shal humble him vpon the vvood and after hope in him this place shal not be desolate for euer saith our lord of hostes But if you vvil not beleeue in him nor heare his preaching you shal become a scorne to the nations which place is in like maner cited by Lactantius Apud Esdram ita scriptum est Et dixit Esdras ad populum Hoc Pascha saluator nostâ—r est et refugium nostrum c. The place out of the prophete Ieremie is this Ex Ieremiae responsis haec verba recîderuÌ„t Ego vt agnus qui ad sacrificandum c. Out of Ieremies ansvveres this haue the Ievves cut avvay I as a lambe that am lead to be sacrificed and against me they deuised counsels sayng come let vs cast vvood vpon his bread and let vs take him avvay from the land of the liuing and let there be no more memorie of his name VVhich place containeth the prophetical foreshewing of a double veritie First of Christs crucifying vpon the crosse to which purpose the words are plaine Then of his true presence in the blessed sacrament for the Prophete calleth Christs natural body vpon the crosse by the name of bread in respect of Christ first promising the same body for euerlasting foode to his Christians in forme of bread and then after accomplishing the same promise by actual deliuery of the same body in such forme at the time of his last supper And the place is so expouÌ„ded by the auÌ„cient fathers as for example by S. Hierom and by Tertullian most euidently And Oecolampadius in his commentarie vpoÌ„ these wordes coÌ„fesseth it to haue bene the common sense and interpretation of the auncient and Primitiue church The third place out of the psalmes is this Ex nonagesimo quinto etiam Dauidis psalmo haec pauca verba recîderunt a ligno Cum enim scriptum esset c. Also from the nynetie and fifth psalme of Dauid they cut avvay these fevv vvords From the vvood For vvhereas it vvas vvritten Declare ye among the nations that our lord hath raigned from the vvord they leaft thus much only Declare ye among the nations that our lord hath raigned Of these three places thus defaced by the Iewes the first at this time is extant in no hebrew bibles nor to my knowledge in any greeke translation The second is in al the hebrew now corrected restored by the Christians For S. Iustine noteth that it was not cleane abolished out of al hebrew bibles the fault was but freshly committed in his daies Resectio istae saith he ex Hieremia ad huc in quibusdam exemplaribus quae in Iudaeorum asseruantur synagogis scripta reperitur Non enim ita diu est quod haec verba recîderunt This peece so cut of from Ieremie is as yet found vvritteÌ„ in some of those copies that are kept in the Ievves synagoge For it vvas but of late that they cut avvay these vvords By vvhich vvordes also it is euident that he meaneth the very hebrevv bibles not the translation of the 70. only vvhereas he so precisely nameth such as vvere preserued in the Ievves synagoges some of which retayned
side against the other and his precisenes and religious vprighâ—nes is often times singularly commended by the aduersaries them selues Vetus interpres saith Beza videtur summa religione sacros libros interpretatus The old interpreter seemeth to haue inteepreted the holy bookes vvith marueâ—ous sinceritie and religioÌ„ And Molineus I gerrimè a vn gari consuetaque lectione recedo quam etiam enixè defendere soâ—eo I can verie hardly depart from the vulgar and accustomed reading vvhich also I am vvont verie earnestly to defend And â—o vse one domestical vvitnes D. Humfrey thus speaketh of him Proprietati verborum satis videtur addictus vetus interpres et quidem nâ—mis anxiè quod tamen interpretor religione quadam fecisse non gnorantia The old interpreter seemeth sufficiently bent â—olovv the proprietie of vvords and he doth it in deede to carefully vvhich notvvithstanding I suppose him to haue done not of ignorance but of religion and conscience Hereby is vvel and perfitly iustified the sincere and vpright dealing of our interpreter vvhose fault ether is none or if it be any it is this that in folowing the exact signification of the greeke word he was to scrupulous and carefull to full of conscience and religion which is a very good fault if it must be called a fault and commended and iustified els where by D. Humfrey him self Liberius saith he in aliis prophanis licet expatiari degredi a verbis in canonica scriptura nulla licentia est tolerabilis non enim concessum est homini dei linguam mutare In prophane vvritings a man may range abrode more freely depart from the vvords in canonical scripture no such licence is tolerable for man may not alter the tonge of God Against this man so learned hauing good greeke copies folowing them exactly and vvith such religion let now any Protestant oppose any of his nevv translators whom by manifold reasoÌ„s trials and experiments I can not disproue and plainly shevv that for one error of our interpreter he hath at least a score And in reason hovv can it be othervvise vvhereas they al being hereâ—ikes and ech addicted to some peculiar sect sauing Erasmus vvho notvvithstanding vvas far out of the vvay and therefore full of pride arrogancie selfvvil and geuen to that partial humor vvhereof his heresie most consisted drew al places especially indifferent to serue that veyne Luthers excellencie in interpreting is of the greatest number of ProtestaÌ„ts thought very singular so as not only the Lutherans but euen the Zuinglians geue him great praise as vve learne by Sleidan Habemus sacra biblia saith Brentius in the Apologie of the Wirtenberg CoÌ„fession a Luthero in Germanicam linguam diuino beneficio taÌ„ perspicue coÌ„uersa c. vve haue the holy bibles through the great bènefite of God turned by Luther in to the Germain tonge so clearely that his translatioÌ„ yeldeth to none ether greeke or latin Yet hovv elegaÌ„t and sincere a translator he vvas vve may coniecture by Emserus vvho gathered out of his translation Fourteene hundred fovvle lyes and falsifications But because the authoritie of this man being a catholike vvayeth not much with M.W. and to vvrite out those lyes vvere to fil vp a good booke vvhich I am not disposed to do at this time to make short worke both in this the rest I wil stay my self vpon the authoritie of such men as I knovv M. VV. honoreth for singular instruments of the Lord in setting forth the gospel such as he vvel knovveth speake not of partialitie but of conscience And vvho can iudge of Luther better then his coapostle Zuinglius vvho is so far of from approuing his translation that he accounteth him a fovvle corrupter and horrible falsifier of scripture to make them serue his heretical fansies and in that kinde reckeneth him for a very Arrian and Marcionite Thus he vvriteth Thou doest corrupt Luther adulterate the vvord of God folovving herein the Marcionites and Arrians vvho of old vvere vvont commoÌ„ly to raze out of the scriptures such places as seemed to be against their doctrine This fault he exemplifieth in Luthers translation thus VVhereas these vvords of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iohn 6. he should haue translated thus That flesh profiteth nothing there he leaft out the Germane article das that ansvvering the greeke article â— to the intent those vvordes should not precisely and determinately be referred to the self same flesh of vvhich Christ had spoken a litle before and spake of stil for thus he translated it c. And after many vvordes spent against Luther for his malitious vvickednes he thus concludeth See hovv thy case standeth Luther that in the eyes of al men thou art seene to be a manifest and common corrupter and peruerter of the holy scripture vvhich thing thou canst neuer denie before any creature Hovv much are vve ashamed of thee vvho hetherto haue esteemed thee beyonde al measure and novv trye thee to be such a false fellovv Betvvene vvhich tvvo most excellent Apostles of the english congregation thus chiding I knovv not who is of vs more to be abhorred and detested whether Luther vvho plaieth the part of an Arrian and Marcionite in mangling defacing the scriptures or Zuinglius vvho so eagerly striueth to proue that the flesh and humanitie and consequently the incarnation of our most blessed Sauiour is vvorth nothing But to let that passe and proceede to talke of our translators M. W. because he is a Zuinglian therefore by likelihode reckeneth theÌ„ for more exquisite in geuing forth their testameÌ„ts Graunt that be so in the iudgment of him and his companions hovv can vve be induced so to thinke of them vvhereas Luther their common father holdeth them for most ignorant and foolish to vse his ovvne vvords as senselesse and brutish as is any stocke or beast in geuing the true sense of the scripture who calleth them commonly touching dâ—uinitie and matters theological stultos srolidos stupiâ—os stipites asinos truncos antichristos impostâ—res stipites asinino intellectu and so forth many like raylinges vnworthy to be heard amoÌ„gst the vilest creatures that liue much lesse amongst two such Arch apostles had they in them any parcel I wil not say of Apostolike or Christian but of ciuil or humaine grauitie But I wil discend vnto some of their particular Testaments set forth by Zuinglians to find out if it may be one whicâ— may be preferred before our commoÌ„ That which was set forth by Oecolampad us as I suppose and the Diuines of Basiâ—e is of many vvel allovved And vvil you haue vs refuse our old aâ—d take that but Beza chargeth vs in any case not to do so and geueth his reaâ—on because that Basile trâ—nslatioâ— is in multis locis impia a spiritus sancti sententia prorsâ—s discrepans In many places vvicked and altogether
the mysterie and their incredulitie or feeblenesse to vvhom he vvrote yet it is euident in the iudgment of al the learned fathers vvithout exception that euer vvrote either vpon this epistle or vpon the 14 of Genesis or the psalme 109 or by occasion haue treated of the sacrifice of the altar that the eternitie and proper act of Christs priesthod and consequently the immutability of the nevv lavv consisteth in the perpetual offering of Christes body and bloud in the Church VVhich thing is so vvel knovven to the aduersaries of Christs Church Priesthod so graunted that they be forced impudently to cauill vpon certaine Hebrevv particles that Melchisedec did not offer in bread and vvine yea and vvhen that vvill not serue plainely to deny him to haue bene a priest vvhich is to giue checkemate to the Apostle and to ouerthrovv al his discourse Thus vvhiles these vvicked men pretend to defend Christes only priesthod they in deede abolish as much as in them lieth the vvhole order office and state of his eternal lavv priesthod Arnobius saith By the mysterie of bread and vvine he vvas made a Priest for euer And againe The eternal memorie by vvhich he gaue the soode of his body to them that feare him in psal 109.110 Lactantius In the Church he must needes haue his eternal priesthod according to the order of Melchisedec Li. 14. Institut S. Hierom ep 126. to Euagrius Aarons priesthod had an end but Melchisedecks that is Christes the Churches is perpetual both for the time past and to come S. Chrysostom therefore calleth the Churches sacrifice Hostiam inconsumptibilem An host or sacrifice that can not be consumed ho. 17 in 9 Hebr. S. Cyprian Hostiam qua sublata nulla esset futura religio An host vvhich being taken avvay there could bene religion de coena Domini nu 2. Emissenus Perpetuam oblationem perpetuò currentem redemptionem A perpetual oblation and a redemption that runneth or continueth euerlastingly ho. 5 de Pasch And our Sauiour expresseth so much in the very institution of the B. Sacrament of his body and bloud specially vvheÌ„ he calleth the later kind The nevv Testament in his bloud signifying that as the old lavv vvas established in the bloud of beastes so the nevv vvhich is his eternal Testament should be dedicated and perpetual in his ovvne bloud not only as it vvas shed on the Crosse but as geuen in the chalice And therefore into this sacrifice of the altar saith S. Augustine li. de Ciuit. 17. c. 20. S. Leo ser 8 de Passione and the rest vvere the old sacrifices to be translated See S. Cyprian ep 63 ad Cecil nu 2. S. Ambrose de Sacram. li. 5. c. 4. S. Augustine in psal 33 Conc. 2. and li. 17. de Ciuit. c. 17. S. Hierom ep 17. c. 2. ep 126. Epiph. haer 55. Theodoret. in psalm 109. Damascene li. 4. c. 14. Finally if any of the fathers or al the fathers had either vvisedom grace or intelligence of Gods vvord and mysteries this is the truth If nothing vvil serue our aduersares Christ Iesus confound them and defend his eternal Priesthod and state of his nevv Testament established in the same In vvhich vvords of ours if thou marke wel and conferre them with his thou shalt find that in this short paragraph he hath povvred out together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fovvle and stinking heape of lyes errors ignorances and contradictions to him selfe and his brethren For first vvhere say vve that Of al those things vvhich are proposed by the Apostle it folovveth not that Christs priesthod is eternal say vve not the cleane contrarie when vve auouch that Al the fathers gather not of them selues or their ovvne vvittes but of this deepe and diuine discourse of the Apostle the eternitie of his priesthod Is this to vvrite flatly that of al the things proposed by the Apostle it folovveth not that Christs priesthod is eternal when we write flatly that not one or other but al the fathers teach that eternitie grouÌ„ding them selues vpon this discourse of S. Paule and hovv could they ground them selues vpon S. Paules discourse if no such thing vvere to be fouÌ„d there This perhaps he might haue gathered and vve vvould haue graunted that this deduction can hardly or neuer be perceaued of a Luther of a Beza of a Stancarus or such other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 damned in their owne iudgement vvhom for punishment of their Apostasie from Christ his Church God hath geuen vp into a reprobate sense Vt videntes non videant et audientes non intelligant sed credant mendacio That seing they see not and hearing vnderstand not but beleeue lyes because they would not beleeue hold fast the truth when they had it but to a S. Ambrose to a S. Chrysostom S. Primasius S. Beda or any other directed by the spirit of God these things which are proposed by the Apostle ministred sufficient matter to find out the eternitie of Christs priesthod as by their commentaries vpon these very places we learne For albeit expresse mention of the Sacrifice of the Church be not here made for reason geuen in the annotation and by the Apostle him selfe cap. 5. v. 11. yet the truth there of is inuincibly concluded out of this very disputation and that so pregnantly that vvho soeuer denieth the Churches Sacrifice he consequently denieth al the Apostles drift argument he denieth the vvhole state of the old and nevv TestameÌ„t This therefore is the first maine and capital lye and in vvhich he inueigheth not against vs alone but also against al the Fathers without exception Arnobius Lactantius S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Hierom S. Austin and the rest named in the annotation From this lye he draweth out 4 other as that we say The Apostle proueth not that vvhich he meant that we prefer the Fathers before the Apostle that we find fault vvith him and finally repreheÌ„d the holy Ghost Al which is nothing els but lye vpon lye no one of which is or euer was in word or sense vttered or in thought or cogitation coÌ„ceaued of vs. No saith M. VVhitaker make you not the oblation of bread and wine a principal part of Christs eternal priesthod we do so with al the Fathers of Christs Church Yet the Apostle maketh no expresse mention thereof VVe graunt Then he proueth not that which he intended This is a lying and ignorant conclusion lying because the Apostle proueth most abundantly his purpose by sundry other meanes though he vrge not that point ignorant because you knovv not what the Apostle would conclude or wherevnto he applieth his argumeÌ„t which being deliuered most euidently in sundrie places of the 7. 9 10. chapter and repeated againe and againe I wil not hâ—re make a new tâ—eatise thereof Thus much the reader that knoweth a litle diuinitie may coÌ„sider of him selfe that whereas the Apostle