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
vncertaine and rotten a stay The first reporter of Peters being at Rome was Papias a man of mean credit authority in the Church of God Euseb lib. 3. ca. 39. and as Eusebius writeth of him a father of diuerse fables a fit father of your faith Of him Hegesippus receaued this and of Hegesippus others as in writing histories the latter follow those that went before so that this wholl matter is grounded vppon Papias word for which your pope hath good cause to giue him thankes Now the scriptures in many places weigh so strongly on the other side that if manie a thousand such as Papias should tell vs Peter was at Rome their reporte were not to be trusted Peter promised to remaine with the Iewes Gal. 2.9 and be their Apostle and Paul assigneth vnto him the Apostleship of the circumcision Gal. 2.8 If Peter were Bishop of Rome how was this promise kept Saint Paul writeth an epistle to the Romanes wherin he saluteth many persons by name but of Saint Peter he maketh no mention and from Rome he writeth manie epistles at sundrie times and sendeth salutations to the Churches from many faithful but of Saint Peter in none he speaketh euer a word Doubtles it was because Saint Peter was not there Genebr Chreâ—â— nol l. 3. saecu 1. And if he had bene Bishop as your men affirme twentie fiue yeares almost it may be thought straunge how it could come to passe that when Saint Paull writ to Rome and came him selfe to Rome and taried at Rome writing from thence so manie epistles S. Peter should euer be absent for his charge Other arguments might I vse against this common opinion of Peters sitting and dying at Rome But as you lose all if you can not prooue him to haue bene Bishop there so though you could prooue it and we should of necessitie confesse it yet had you gained nothing at all For though it must nedes follow if Peter were not Bishop of Rome that all your religion is false flowing from that head yet being graunted that Peter had bene Bishop there it maketh neither hotte nor colde for proofe of anie point in question betweene vs. pag. 133. Liui. decad 4. lib. 5. Of this therfore no more now The largenes of the chalenge containing in number seauen and twentie articles of controuersie you labour to extenuate by an old historie recorded in Liuie of Titus Falminius host who by diuerse maners of dressing and preparing one onely kinde of meate furnished his table with great varietie of dishes And would you beare vs downe Master Rainolds that this multitude of articles is but of one matter drawne forth into sundrie partes by skilful varying and mincing the same If anie will looke vpon them he shall soone be hable to controll you The first of Priuate masse the second of receiuing in one kinde the third of common praiers in an vnknowen tongue the fourth of the Popes supremacy the fift of the reall presence the seuenth of eleuation the eight of Adoration the ninthe of Hanging the Sacrament vnder a Canopy the tenth of Accidents without subiect the fourtenth of worshiping Images the fiftenth of reading the scriptures in the vulgar tongue the seauententh of the sacrifice of the masse can you denie that these controuersies being the arguments of seuerall articles are diuerse and differing one from an other And are not these waightie pointes generall heads principall questions great misteries and keies as Master Iewel calleth them of your religion some of the other articles I graunt haue more affinitie together yet not so great except in one or two but that they maie in reason and nature be distinguished and stand each by them selues without necessarie support or defense from others And what though there had bene a nearer respect betweene them might they not therefore be propounded and handled seuerally The manner of your owne schooles and controuersie lectures prooue the contrarie wherin euerie question according to the subiect matter is deuided into sundrie articles and euerie article hath a special treatise Your tale therefore of the Calcidian hoste who entertained the Romane Captaine with one onely kinde of meat dressed diuersly commendeth the cunning of that cooke but serueth nothing to your purpose though you set it out with as great shew as you can Three articles you acknowledge to be of weight pag. 138. The primacy of the Pope thereall presence and the sacrifice wherein you haue vttered your iudgement of the rest that they are not of such weight as your Church would haue them to be esteemed And of these three you might with as good reason except the two latter so make the first onely a matter of weight For that indeede is the substantiall point in mainteance wherof all your labours are bestowed Otherwise were it not for defense of your Popes wicked vnreasonable Antichristian monarchy you could easily agree with vs for these two all the rest I doubt not But what thinke you then M. R. of priuat Masse Is it a thing of no weight as here you would haue it accounted there is not I suppose any thing in your Church more vsed or better liked Your halfe communion your latine seruice your Images your keeping the scriptures in a tongue vnknowen to the people and other such heads of your Romish religion are they of no weight are they trifles are they not worth the striuing for Then let your men giue ouer all defense of them let priuate masses be abolished let the communion be administred in bothe kindes according to Christs institution let the publike praiers be said in the tongue that euery country vseth let Images be burned and Idolatrie forbidden let it be lawfull for the people of all countries to read the scriptures in their owne language let there be no controuersie about the other articles For while you stand so stifly in maintenance of all these and others you cannot truely saie and beare vs in hand they are not of waight in your account That Master Iewell promised to giue ouer and subscribe Pag. 140. if anie of those articles could be prooued by scriptures councels or Doctors within 600. yeares after Christ it was not because he meant euer to subscribe to your doctrine or was vnstaied in his religion but of a most assured knowledge and resolute persuasion that you were vtterlie destitute in this behalfe of all truth and antiquitie as indeed you are Otherwise you maie remember that our religion is grounded onelie vpon the holy scriptures of God and therefore though you brought against vs writers and fathers neuer so manie for these matters as you can bring not one of credite and age yet will we neuer subscribe vnto you hauing once subscribed to the certaine trueth of God reuealed vnto vs in his holie perfect written word by which al sentences opinions and writings of men whatsoeuer must be examined Now commeth M. Rainolds to auouch the truth of these
AN answere to a certeine Booke written by Maister William Rainolds Student of Diuinitie in the English Colledge at Rhemes and entituled A Refutation of sundrie reprehensions Cauils c. By William Whitaker professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge Printed at London for Thomas Chard 1585. To the right honorable Syr VVilliam Cecill Knight of the Garter Baron of Burghley Lord high Treasurer of England and Chancelor of the Vniuersitie of Cambridge Grace and peace IT is not vnknowen to your Honor how the aduersaries haue neuer ceased since the beginning of hir Maiesties moste happie reigne vntil this day by their bookes in great numbers written and published and by al other means that possiblie they might deuise to trouble the state of the Church and to diffame that holy religion of Christ which through Gods great mercie and godlie lawes of our gratious Souereign is according to his holy word established amongst vs. VVhat they haue wrought with manie of al estates and how mightelie they haue preuailed with that strong effectual illusion of Satan which hath aduaunced Antichrist vnto that supremacie of power authoritie and credit in the world wherof the holy ghost by SS Paul Iohn hath foretold lamentable experience can witnes in the backsliding and continuall falling of manie away from vs to their own final perdition to the grief of the godlie to the great encouragement and comfort of the enemie And among other examples of this Apostasie I offer to your Honor one verie notable euen the man with whom I haue in this booke to deale who hauing bene late not onlie a common professor of our religion but a publick minister and preacher of the same in our Church hath not onlie reuolted from vs through some worldly tentations and run ouer into our enemies cāp but hath also lifted vp his heel against vs and in open writing most malitiously and bitterly railed at vs. Occasion of vttering his conceiued malice against vs in his late writing he taketh by a certein Preface of mine before the answer to D. Saunders demonstrations of Antichrist which being not verie long and handling no great variety of matter I neuer thoght could haue prouoked the Aduersarie so much or procured so long and large a Confutation I looked rather that the substance of my book concerning Antichrist should haue bin answered by some that would maintein Saūders arguments wherby he laboreth to prooue that the Pope cannot be Antichrist which being in deed a weighty and moste materiall controuersie required the learning and diligence of the moste sufficient scholler amongst them Neither coulde I otherwise suspect but seeing I had written in latin against a latin Aduersarie he whosoeuer should take in hand to set forth anie thing against me would haue done it in the latin tongue But M. Rainolds who was appointed as he saith to aunswere my booke of Antichrist and in all his actions professeth himself to be ordered by those to whose gouernment he hath submitted himselfe pretending in shew to publish a confutation thereof hath written onely against the preface wherin are handled other matters so hath answered nothing to the principall question wherof the book that he would seeme to haue confuted speciallie entreateth further hath written not in latin as I did but in english as liked best his gouernors himself VVherupon I was at the first partlie persuaded to passe ouer this Refutation of his with silence the rather because I listed not to reason or deale against such a one as he is of whom for manie respects I could not conceiue anie hope at al that euer my labors should doe him good hauing thus embraced pernitious deceitful error wilfullie cast awaie from him the loue of the truth which once he had in shew receiued which he pretended to beleeue and which he did in deed profes Which kind of men through Gods iustice for the most part are giuen ouer into such reprobate hardnes of hart that they can neuer after be reclaimed but continue alwaies desperate to their euerlasting destruction Notwithstanding when I perused better the contents of his booke and tooke aduise of the godlie what were best for me to do herein whether I should make answer to this man or rather obeying king Ezechias commandement let him alone and say nothing to him I was in the end resolued to set forth a plain and sufficient answer to his whole volume not for his sake of whom I haue no hope nor respect but in regard of others who thereby maie either be confirmed in the truth or preserued from error I see the Aduersaries drift especiallie was to breed in the minds of our countrimen a misliking of this our religion which himself hauing once liked wel was after I know not how moued to mislike The which he endeuoreth to performe by some other means then heertofore haue commonlie bene vsed as anie man reading his book may soon obserue wherin he shal finde continual allegations of testimonies out of our owne writers craftely brought in to shew a dissension of iudgements amongst our selues that so his readers may be induced to thinke the worse of our doctrine and of vs al. A deuise ful of fraud dishonestie malice to take aduantage of mens infirmities imperfections against the eternal truth of God which he cānot by ordinarie lawful kind of reasoning refute Betweene Luther and Zuinglius about the Sacrament was a sharp contention hotlie debated in manie books the same hath cōtinued since to the great hindrance of the gospell and offence of many In which contrary writings and discourses are found oftentimes harder speeches of either against other then were to be wished yet such as the godlie seruants of the Lord in contention about the truth somtimes ar moued to vtter against their brethren S. Paul openlie and sharply reprehended S. Peter to his face whereat wicked Porphyrie catched a like occasion to raile at Christiā religion long since as our aduersaries do at these daies VVhat a violent and troublesome contention was there betweene Theophilus of Alexandria and good Chrysostome of Constantinople VVho knoweth not how sharplie Cyrillus a learned and wise Bishop of Alexandria hath written against Theodoritus a godlie and catholick Bishop in a controuersie touching the catholick faith Both Bishops both catholickes both learned both godly both excellent pillers of the Church and yet he that readeth both their writinges would thinke that both were daungerous enemies of the Church and faith of Christ and of all Christians to be auoyded So in the bookes of Luther and Zuinglius and those that maintaine either part appeereth I graunt great sharpnesse and bitternesse of dissension who all notwithstanding if ye set the heat of disputation aside were as godlie as learned as zealous Christians as the worlde had anie Nowe commeth in M. Rainoldes like a craftie enemie and gathering a heape of such speeches out of sundry their bookes hath in diuers places
Thirdlie you descant vpon Bene habet It is well pa. 30. but so simplie and fondlie that euerie one may see you are a trifler It is well I said that Campian could not charge Luther for denying a booke which neuer anie Church denied but for denying such a one as had beene heretofore by some Churches denied And although I seeke not herein to defende either Luther or those auncient Churches that refused the same yet is Luthers offence not so hainous as it should haue bene if this had first proceeded of him-selfe without example of other Churches If you will burthen vs with refusall of S. Luke his Gospell the knowne trueth wil easilie acquit vs of that accusation But nothing can be so falslie surmized that you will not finde in your heartes to burthen vs withall As for Atheisme I doubte not but your owne conscience doth tell you our doctrine is farre from it which when you forsooke I wil not saie how neere you approched to Atheisme in yealding to the strawne opinions at Rome but I am assured you went from Christ to followe Antichrist and of a minister of the Gospel became an open enemie of the Gospel If you repent not it had bin better for you neuer to haue bene borne Those forefathers of whome I spake haue giuen such a blowe to your great fathers of Rome pag. 13.32 as you and your companions shall not be hable to heale his wound And though he liue still and breath yet is he scarse hable to stand on his feete and carieth vpon him that marke that shall dailie more and more discouer him to the Saints of God Aerius Vigilantius Iouinianus if they taught anie thing against the trueth of Gods word let them be esteemed as they deserue We laie the grounds of our religion not vpon the writings or opinions of men be they good or badde learned or vnlearned Catholikes or Heretikes but vpon the written word of the eternall God and therefore we praie not as you doe nor offer sacrifice for the dead we worship not nor inuocate Saints we thinke the honourable estate of mariage is pleasing to the Lord as well as single life For thus haue the Prophets the Apostles the Lord him-selfe taught vs As for Marcion Cerdon the rest we abhorre them with all their damnable herisies because the word of God condemneth them the more is your fault in saying they are our fathers But you haue drawen since your departure so hard a skin ouer your conscience Foule vntrueths affirmed of vs by M. R. as you feare not to vtter anie vntrueth be it neuer so desperate You say we matche S. Luke and the Apocalyps with the booke of Iudith and that we saie most plainlie we are not bound to admit those and all the forenamed bookes but may refuse them which for shame of the world you would neuer haue written but that like an Atheist your pen is a readie instrument to publish anie vntrueth The booke of Iudith in dede admit we not and that is no blasphemie prooue it if you can But what should I require you M. Rainolds to prooue anie thing that haue taken vppon you to saie al things and prooue nothing You reason as if you had made a fraie with reason Pag. 33.34 that we are like those olde brutish heretikes called Alogi who denied the Apocalyps of Saint Iohn because we saie we know as certainelie the scriptures to be scriptures and euerie booke thereof as we know the sunne to be the sunne which is as contrarie to those Alogi as the light is to darkenes But who euer doubted of the sunne you saie that it is the sunne of Saint Iames epistle Luther doubteth and the Lutherans wherfore you saie I condemne them for the veriest sottes that euer liued Not so Master Rainolds if you could see For though we are as fullie persuaded of the one as of the other yet doth it not follow that the clearnes of this truth appeereth alike vnto all We must be persuaded assurede of many things that are not seene no lesse then of those things that we see with our eies but to such onelie as it is reueiled vnto Know you not as vndoubtedly there is a God as you know there is a sunne If not to you yet to all Godlie the knowledge of the one is no lesse certaine then of the other though we cannot beholde god with our eies as we may seethe sunne Wil you then conclude that al are stocks and stones which cannot perceiue this so cleare and euident a trueth Doe not your selues thinke all those bookes for which you contend with vs to be as truelie canonicall as that the sunne shineth you will not I am sure say otherwise Doe you then besides an infinite number of auncient writers condemne those of your side for stockes and sottes that denied them To omit the rest of whome I spake before Sixt. biblioth lib. l. Driedo de Catal serip li. 1. c. 4. ad difficult 11. was Sixtus Senensis a sotte for denying your bookes of Hester was Dryedo a sotte for denying Baruch Thus must it be or els your argument is too childish I will not saie sottish Here is brought an argument for Traditions such a one as M. R. diuinitie could afford Pag. 35. It cannot he saith be prooued by scriptures that S. Mat. S. Marke S. Luke S. Iohn his gospell S. Paules Ep. are Canonical scripture that is penned by diuine inspiration then we must beleeue some what which by scripture cannot be prooued so tradition is established I would your other traditions were of this sorte then should we sooner agree But betweene this and the rest of your infinite traditions there is no likenes For this is grounded vpon the word written the rest haue no footing on that ground Although it is not expreslie set downe in thus many words S. Matthewes gospell is Canonicall How we knowe the gospell of S. Matthew S. Marke c. to be canonicall scriptures so likewise of the rest yet that we cannot otherwise come to the certain knowledge beliefe thereof but by reporte is a vaine foolish phantasie For the historie it selfe and doctrine therein contained doe plainlie shewe conuince the booke to be Canonical that is written by diuine inspiration so as although the Churches commendation and testimonie of it may confirme our iudgement in beleeuing the same yet our faith is builded vpon the written word it selfe And so your other argument falleth of faith by hearing and hearing by the word of God Rom. 10.17 For when we heare the doctrine of these bookes preached vnto vs we beleeue the same in euerie point whereof it must needs follow that the bookes are Canonicall containing so heauenlie and spirituall doctrine as the like can not be written of anie but the spirit of God onelie so being enforced to alowe and imbrace by faith the doctrine of those bookes how can we but
but they prooued their faith to be grounded vppon the scriptures So Cyprian a wise and Catholike Bishop writeth that in controuersies of Religion we must haue recourse to the origine of trueth Cypria de vnit Eccles in Epist ad Pompei whereby he meaneth the scriptures and that the cause of heresie is for that the head is not sought which he declareth further adding that the doctrine of the heauenlie Master is not kept And therefore if those fathers had obiected nothing but the common beliefe of the Churches against those heretikes they had taken a wrong course and should neuer thus haue stopped their mouthes But they had a surer waie to conuince heretikes then you haue whoe being of all heretikes the greatest would take awaie all means of confuting heretikes that so your selues might not be espied or not controlled As for Heluidius Ambrose Epist 81. 79. Hieron cont Heluid who denied the blessed virgine to haue remained a virgine afterward the fathers Ierome and Ambrose alleadged against him not tradition onely but the scriptures especiallie although what Saint Basill hath written of this wholl matter you maie reade in his sermon of the Natiuitie wherein he is not affraied plainlie to affirme that after she had borne our sauiour Christ Basil de Christi â—tiuit whither she married againe or remained a virgine still belongeth longeth nothing to the mysterie of faith Againe you imagine a third sense of Luthers wordes Pag. 51. by supposing a thing impossible that if all Churches and fathers teach against Scripture Luther with Scripture then Luther maie thinke him-selfe a better man then they al. What Luthers meaning was you haue heard and therefore it skilleth not what you suppose further Indeed M. R. as you saie the Church falleth not from Christ to Apostasie but this is true as well of the Church in the olde Testament as in the newe yet as the visible Churches of the Iewes fell awaie from God and became open enemies vnto our sauiour Christ so it might come to passe since Christ that the particular Churches and congregations did corrupte the doctrine of the Gosepll and slid into that Apostasie which the Scriptures foresaid should ouerspread the Churches afterward 1. Tim. 4.1 2. Thes 2.3 But the Catholike Church which is the number of Gods elect can no more fall awaie from Christe into Apostasie then the course of heauen can be chaunged For it standeth vpon Christ the rocke and hell gates shall not be hable to cast it downe Here againe you come in with Luthers opinion of the sacrament pag. 52. wherein as he dissented from vs the truth verie much so your popish Transsubstantiation then which was neuer a more impious and absurd heresie maintained in the Church he vtterlie abhorred And what though herein Luther somthing swarued from the truth might he not therefore being in other causes assured thereof out of the word of God reiect the opinions of such as dissented from the same By this reason no man in defense of Gods trueth may chalenge or bid defiance to the aduersaries thereof seeing they haue no priuiledge or Charter graunted to them but that them selues maie also be deceiued Luther was an excellent man and a worthie seruante of Christ whose Ministerie especiallie it pleased the Lord to vse in reuealing to these times that sonne of perdition whoe sitteth in the Temple of God and aduaunceth him selfe aboue God yet was Luther a man and therefore no maruaile if he were not exempted altogether from ignorance and infirmitie And what miserable peruersnes is it in you that being not able to maintaine your owne heresies against Luther will thinke to escape in the iudgement of men from beeing condemned because Luther him selfe in one pointe of doctrine erred Maie no man conuince error but such a one as is free from erring at all him selfe the scriptures are left vnto vs to be our rule of trueth by them must all doctrine be squared and directed they sit in the hiest seate of indgement to giue sentence in euerie cause With them did Luther cut downe your errours of them haue we learned to thinke of the sacrament otherwise then Luther did to them doe we submit our selues in euerie thing we teach and are contented that our wholl Religion be tried by them so that if you or anie other can shewe wherein we disagree from them we are readie and willing to be reformed But one error of Luther cannot serue to excuse infinite errors in the popish Church Thus haue you my answere as plainlie as I could deuise in this matter which though you haue handled at large as became a man of your learning leasure and discretion yet in the end you cast it awaie from you as not worthy to haue any time bestowed about it Now therfore I trust herafter you wil be better occupied CHAPTER 4. Of Priesthod and of the sacrifice continued after Christ SEeing you will needes be called accounted Priests that in the proper sense pag. 56. and signification of this word I require no pardon at your hands for terming you as I did For if Christ be the onelie Priest of the new Testament and his sacrifice neuer to be repeated as we are plainlie taught by the word of God what Priests can you be but Baalites and what sacrificers but Antichristian shewe your order your Author your institution otherwise we must esteeme and speake of you Heb. 5.4 The Popish priest hoode was not ordainied by Christ but is contrarie to the Priesthood of Christ and therefore worthie to be contemned detested of al faithfull Christians as such a generation deserueth It is not lawfull for any to take honour to him-selfe but he that is called of God as Aaron If you can prooue that God hath called you it is meet you be receiued reuerenced as the ordinaunce of God in all functions deserueth but this can you neuer doe and therefore both your name your profession is of al the godly to be detested as a venemous plant neuer planted by the heauenlie father Mat. 15.13 Two waies you haue chosen by which you will prooue your selues lawfull priests principally you say by mine owne words secondarily by deduction out of the scriptures Let vs consider of both these arguments in order and so it shall appeare in the end that your Priesthood was hatched of an ill egge pag. 57. And here you declare euidentlie to the world in the verie begininng your pitifull ignorance M. R. affirmeth that we denie Melchisedech to haue bene a Priest how vntruelie all the world caÌ„ witnes Gen. 14.18 Psal 110.4 Heb. 7.1 not knowing against whom you fight For was it euer of vs doubted that Melchisedech was a Priest and offered sacrifice doth not the scripture teach the same moste expreslie and that in manie places yet you saie you could neuer obtaine so much of our brethren which argueth that God
and detestable in the eies of the God of heauen This therefore is a sure reason and shal stand against the gates of hell and force of all papistes that Christ is a Priest for euer and hath an euerlasting Priesthood Therefore he is the onely Priest of the new Testament and his Priesthood is not communicated to anie other and so your priestes are no priests your sacrifice is no sacrifice your Religion is no Religion your Christ is no Christ your God is no God Depart from them whosoeuer will not be partakers of their condemnation To shew this reason to be childish Pag. 76. you haue brought indeed a childish exception Christ is you saie a true man for euer a king for euer our doctor master and teacher for euer yet are there many men kings doctors teachers besides Christ. An obiection of M.R. answered This man is suddenlie so drowned in the dreggs of poperie that he hath lost all taste and sense of trueth for els he would haue bene ashamed of such an answere which nothing cōmeth neare the matter We speake of those offices which Christ was apointed to beare by the annointing of the holie ghost and special commission from God you bring instance of things that be of an other condition and nature as to be a true man an earthlie King an outward minister of the word such like Christ is our onelie king Prophet and Priest so that in this sense in which these are giuen to him none can be King Prophet or Priest but he For he onelie is our spiritual King he onely is our teacher and author of all heauenlie doctrine he onelie can offer the sacrifice propitiatorie for the sinnes of the world If you thinke anie can be a King or Prophet in this manner but onelie he you take his honour from him and giue it to an other to whome it doth not appertaine which you do indede most notably in sesing your selues vpon his Priesthood which doth as truelie belong to him alone as the other of his Kingdome and Prophecie do Now then weigh with your selfe what a witles obiection you haue made and if you can bring no better defense for your Priestes then your haue hetherto done you haue good cause to be sorie and ashamed that euer you changed your copie and of a minister of the Gospel became a priest of the popish order God giue you grace to repent that the fruite of Christes priesthood maie not be denied vnto you another daie That which followeth is but a supplie of superfluous wordes without wit without learning without trueth The comparison you make betwene an earthly prince and Christ doth nothing fit your purpose For if you haue as lawfull authoritie vnder Christ to exercise a priesthood as the ciuil gouernours haue vnder their prince to execute their office laid vpon them then shew your commission and we require no more For as no man dare presume in the affaires of the state to commaund or enterprise anie thing in the princes name without a sufficient warrant from the prince so maie no man take vpon him anie ecclesiasticall function in the Church vlnes he haue a commaundement from the Lord. But Christ neuer gaue you anie such commaundement he neuer laid vpon you any such office he neuer called you to this honour to be his fellow priestes els bring vs your Charter that we maie se it and shew vs your letters of orders that we may trie them And further you are to consider that although the prince bestow offices preferments vpon his subiects as pleaseth him yet his Regalities he keepeth to himselfe and no subiect wil presume to chalenge them Pharao gaue Ioseph as great authoritie as anie princes vse to giue anie of their seruants yet the chaire of estate he kept to himselfe therin he was aboue him But you moste rudelie and arrogantlie intrude your selues into Christs seate and will not onelie be his vicepriests but as good priests as he ioined in the same commission with him according to the same order of Melchisedech that he was of so you are not content with such offices as he hath appointed vnto you but you claime his chiefest principalities which is no lesse a fault then high treason against the hiest maiesty M. Rain maketh an end of this treatise with an other foolish cauil taken out of the communion booke wherein he saith commission is giuen in some cases to the minister to remitt sinnes whie saie you in some cases The Minister of God hath power to forgiue sinnes not in some cases onelie but in all whatsoeuer if the sinner repent beleeue the gospell This authoritie is giuen vnto him by Christ this the parlament communion booke confesse this the ministers daylie practise amongst vs. Neuertheles you are still as farre from your purpose as before For this maketh not our ministers to be priests but preachers of repentance which bring the glad tidings of the gospell to all those that be heauie laden and desire to be refreshed Neither haue they power themselues to forgiue sinnes Mar. 2.7 for God onelie forgiueth sinnes but hauing the word of reconciliation committed vnto them from God they offer pardon and in his name pronounce pardon to the sinner that turneth from his sinnes vnto the Lord. If you know this why striue you against a knowen confessed truth If you be ignorant what commission the ministers haue receiued of Christ then be content to learn it out of the word of god As for your priests you haue alleadged nothing to prooue their calling and authoritie lawfull and I haue shewed that the scriptures giuing all priesthood after Melchis order to Christ onelie haue wrung in sunder the necks of your popish sacrificers and therefore it is the duetie of all Christians whose saluation consisteth in the sacrifice priesthood of Christ to thinke of you as you are indeed enemies of Christ Baalites idolatrous Antichristian Priestes whose punishment shal be with the Beast in the lake that burneth with fire brimstone for euer The Lord open the eies of his people that they may see your wickednes and beware of you least they be in wrapped in the same condemnation with you CHAP. 5. Of penance and the value of good workes touching iustification and life eternall IN the beginning of this Chapter M. Rainolds chafeth and laieth about him on euery side Pag. 82. c. striking now at one man now at another sometime this waie sometime that as though he were suddenly fallen into some maladie great distemperature in his head The occasion riseth vpon my words in saying our aduersaries doctrine cannot stand vnlesse we will alow for good those thinges that in the writings of the fathers are moste faultie And whoe knoweth not if he haue read any thing in the fathers The Popish religion gathered of the corruptions of fathers former times but that the popish religion for the moste part is
that worketh the rewarde shal be imputed according to debt ought to be vnderstoode of the debt due to the wicked worke For that debts are called sinnes in the holie Scriptures you shall often finde Then he alledgeth sundrie places to this purpose and afterwardes proceedeth thus whereupon the same Apostle in an other place saith the wages of sinne is death and he added not and saide likewise And the wages of iustice is eternall life Vitam veró ae ternam soli gratiae consig naret I thinke it should be assignaret but he saith But eternall life is the gracious gift of God to teach vs that wages which is like to debte and rewarde is a recompence of punishment and death and to assigne eternall life to grace onelie And thus determining that rewarde according to debte belongeth to the wicked in respect of their workes but not the beleeuers he goeth on forwarde and saith To confirme as it were his former saying to him that worketh not but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the wicked his faith is imputed for righteousnes the Apostle taketh a testimonie out of the psalmes and saith Cui Deus accepto sert iusti tiam sine opers bus As Dauid doth declare the blessednes of the man whome the Lord accounteth righteous without workes This is Origenes iudgement that our ill deedes deserue of due and debte punishment and condemnation but that our good deedes cannot merite the reward of eternal life so hath he discouered the inequalitie of those balances whereof you speake S. Ambrose speaking of Dauid saith that he desired to depart out of this place of pilgrimage to the common countrie of the Saints Ambros de bono mor. Cap. 2. entreating that for the pollution of his abode here his sinnes might be forgiuen before he departed out of this life For he that receaueth not here remission of his sinnes shall not be there and he shall not be there because he can not come vnto eternal life Quia vitae aeterna remissio peccatoruÌ„ est for somuch as euerlasting life is forgiuenes of sinnes In these wordes we are taught that whosoeuer wil haue eternall life must looke to receiue it not for merit of his good workes but through forgiuenes of his euill workes and this namelie he affirmeth of Dauid the holie Prophet and seruant of god with whome in godlines and good workes our Papists maie not anie waies compare Saint Ierome hath many goodlie sentences in his bookes against the Pelagians flatlie ouerthrowing the popish doctrine of iustification by merit of our workes as when he saieth Hieron ad Cte siph aduers Pe lag that before God who seeth beholdeth all things and to whom the secrets of the hart are not vnknowen no man is iust If in the sight of God no man is iust as Ierome trulie according to the holy scriptures maintaineth against the wicked Pelagians who then can trust by his iustice to be saued or how can any man otherwise be saued then by the clemencie mercie and forgiuenes of the iudge can he that saieth and confesseth I am vniust I aske pardon of my God for my sinnes saie with the same mouth I haue deserued heauen by my good deedes Againe S. Ierome saith this is the onelie perfection of men if they knowe them selues to be vnperfect And you saith Christ when you haue done all things saie we are vnprofitable seruants we haue done that we were bound to doe If he be vnprofitable who hath done all things what shall we saie of him that coulde not fulfill all things Si inutilis est qui fecit omma quid de illo dicendum est qui explâ—re non potuit Lib. 1. aduers Pelag. and he prooueth at large that neuer anie either did or could fulfill all that of due was required of him In an other booke he saieth then are we iust when we confesse our selues to be sinners and our iustice consisteth not of our owne merite but of Gods mercie the Scripture saying the iust man is an accuser of him selfe in the beginning of his speach Our righteousnes by Saint Ieromes doctrine consisteth not in the merits of our good workes but in the confession of our sinnes and mercie of the Lord. Furthermore he saith in the same booke In Deuteronomie it is plainlie shewed that we are saued not by our workes iustice but by the mercie of God when the Lord saith by Moses say not in thine heart when the Lord shall destroie them before thy face the Lord hath brought me in for my righteousnes c. If the Israëlites could not deserue the land of Canaan to be giuen vnto them for their righteousnes who can trust to receiue the land of life for his worthines This was S. Ieromes faith and this he constantlie defended against such wicked heretikes that troubled the Church of Christ then Mare Erem as our Papistes haue longe done S. Marke the Eremite hath written a booke against those that thinke they are iustified by works wherin thus he writeth Therefore the kingdome of heauen is not a rewarde of workes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the free gift of the Lord prepared for faithfull seruants S. Gregorie came after S. Augustine the space of two hundred yeares Greg. Moral lib. 2. cap. 40. yet held he the same trueth concerning this point as by his writings appeareth As if saith he a mind that is tempted and taken in the neede of his owne infirmitie should saie Grace hath begotten me in the first faith being naked Nudam me in prima fide gratia genuit â—udum eadem gratia in assuÌ„tione saluabit and the same grace shall saue me in the last daie being naked And further addeth that though a man haue some vertues yet it is best for him to cast him selfe downe to acknowledge his owne infirmitie and wantes Ad solam misericordiae speÌ„ recurrat to fâ—â—e to the onelie hope of mercy And thus writeth the same Gregorie in an other place Euerie sinner turning to God with weeping In Ezech. lib. 1. hom 7. in sins now beginneth to be iust when he beginneth to accuse that which he hath done For why should he not be iust that now is cruel by teares against his owne iniustice Therfore our iust aduocate shall defend vs to be iust in iudgement quia nosmetip sos cognosci mus accusamus imustos because we know and accuse our selues to be vniust Let vs therefore put our confidence not in our teares not in our deeds but in the allegation of our aduocate Could anie thing be spoken more directlie against the vaine damnable persuasion of Papists that thinke they shall be saued by their doings and sufferings Now let vs descend lower to S. Bernard who liued after Saint Gregorie fiue hundred yeares and see how the same doctrine hath bene continued and beleeued of the godlie Bernard 〈◊〉 Cant. serm 23. Thus writeth
faith If you doe not you are to blame to charge me with ignorance of that which your selfe do not vnderstand Iustification by faith onely excludeth not necessary dueties of Christian obedience if you doe then can you not but plainlie perceiue that the doctrine of necessarie suffering with Christ is not anie waie contrary to the Doctrine of our iustifying by faith onelie Although we trulie teach that onelie faith doth iustifie because it is the onlie instrument by which we take holde vpon Iesus Christ and so are iustified yet we teach that iustifiing faith can neuer lacke good workes and hereof it followeth that whosoeuer hath faith must also bring forth the fruites of faith which are good workes that necessarilie therby to declare and testifie his faith as the Apostle Saint Iames doth fullie prooue This necessarie coniunction of workes and faith the effect and the cause doth not disprooue but that our apprehension of Christ is to be attributed to onelie faith Faithe although it neuer be alone yet it apprehendeth Christ iustifieth alone as the beholding of the light is the onely proper function of the eie although the facultie of seeing cannot be deuided from the sense of feeling Yet no man will saie that we perceiue the brightnes of the sunne by our feeling but by our seeing onelie So though our faith can neuer be alone but is alwaies fruitfull of good workes yet it onelie doth iustifye and not good workes in that it onelie laieth holde vpon Christ our righteousnes You haue a weake head Master Rainolds if you stagger at this But blessed be God that striketh his enimies thus with giddines To like purpose serueth that you alledge out of Illyricus and others concerning the controuersy whether good workes are necessarie to saluation There is none so ignorant but knoweth the iudgement and resolution of the Church And although Illyricus be earnest How good workes are necessary not as causes of saluation but as effectes of a iustifiyng faith saieth they are no way necessarie to saluation yet he confesseth a faithfull man must needs doe them as duties necessarilie required by the Lord not that they are anie waies the cause or merite of saluation If you vnderstand the proposition thus then in this sense they are not necessarie for then should they derogate from the merites of Christ But as effectes of faith and iustification so are they necessarie and this doctrine as it is true so is it far from all papistrie For papistes teach that workes are efficient causes of their saluation and that is moste false and iniurious to the blood of Christ Christians holde that good workes are necessarie fruites of faith and that those who are iustified and reconciled with God must walke before him in new obedience and serue him in righteousnes and holines all their daies You wish I were a Papist for mine owne sake and for your sake againe I wish that you were none Which of these wishes is better the day of the Lord shall make manifest In the meane time enioye that happines which you haue purchased by your falling from vs or rather from Christ I will be no companion of your Apostasie CHAP. 6. Of reproouing the auncient fathers for their doctrine touching good workes IF wrangling were anie waies to be commended in these great and waightie controuersies of Religion Pag. 114. c. then had Master Rainolds deserued praise and thanks for his paines in this behalfe But as in all debating and triall of truth it is acounted an vnhonest part to deuise false shifts for maintenance of vntrueth The fathers in their writings haue sundry weeds growing with the good corne so in matters of Gods worship and Religion to vse craftie cauillation is a most wicked and damnable practise The auncient fathers holding the ground and foundation of doctrine did oftentimes builde thereon stubble and strawe partlie by some superstitious opinions which themselues conceiued of such inuentions and partlie by the sway and violence of custome whereby they were caried to a liking of those things which they saw commended and practised by others And yet God forbid that because of some errours which they held we should raze their names out of the Calender of Gods Saintes or thinke otherwise then reuerentlie of them Among other infections that raigned in the fathers daies this was not the leaste that they hoped in some sort to make some parte of amendes to God for their sinnes by voluntarie punishments which they sustained in this life Whereof although by a consequent it followeth that they did iniurie to the satisfaction of Christes death yet they meant not directlie to take anie thing from it but trusted by it onelie to be iustified and saued Neuertheles being ledd by a likelie and probable persuasion of mans witt that God would spare them if they punished them selues they trusted by this meanes to make some recompense for their offenses and therefore suffered much hardnes trauaile and penaltie in the course of their life which if they had done simplie with desire and purpose thereby to make themselues fitter for the seruice of God it had bene a godly and profitable endeuour And this no Protestāt misliketh seeing the Apostie hath taught that it is expedient for all Christians to beat downe and subdue their owne bodies 1. Cor. 9.26 But to put anie confidence of appeasing Gods wrath in these actions deuised by them selues cannot be excused in anie whosoeuer Howbeit I would not any should thinke that when the Fathers speake so often of Satisfaction and Penance Satisfactions not alwaies meant in respect of God they meane allwaies a satisfaction vnto God for sinne as the Papists doe For those satisfactions were nothing els for the most parte but penalties appointed by the Church for such to endure as had by some open falling into greater transgression giuen a publike offense to the Church of Christ Such were brought vnder penance by the censure discipline of the Church which when they had accrodinglie performed in token of their vnfained repentance then were they receiued againe into the companie of the faithfull and then was satisfaction made namelie in respect of the Church Of these Ecclesiasticall satisfactions we reade often in the fathers and councels but hereby is not meant that by these they purchased remission of their sinnes at the hands of God And yet I denie not but manie did put too great superstition in these outward exercises trusting something thereby to finde fauour with God the rather for their harde vsage of themselues Which though it be an error yet were they notwithstanding good men and holie fathers as I called them In which respect when you labour and spend much of your oyle to prooue me contrarie to my selfe you may see what a trifler you are and how vnworthie of answere Were not the Apostles holie men Holy mē may haue had their errors and that in weighty
and then shall you prooue your selfe to be a perfect heretike and so must you saie or els you saie nothing to the question Can you denie M. Rainolds but that Christes bodie is altogether of the same substance with our bodies and hath the properties of a true and naturall bodie speake plainlie and tell vs your minde lest you giue vs cause to doubt of your soundnes in this article as you haue here giuen verie great For if you confesse this to be true doctrine as you must vnlesse you be indeed one of those heretikes that held the contrarie why bid you me looke how I free my selfe from the filthie and wicked heresies of the Ebionites and Nestorians Marke I beseech you good reader how this prating patrone of Reall presence M.R. saieth it is hereticall to affirme that Christs body is consubstantiall to ours would haue it seme to sauour of wicked heresy to affirme that Christs bodie is a true bodie consubstantiall to ours and all this because the same wicked heresie of reall presence can neuer be defended vnlesse this be denied Yea Master Rainolds saith those heretikes not onelie maie but must thereof infer that Christ was begotten betwene our Ladie and Ioseph Wherein as he hath auouched a plaine heresie which he cannot cleare him selfe from vnlesse he will openlie recant his owne wordes so is it most false that he saith it must be inferred hereof that Christ was begotten as other men No such necessitie Master Rainolds That he was miraculouslie borne of a virgine is no reason but that his bodie may be of the same substance with ours a true and naturall bodie indued with the same qualities and properties that ours are saue sinne from his conception and glory from his ascension whereof in saying it must follow that Christ was not borne of a virgine you haue vttered in plaine tearmes an hereticall assertion defend it or retract whether you will For if this follow thereof indeed which is hereticall then that must of consequence be hereticall which yet is a most true and Catholike doctrine A third answere you make out of Chrysostome pag. 188. who surelie answereth nothing at all for you He exhorteth that we beleeue Christes words This is my bodie to be true Chrysostome obiected by M.R. maketh against hiâ— although we see not his bodie with our eyes And whoe confesseth not this we graunt that the bread is Christes bodie as Christ said whoe euer said the truth But the meaning is that the bread is a sacrament of Christes bodie Chrysost Hom. 83. in Mat. as S. Chrysostome in the same homilie twise or thrise in plain speach affirmeth not that the bread is chaunged into Christes naturall bodie which Chrysostome neuer once dreamed of And that you may perceiue he meant no transsubstantiation the same he said of this sacrament he also saith by and by of baptisme wherein your selues accord with vs that no transsubstantiation is wrought As Christ is in the supper so is he in baptisme inuisiblie mystically truelie in both carnallie bodilie reallie in neither Chrysostome hath spoken neuer a worde for you But M. Rainolds according to his manner translateth a pace out of the Centuries out of Melanchthon pag. 189. c Westphalus and Luther with their sayings filleth a number of pages onlie to shew there is a difference of iudgement among the protestants about the sacrament which to be indeed true al the world knoweth But what hereof will you haue your Reader to conclude Controuersie among the Protestants about the sacrament confessed when he seeth that Luther and some others mislike our doctrine and reasons concerning the sacrament of Christes supper That neither he nor we teach thereof a right That you hould the true part That no credit in other pointes is to be giuen to anie of vs all This is the marke whereat you aime here els where in citing so manifold testimonies out of our writers which sleight although you must confesse is false and knowe your selfe there is no plaine dealing nor soundnes therein yet you are content for aduantage to set it out with greatest countenance that it may bleare the eies of the simple If Luther teaching otherwise of the sacrament then Zuinglius and Oecolampadius did disputed against their reasons this is no matter to maruell at for graunting the premisses to be true it is to late to denie the conclusion The argument that is grounded onelie vpon reason in matters of Religion and faith we graunt moste vnfainedlie to be no lawfull weapon in the Lords warfare And therefore whatsoeuer they haue said against Philosophie and reason Arguments taken from reason in matters of Religion what force they haue when it disagreeth from the faith which in the scritures we learne all that we allow with all our heartes and neuer vsed thus anie argument taken from naturall reason against either you or Luther For reason must submit it selfe to faith we know faith must not be restrained or stretched according to reason But when reason in not controlled of faith then I thinke you will not say but an argument builded vpon reason maketh a necessary proofe Now in this matter faith and reason are not contrary no faith teacheth that Christs body is without the properties of a true body al reason prooueth that if Christ haue a true body as he hath then his body is indued with natural qualities and properties of a body Reasoning against this sound immutable reason you plainely shew your selues to be void of reason Now that one and the same body as Christ hath but one onely body should be at once of contradictory dispositions as namely both visible and inuisible both in a certaine place in no certaine place as you teach and boldly but moste vntruly maintaine this is contrary not onely to reason but also to faith which teacheth that God cannot lie and therefore neuer can make two contradictories true for in the one alwaies an vntruth of necessitie resteth As for example if Christs body be alwaies visible and circumscripte then is it a manifestlie to say the same body is inuisible and incircumscripte but Christs body is alwaies both visible circumscripte and therefore in saying his body is inuisible and incircumscripte you cannot be excused from vntruth and contradiction In faith is no contradiction in your assertion there is a foule and palpable contradiction wherefore your assertion is not of faith If I had to deale with Westphalus or Illyricus further would I answere there speaches but as you make them here to serue your purpose I haue not any more to say vnto them Then leauing them I returne to your selfe M. R. to examine what you bring for defense of the cause which you haue taken in hand to maintaine The testimonies of Cyrill and Damascen you lightly passe ouer pag. 198. De Trinit lib. 2. The fathers against the Reall presence Cyril saith that Christ touching the presence
partialitie Our translations and translatours haue beene sufficientlie cleared for the most parte of such faults as were obiected and though it is not denied but in euerie on t of them some fault or other may be found worthy reproofe and correction yet maie it moste truelie be affirmed that of all our translations none can be noted so full of imperfections and errors as your latine vulgar translation is which you not onelie follow but commend for the best of all yea preferre before the originall texte it selfe against knowledge reason and conscience This whol chapter you might haue spared handling such thinges as haue bene so well handled in your iudgemente by Master Martin but the occasion seruing you to vtter some part of your humour which so boileth in your stomache that it would burst the vessel if it breathed not forth you could not prâ—termit Brieflie let vs peruse this litle or nothing rather that you bring You shall doe me mischiefe enough M. R. and be sufficientlie auenged on me pag. 264. c. if you can prooue all that you haue here propounded against me Bigge words bolde bragges terrible threats a man would thinke my case were verie miserable that haue to deale with so cruell and mightie an aduersarie I may indeed be sorie for my chaunce to be thus cumbred with an vnlearned and ridiculous trifler that seeketh onelie by shewe and multitude of words to dazle the eyes of simple men and somewhat disgrace the truth of god A man that hath but a drop of learning cannot be deceiued by such painted pelting stuffe the vnlearned that cannot iudge may thinke M. R. hath said some what to purpose First you say no wit nor learning will alowe me to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Image or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carcase And what came in your head to charge me with translating psuche a carcase where haue I so translated it or where is it so found in any of our translations For my part I neuer so translated it I neuer saw it so translated I neuer thought it lawful so to translate it Beza I graunt traÌ„slated it so in his latine translation once but afterwards vpon better consideration he changed his translation as you may see in the latter editions As for eidolon it is truly properlie translated an Image as any man will confesse that knoweth the nature of the word as it hath beene largely prooued in sundry discourses It was then farre from wit or learning in you Master Rainolds to say that as well might minister be translated a slaue or homo a dogge as eidolon an Image For among the words wherewith the learned Grecians commonlie expresse the same thing that we cal an Image is eidolon as fitt and naturall as any other Your sacred Images are eidola if eidolon signifie an Idole then are they Idoles as in trueth they are By vse and custome of speach an Idole and Image somewhat differ as euerie man knoweth All Idoles are Images not al Images Idoles But the Lord hath forbidden al grauen Images no lesse then grauen Idols to be made for worship sake Wherefore your Images All images made for worship sake are verie Idoles which you make which you garnish which you erecte which you worship in your vnholie Synagogues are Idoles The picture maketh not an Idole but the worship The pictures of Iupiter or Mars were no Idoles according to the receiued sense of this worde vnlesse they were worshiped so likewise the Images of Saints if they be abused to sacred worship in which respecte you cal them sacred Images are no better then profane wicked abominable Idoles Then your argument to prooue vs Idolaters for honoring the Queene in her Image c. is childish This honor to the Prince is ciuil not religious or diuine such as the honour is wherewith you worship your Images of all sortes so this honour is farre from Idolatrie your honour is meere Idolatry and you are Idolatrous worshippers of Idole Images That Ecclesia signifieth an assembly or congregation whoe can deny so may it rightlie be translated although we in our translations doe willingly vse the common word Church as you cannot be ignorant So Episcopus we translate most commonly a Bishop Euangelium the gospell and to conclude we refuse not the vsual phrase manner of speach but onely when the superstitious abuse of wordes was to be auoyded Therefore that forme of preaching which you haue here deuised of your selfe is fittest for such a preacher as your selfe we vse not so to preach or so to speake or so to write it was no doubt a wise conceite to occupy your selfe withall Thus appeereth secondly what shame or modesty was in you pag. 270. to obiect want of both to me For shew vs M. R. if you can anie worde in our Bibles absurdly or falslie translated by me maintained The same worde may wel be translated in diuerse places diuerslie so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Io. 3.8 is rightly translated the wind which in other places is not so to be translated And are not you a modest man that because in this one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so translated as the word well beareth and the sense requireth would make men beleeue that it is euery where els so translated and that the holy ghost we call the holy winde you haue good cause to be ashamed of this so shameles and impudent dealing Eucharistia you will not haue translated thanksgiuing but Eucharist by Eucharist you meane the sacrament of Christs supper Now where is Eucharistia taken thus for the sacrament in the scriptures why haue your selues translated Eucharistia thanks giuing 1. Tim. 4.4 Nothing to be reiected that is receiued with thanks giuing Will you mende your translation thus Nothing to be reiected that is receiued with the Eucharist As Eucharistia is vsed by Godly writers both Greeke and Latine for the sacrament so we also vse the word Eucharist in the same manner as you might heare in our sermons may reade in our writings And so we call it the sacrament of Baptisme not of washing as you charge vs notwithstanding that Baptismus in the generall signification of the worde is nothing els but washing and so is vsed in scripture often times and so haue your selues translated it Marc. 7.4 Whether I haue truelie said of your translation that it is of all others moste corrupt I am content to refer it to the iudgement of all the wise and Godly readers pag. 271. c. Where haue I said or allowed any thing tending to such Atheisme as you charge vs withall Atheist I will not call you Master Rainolds but I may trulie say of you as you haue continually giuen vndoubted proofe that you haue no feare of God before your eies Speake or write of vs your pleasure falslie foolishlie boldelie your iudgement shall be as deepe as anie Atheist vnles you leaue your lying
against your doctrines then the latine translation Which though M. Rainolds here closelie denieth yet in examples euerie where maie be seene and some I will sett downe partlie for M. Rainolds sake and partlie to shew I haue no neede of his excuse from a lie In the 14. Chapter of S. Iohns gospell ver 26. where our sauiour Christ telleth his Apostles The holie ghost shall bring into your remembrance whatsoeuer I haue said to you the Remish translators haue made him thus to speake shall suggest vnto you all things whatsoeuer I shall saie to you according to the latine vulgare that it might be more easilie supposed whatsoeuer the Church should afterwardes determine is from inspiration of the holie ghost Ephesians Chapter 2. vers 10. the Apostle in the Greeke writeth that we are created in Christ vnto good workes you translate after your latine in good workes This corruption is aduantage to your doctrine of good workes In the same epistle Chapter 5. vers 32. you translate this is a great sacrament to make men think that the scriptures affirme mariage to be a sacrament of the Church whereas if you had truelie translated it according to the Greeke This is a great mysterie the occasion of that surmise had bene remoued In the epist to the Pihl. Chap. 1. v. 27. the greeke word which signifieth a signe or token or proofe is in your latine vulgare translated a cause and this translation do you keepe the rather thereby to induce your readers to beleeue that as the malitious dealing of wicked aduersaries against the godlie maie truelie be said to be the cause of their perdition so likewise the patience of the godlie is a cause of their saluation whereas the Apostle onelie saieth in this place that the raging of the enemies against the Church is a manifest argument of their condemnation and the constant suffering of the godly is a certaine signe and testimony of their saluation who seeth not herein what cause you had to like better of the latine translation then of the originall text Luke Chap. 10. v. 35. the words are in the Greeke whatsoeuer thou spendest more which you translate whatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate This corruption maketh some shewe for your workes of supererogation Luke Chap. 1. v. 48. the blessed virgine saith God hath looked on the lowe estate of his handmaid you translate the humilitie of his handmaid This corruption helpeth your doctrine of merites So an other corruption in the same Chapter v. 28. tending to the same purpose where you haue translated Haile full of grace the Greeke and originall texte hath onelie Haile thou freelie beloued In the Epistle to the Hebrewes chap. 13. v. 16. you translate with such hostes god is promerited which is both a fonde and false translation the Greeke words being with such sacrifices God is delighted meaning almes and distribution In the second Ep. of S. Peter Chap. 1. v. 15. you haue strangely translated the Apostles words I will doe my diligence you to haue often after my decease also that you may keepe a memorie of these thinges and vpon this disordered translation you haue made a long note of Peters care and protection of the Church after his death whereas the Apostle in his owne wordes saith no more but that he would endeuour dailie that they also might haue remembrance of those things after his departure A pretie sleight in translating for aduantage where the Apostle saieth he would endeuour that they might remember those thinges after his decease to make him saie that he would haue them in remembrance after his decease and then of this false translation to note what a pastorall care S. Peter hath for the Church after he was deceased In the epistle of S. Paule to the Romanes chap. 11. v. 6. the common translator hath left out this whol sentence together But if it be of workes it is no more grace or els were worke no more worke and these wordes haue you also in your English translation cleane omitted as though they were no parte of scripture being the Apostles vndouted words no lesse then the other that went before What cause was there of this dealing but onelie to smother that cleere opposition between merite and grace which the Apostle hath in his owne words declared if he might be suffered to speake all A number such places could I alledge where the vulgar translation differing and swaruing from the vndoubted originall text is by you followed because it carieth some sound and shewe of your opinions and errors Manie excuses may you make for your selues your translatours haue in their preface handsomely laid out their excuses which I doubt not shal be weied and examined throughlie but soone may anie man perceiue what cause indeede moued you to be so friendlie to the translation and soe harde to the text because the texte doth plainlie discouer your nakednes the translation bringeth some small ragges to hide it Before you answere my arguments alledged for defense of the Hebrewe and Greeke texte pag. 285. you set downe certaine words of mine wherein I seeme you say to auouch that onelie to be the worde of God which is written in the language wherein first the holie ghost by the Prophets and Apostles vttered it No cauill so simple which M.R. will not vse My words are plaine Master Rainolds my meaning cannot seeme ambiguous you seeke not for truth but for a cauill The word of God I know maie be vttered in other languages then wherein first it was by writing deliuered to the Church and translations agreeing with the originall texte are the word of God For Gods worde is not the language but the doctrine Howbeit translations set forthe by sundrie persons are so farre forth onelie the word of God as they faithfully expresse the meaning of the Authenticall text the which being written by the Prophets and Apostles chosen instruments for that purpose is wholly and vndoubtedlie the worde of God Then it may worthelie be wondered at in you whoe taking vpon you to translate the new testament into englishe haue not translated the text of the Apostles and Euangelists but the translation of S. Ierome or some other you know not whome which translation in verie manie places is corrupte and therefore in those places cannot be the word of God Religion and reason would haue required that in translating the scriptures you should haue followed the originall fountaines Absurd to translate a translation of Scriptures rather then the fountaines yea although the latine translation hadde bene much perfecter and purer then it is how much more ought you to haue soe done seing it be wrayeth soe manifest and manifold corruptions as it doeth But your reasons pag. 287. whereby you labour to iustifie your doing in this behalfe must be examined M.R. reasons why they might translate according to a translation answered Our Sauiour the Euangilists Apostles you say cited places of the old testament
had recourse to the Greeke copies and haue prescribed the same rule to be followed continuallie and Saint Hierome himselfe reformed the latin translations according to the Greeke then extant read in the Greeke Churches Thus then you maie perceaue that to be constant in the profession of Gods trueth and to be carefull to keepe the text of scripture from corruption are two diuerse things which you might haue soone considered if you had but looked backe to that your selfe haue written before For these are euen the same Grecians whose exemplars Saint Ierome followed in correcting the Euangelists and which he calleth waters of the moste pure fountaine and sundrie wise commendeth Hieron Marcellae For proofe that the Hebrew fountaines are by the Iewes corrupted pag. 303. c. you bring vs forth a place out of the prophet Esaie Chap. 9. First in that I say the Iewes haue not corrupted the hebrew text I say no other thing then that which the moste learned Papists of all times haue affirmed M.R. in this controuersie hath his master papists aduersaries to him namelie Isaac Clarius Valla Andradius Montanus Lucas Bellarmine and manie moe and that by the same argument which my selfe vsed that then this corruption moste certainelie would haue appeared in those places that directlie concerne our Sauiour Christ amongst the which this that you mention here is notable And although I wil not deny but that the Iewes might haue some purpose to wrest it from the sense that it might be aplied to any rather then to Christ yet the corruption is not so greate as you would haue it seeme consisting not in change of any letter but only of the pointes The letters remaining without alteration whatsoeuer is amisse in the pointes may easilie be corrected Furthermore if we reade the word with the same pointes which now it commonly hath in the Hebrew Bibles whereby the verbópassiue is turned into an actiue yet the place notwithstanding prooueth inuinciblie the Diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ For as well doth it confirme this doctrine if we read Vajikrae vocabit that is God the father shall call his name wonderfull c as if we read Vajikkare vocabitur his name shall be called wonderfull Although you that take vpon you such profound knowledge and cunning in the Hebrew language should not haue beene ignorant that this is the phrase of that tongue That the Iewes refer the last name onely which is the Prince of peace Sar-shaelom to the Childe borne all the rest going before to God him selfe this I graunt to be a malitious construction of the wordes but no corruption of the text One thing is it to expound the wordes in a wronge sense an other to falsifie the wordes You hoped no doubte to haue gained much more by this place then will any waies be yelded vnto you for that you adde of the Churches authoritie which you call the supreame grounde and stay is nothing worth being an olde worne and wasted sentence brought in rashelie without credite or countenaunce The wordes are plaine of them-selues and haue in them authoritie and stay sufficient to prooue the trueth of Christs diuinitie and to confute the enemies thereof An other such place you obiecte out of the Prophet Ieremie pag. 306. Chap. 23. v. 6. wherein that some corruption hath bene committed either in letter or poynt may be imagined but cannot by euident demonstration be prooued ijcro What mooued S. Ierome to translate thus vocabunt eum They shall call him I will not dispute The reason might be in the variety and incertentie of poynts or in the ambiguous acception of the word But because M. Rainolds chargeth the Iewes with so foule a corruption of this place only to discredite the diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ he must remember that the Seuentie interpreters translated it in the singular number according to the Hebrewe now extant In comment ad Hier. ca. 23. as S. Ierom also maketh mention yet were they neuer chalenged for partial interpretation of the scriptures being as many write wonderfullie assisted gouerned in that work and not smallie had of auncient time in regard And this was long before our sauiour Christ was come in the flesh and therefore vndoubtedlie the place was not corrupted by the Iewes for such a cause as you imagine vnlesse you will saie the Iewes in hatred of Christ corrupted the Bible diuerse hundred yeares before Christ was borne and before they had cause to conceiue any malice or displeasure against our sauiour Christ And so your Lyranes surmise is plainelie disprooued in which you rest your selfe as in a certaine veritie and vpon his worde are boulde to pronounce sentence against the poore Iewes for committing a crime which by cleare euidence of greater authoritie they are not guilty of Neither maketh it lesse for Christs diuinitie to read it vocabit He shall cal him that is God the father or euerie faithful man shal call him The Lord our righteousnes then if we reade vocabunt They shall call him the Lord our righteousnes And Saint Hierome as you might haue seene had you looked on the place your selfe translateth the text after this manner Et hoc est nomen quo vocabunt eum sine vocabit eum Dominus iustus noster wherein he sheweth plainelie there is no substance of matter more in the one then the other If this be so shameful so notable a corruption as you in countenaunce and shew pretende S. Hierome was greatly ouerseene that not onelie gaue no warning thereof in his Commentarie but vsed the same also in the text it selfe But what wil you say to those learned men whoe hauing more skill in the Hebrew tongue then you Master Rainolds or els your Lyra thoug a Iewe borne haue translated the word as it is now read in the hebrew Bibles no otherwise then your selues would haue it to be translated I meane Arias Montanus and Vatablus as in their translations you may finde whoe if they haue rightelie and well translated the worde then may you see that no such wickednesse hath bene practized in this place as you haue fathered vpō the Iewes And furthermore compare an other like place in the same Prophet Chap. 33. v. 15. Where this worde is vsed in the singular number without controuersie the Prophet speaking againe of the same matter and almoste whollie in the same wordes Thus you may vnderstand that the integritie of this place may be auouched and the Iewes deliuered from your vniust accusation many waies One example more you giue mean an other kinde Pag. 310. wherein no kinde of corruption appeereth at all In the Prophet Esay chap. 53. vers 8. the old latine translation standeth thus propter scelus populi mei percussi eum For the sinne of my people haue I smitten him The Hebrew text is something otherwise Miphshahh 〈◊〉 mi negahh lamo propter defectionem populi
corruption the cause therof yet keepe they stil the same so certaine cleare a corruption in their Bibles vse it in their Offices Breuiaries euen those that were corrected and printed last by the Popes commaundement In like manner and by like occasion hath bene committed a fault in the 84. Psalme psal 84.12 wherein your translation hath these words in all your bookes olde and new without any correction Quia misericord veritatem diligit Deut. Because God loueth mercie and trueth And are not these good words who can say otherwise the wordes in deede are good and godlie but the translation is nought For this should the translation of that text haue bene The Lord God is our sunne and shield as Genebrarde and your owne men cannot denie In the 88. Psalme Dauid saith shall the deade arise and praise thee But your translation is ridiculous shall the Phisicians raise vp turning deade into Phisicians Aut mâ—dici suscitabunt and rising into raising Here Genebrarde to mend al that is amisse hath inuented a new sense thus shall the Phisicianes raise vp that is the deade that they may praise thee Phisicians are apointed to saue aliue if they can not to raise the dead for if one be dead it is to late to call the Phisician I maruell he was not ashamed to make so lewde a glosse In the 92. Psalme your translation hath plentifull mercie psal 92.11 Misericâ—rd vber◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for fresh oile which errour did grow by mistaking a Greeke worde that signifieth mercie for an other that signifieth oile because they are something like in certaine cases In the 132. Psalme the Lord saith psal 132.15 I will plentfullie blesse hir vitailes in your translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vitailes is turned into widowe and thus is it reade I will blesse her widowe This Genebrarde cannot denie to be a fault and sheweth how it came by mistaking a word and not looking to the originall veritie Yet for all this your bookes are not corrected but still you keepe and vse such witles and palpable faultes in your Bibles you reade you sing you preach these and manie moe the like corruptions for the true word of God and text of scrpiture you see these things and wil not for all that be brought to reforme them What can we saie or thinke of you but that you are set and resolute to do amisse It is a wearines to wade any further therefore I will for this booke content my selfe with these examples and proofes of notable corruption therein committed by your translator whosoeuer he was And because I haue bene alreadie something long I will be shorter in that which followeth and as it were but glaine one by one where I might take vp wholl handfulls together The booke of Prouerbes hath not escaped the foul hands of such corruptors rather then translators as by manie places of the same maie too plainelie be perceiued Prou. C. 4. in fine In the latter end of the fourth Chap. a great manie of wordes together are added to the text as is acknowledged by the aduersaries them-selues In the sixt Chapter the vulgar translation hath Thou hast fixed downe thy soule with the straunger Whereas it should be thus c. 6.1 thou hast shaken handes with the straunger And after the 11. vers a wholl sentence is thrust into the text which ought to haue no place therein Again in the 26. verse of his Chapter where Salomon saith that by reason of a harlot a man is brought to a morsell of bread the wordes of your translation are these the price of an harlot is scarcelie the worth of one loafe Pretium scorti est vix vnius panis c. 7.1 no doubte wiselie and cunninglie translated In the 7. Chapter after the end of the first verse is an other addition of a wholl sentence and so also is there in the end of the 9. Chap. C. 9. in fine And in other places sundrie moe not onelie of wordes but of whol verses and sentences which cannot anie waies be otherwise accounted then a thing vnlawfull in Gods word and by no meanes to be defended In the 12. Chap. your translation hath Prou. 12.29 he that neglecteth a losse for a friend is a iust man A wise saying perhaps But Salomons sentence in this place is farre otherwise The iust man is more excellent then his neighbour In the 16. Chap. a true waight and balance saith the wise man are of the Lord prou 16.11 and then immediatlie it foloweth And all the stones or weightes of the bagge are his workes sacculi these last words are thus translated in your bookes And all the stones of the world are his workes seculi by a small change of the bagge into the world This you will saie was the writers fault and not the translators Verelie so I thinke for no tâ—anslator of anie skill could be so much deceiued in the Hebrew word But why then keepe you this corruption still in the text of scripture why will you not amend a fault so foule and so sensible that it may be felt with the finger And thus hath it gone in your bookes of manie hundred yeares as may appeere by Beda other latine writers in their commentaries v. 3 And in the same Chapter before where Salomon exhorteth vs to cast or commit our workes vnto the Lord Deuolue Reuela in your translation we are bid to reueale our workes vnto the Lord. In the 20. Chapter your vulgare translations haue corrupted and falsified a text diuersely Prou. 20.25 Some copies read thus It is ruine to a man to call downe the saintes others to note the saintes others deuocare denotare deuotare deuorare to vowe the saints others to deuour the saints And this last commeth neerest to the truth for Salomon saith indeed It is a mans ruine to deuoure a holie or sanctified thing Kodesh prou 30.33 In the latter end of the 30. Chapter whereas Salomon saith he that presseth or churneth milke bringeth forth butter so to presse and force wrath causeth strife your translator hath tolde vs a pretie tale in this sorte He that presseth stronglie the pappes to draw forth milke he bringeth forth butter which thinge yet I beleeue was neuer seene But such absurdities in your translation must be borne withal In the last Chap. among the other praises of a worthy and excellent woman that is one prou 31.19 that shee putteth hir hand to the wherle for which your translation saith Ad fortia shee putteth hir hand to valiant things Such as these be there many faultes in your translation of this booke which might in all translations deserue reproofe and require correction but moste of all in the holie scriptures of almightie God In the booke of the Preacher Salomon saith
setting forth the Bible in Hebrew and other languages I graunt you haue not disgraced the tongues but the scriptures written in those tongues you haue indeauoured as much as in you laie to disgrace although doe what you can you shall neuer be able to disgrace them truly And herein may you firlie be compared to the Iewes for as they keepe the Hebrew text moste carefullie but yet haue lost the true meaning thereof soe you haue indeed printed the old and new testament in Hebrew and Greeke with diligence and great cost but in the meane time you deny them to be the authenticall word of God This treatise you conclude ful discreetly that first we must be sure of our faith That is a verie good thing but how this should be wrought you tell vs not The latine translation is for this purpose no fitter then the Hebrew and Greeke fountaines but rather manie waies more vnfitte being onelie a translation and that an vnperfecte a corrupt an obscure translation though it were as excellent as euer any translation could be which God knoweth is far otherwise yet might it not attaine to the diuine perfection of the originall text that was written and published by the wisdome of Gods holie spirit and ministery of the Prophets Apostles and Euangelistes But saie you let vs holde the Church then our Greeke and Hebrew may do vs some good let vs departe from her our Greeke and Hebrew will turne to our perdition And I graunt M. R. that to talke of the Greeke and Hebrew vnles we hold the right faith in the true Church helpeth vs nothing but rather increaseth our condemnation But this is true no lesse I am sure of your latine then of the Greeke and Hebrew vnles there be some secrete vertue in that which is not in the other that to talke of it though a man hold not either faith or Church may be a profitable thing If this be not your meaning then haue your words no sense nor force of reason in them a meete conclusion for such a discourse CHAP. 15. Of the new testament set forth in the Colledge of Rhemes AS Master Rainolds hath heâ—herto defended with great indeuour pag. 443. c. and smal successe their latine vulgare translation so now is he come to maintaine in like manner their Rhemish late English translation of the new Testament whereof himselfe may seeme to haue bene a principall author or at least some speciall dealer in the worke First he rehearseth my words at large written in my preface concerning that translation and setteth vpon them six markes whereof he intendeth in order and seuerallie to speake But before he come to the particulare scannig of my wordes he breaketh out into immoderate and immodest railing wherein is nothing worthie answere and therefore suffering him to plaie his parte with Aiax or Hercules of whome he speaketh let vs procead to the seuerall points and so shall it appeere whether I haue vttered any thing but a certaine trueth or whether he had cause thus strangelie to behaue himselfe First I saide that since the world was made neuer was there set forth such a translation pag. 445. whereupon this man taketh occasion to talke of newe Testaments and translations hereof set forth 5000. yeares agoe And haue we not iust cause to admire his wisdome and granitie that could deuise and handle in this sorte such a simple fantasie of his owne braine since the world was created neuer was found such a translation as the Rhemish is therefore saith Master Rainolds there haue bene translations of the newe Testament euer from the creation of the world If anie man els can so vnderstand it I am content to let it be so taken To me it seemeth straunge that anie man of reason should thinke and write thus absurdlie thus peeuishlie thus falsely vnles it were to make him selfe ridiculous and odious to all the worlde But of this so foolish a conceit of his we neede not to speake moe words Now will Master Rainolds prooue indeed that worse translations of the newe Testament haue bene by vs set forth of late then theirs is and therefore that I haue saide vntruelie that theirs is worst of all His argument is thus framed pag. 450. c. a translation that transformeth God into a deuill must needs be worse then theirs But seuen of our translations whereof some haue bene set forth within these fiue yeares transforme God into a deuill Therefore these are worse then theirs His assumption he prooueth by a place translated in the first of S. Peter Chap. 2. ver 8. And here is made a great sturre with long sentences out of Illyricus Beza Castalion The indifferent reader wil be content with a short replie when a longer is not requisite Now then what is this hainous fault of our translations Because they haue translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto the which thing they were ordained A greeuous accusation but a faint proose the translation is right and no more transformeth God into a deuil then doe S. Peters words themselues which were written by direction of Gods moste holie spirit Here is no place to make discourse of this question whether God be author of sinne which as it is a most impious assertion so haue you moste falselie obiected it vnto vs sundrie times and neuer could prooue it once This place of S. Peter we cannot otherwise translate vnles we would willinglie translate amisse S. Peters owne text being sound our translation agreeing fullie therewith cannot lead men into any such damnable opinion as that is whereof you speake Yet saith M. R. verie confidentlie finde you anie so wilfull and horrible an Atheisme in ours and hardlie set a fire on them all Take heede what you speake Is this wilfull and horrible Atheisme are all your bookes worthie to be burnt if anie such can be found in them will you stand to this How then haue you translated the place your selues Let vs looke now on your translation thus it is wherein also they are put This cannot be true following your latine which hath quo for quod and therefore in your margent you mend it thus whereto also they are orderned And how differeth this from ours what Atheisme is in ours more then in this or why deserueth ours to be burnt rather then this Burne your owne if you list Master Rainolds and if you speake as you thinke you haue pronounced them in your iudgement worthie to be cast into a fire and so perhaps you could be content so that ours might burne withall for companie The three points following pag. 455. c. 2.3.4 are hudled vp and answered together concerning vnaccustomed and monstrous nouelties of wordes whereof their translation hath such examples as the like in no other can be found so as a man may iustlie call it a new fangled and ridiculous translation deuised rather to amaze the readers and make the worde of God a laughing stocke
imagined presence of Christs bodie in the sacrament which being graunted according to your doctrine of transsubstantiation inferreth moste necessarilie that Christs bodie at once is both compassed in a litle bread which is contrarie to the nature of a mans true bodie and also is not compassed therein as sitting in heauen and hauing the naturall properties of a true bodie which cannot be brought within so narrowe a compasse as is your wafer cake This is repugnant to scripture to reason to Gods ordinaunce and therefore a moste absurde and impossible thing is it that Christs bodie should remaine a true naturall bodie and yet at once be contained in so small a compasse as you teach In that Christ and Peter walked on the water no such inconuenience nor absurditie can be found whether the waters were made by miracle firme as the ground or the bodies were sustained by Gods power that they suncke not Christ might beare vp him-selfe and Peter from sincking downe by his diuine power and chaunge no naturall propertie of his or Peters bodie but Christs bodie can not be brought into that slender compasse of your mathematicall cake without destruction of all properties incident vnto a natural body So then betweene these two is no likenes at all as any man not blinded with Popish folly and not wilfullie shutting his eyes against the cleare light may manifestlie perceiue Wherefore distrusting this argument you protest that your note consisteth not so much thereupon as in the authoritie of Epiphanius whoe hath not anie worde at all to this purpose For tell vs Master Rainolds doth Epiphanius drawe an argumente from Christs walking on the water to prooue his bodie reallie present in the sacramentall bread No such matter can you finde in Epiphanius or any auncient father of Christs Church That which Christ hath said he that beleeueth not to be true is fallen from grace and saluation as Epiphanius writeth but Christ hath neuer said that his bodie should be in the compasse of a litle bread Howbeit what talke you of a litle bread when you teach no bread at all remaineth but onelie signes and shadowes of bread False is your doctrine and foolish is your argument but bad reasons are good enoughe for such a bad religion Of Peters walking on the water pag. 498 is gathered an other argument of like qualitie to prooue the Popes supreme authoritie which argument was first inuented and deuised by Saint Bernarde in his second booke and eight Chapter to Eugenius a Pope Manie waters are many people Peter walked on the waters therefore Peter and his successors are rulers ouer manie people saith good Saint Bernarde to whome your Pope is greatlie bound for deuising such a fine argument which no auncient Doctor was able to finde But must we now receiue Bernards phantasies for substantiall proofes of the papall supremacie No Master Rainolds Saint Bernarde hath no warrant to make allegories at his pleasure for confirmation of that Antichristian tiranny which in those daies was established Your comparison of this argument with that of Christs about the brasen serpent and of Pauls concerning Isaac and Ismael is no better then blasphemous Might Saint Bernarde with like authoritie reason thus Peter walked on the waters therefore he and his successors are supreme gouernours of the vniuersall Church as Christ did shew the manner of his death by the lifting vp of the brasen serpent in the desert or as Saint Paul did prooue the haued and persecution of false brethren against the true Christians by example of Ismael and Isaac Had Bernard the fullnes of wisdome and trueth that was in Christ was Bernard alwaies directed with that spirit wherewith Saint Paul expounded the scriptures of God Here we may see how baselie you thinke of Gods word to match therewith mens seelie expositions and applications such as Saint Bernards often times were and this moste notablie is An argument is gathered for workes of supererogation pag. 499. out of the Samaritanes wordes whatsoeuer thou shalt bestow more or as it is by them translated Luc. 10.35 whatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate This argument saith Master Rainolds followeth wel enough and is Saint Augustins conclusion to prooue that Saint Paul did supererogate when he might haue receiued all duties for preaching the Gospell but would not That men may remit some part of their due and doe more towardes men outwardlie then they can of necessitie be vrged to doe no man will denie and thus may one man be said to supererogate towards another but what maketh this for workes of supererogation towards God whoe requireth both inward and outward obedience of vs in moste absolute manner For reall presence a like argument to the first is gathered of Christs transfiguration Pag. 499. whereof yet Master Rainolds being ashamed saith it is not their argument Matt. 17. â— but onelie a deduction that Christ maie giue vs his bodie in forme of bread and wine A proper deduction no doubt of a glorious bodie to prooue no bodie That Saints can heare and helpe vs euerie where pag. 500. because they are like to Angels is a verie bad argument Mat. 22.30 considering that neither Angels can so do for then were they of equall power with God and though Saints are like to Angels as in other things so in this that they marrie not yet it followeth not that therefore they are equall to Angels You are glad of such arguments hauing no other but if ye had better ye would not esteeme such Ioseph wrapped Christs bodie in sindon pag. 501. Therefore Christs bodie on the altar must be laid in pure linnen Mat. 27.59 In this argument Master Rainolds cannot tell what I mislike whether the reall presence or the linnen vsed at the altar as it was in the sepulcher or the relation from one to the other I answere in a worde I mislike all there being no trueth in anie of all The women came to beholde the sepulcher pag. 502. Ergo we must goe to the holie sepulcher in pilgrimage Matt 28.1 This argument Master Rainolds confesseth cannot indeede prooue that we must but that we maie goe in pilgrimage by example of those godlie and zealous women which yet is a false and fond deduction seing there is no such like cause for vs to goe as was for them That Christ appeered to the twoe disciples in another forme pag. 504. cannot prooue that he is in the sacrament in forme of bread Mark 16.12 for somuch as in Christs bodie noe alteration at this time was wrought but onelie the disciples eies were helde that they know him not as Saint Luke expreslie noteth Luk. 34.16 For your exorcisme in baptisme argument you saie you made none of Christes saying to the dombe and dease Ephpheta Mat. 7.34 If no argument no proofe if no proofe then no cause to vse by example of Christ such exorcisme in you baptismes pag. 505. Luk. 1.3
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
prooued For as the Apostle reasoneth if Christes person be perpetuall as it is and if he make for vs perpetuall intercession as he doth and if by his one sacrifice offered once he hath wrought a full and perfect redemption as he hath then is it hereof in proper signification prooued that Christs priesthood also is perpetuall and then haue these malapert papists blasphemed in denying the Apostles arguments to be good in proper signification which is in effect to take from them all credit and authoritie Let Master Rainolds deuise what cunning shift he can yet in truth neuer shall he be hable to wipe out this blot of blasphemie when the Apostle hath of purpose laboured to prooue Christs eternall priesthood and prooued it indeede most inuinciblie for these Collegiates of Rhemes to come in with their censure vpon the Apostle and to set downe in plaine termes that all this prooueth not the matter in proper signification and that the Apostle hath omitted the chiefe and proper proofe thereof This is a blasphemie against Christ and against the holy spirit of God by which the Apostle in writing was directed But what can Master Rainolds saie in excuse of this so manifest blasphemie pag. 534. He asketh first Where saie we that of all those things proposed by the Apostle it followeth not that Christs priesthood is eternall Must you againe be put in minde of your owne Annotation which your selfe haue at large rehearsed Haue you not therein expreslie in writing published All this prooueth not that in proper signification his priesthood is perpetuall And what differeth this from that which I haue affirmed of you Hath the Apostle propounded any thing concerning your pretended sacrifice If he hath shew vs where in what words after what sort If any thing at all can be shewed to this purpose as nothing indeed can and without this be shewed in your opinion the eternitie of Christs priesthood is no wais sufficientlie prooued doe you not plainlie declare your iudgement to be that it followeth not of al those thinges which the Apostle hath said that Christes priesthood is eternall yea but M.R. saith that they haue auouched the cleane contrary in saying that all the fathers gather of this deepe and diuine discourse the eternitie of his Priesthood The fathers indeed haue gathered of this discourse most truelie the eternitie of Christs Priesthood and therein they confute your wicked dannotation that saith all this prooueth not Christes Priesthood to be perpetuall They vnderstood the Apostle rightlie and they expounded his meaning faithfully Shew me now one ancient father if you can M. R. that euer saide as you saie that all this alledged by the Apostle prooueth not in proper signification that Christes priesthoode is perpetuall or els that he taught as you teach that Christ must continuallie be sacrificed in forme of bread and wine This is the point this shew vs if you can For in your Annotation no such thing is shewed and all the fathers confesse with one consent that the Apostle hath prooued soundly the eternitie of Christs Priesthood and that no other sacrifice remaineth to be offered but onelie a remembrance and sacrament of that one euerlasting sacrifice to be continued in the Church to the end of the world Secondlie it is confessed by Master Rainolds that the Apostle maketh not anie expresse mention of that oblation of bread and wine pag. 536. But what reason was there why the Apostle entreating of Christes eternall preisthood omitted the principall part thereof Consider good reader into what miserable straites these men are driuen and what absurde deuises they are enforced to forge For their best excuse is that because the Iewes beleeued not the first singular and soueraigne sacrifice of the crosse therefore he would not vrge them with this secondarie and dependente sacrifice of the Church Which in trueth is nothing els but a seelie shift to salue a desperate sore For first it is euident the Apostle writ to those that were not ignorant of Christian religion seeing they had learned alreadie the principles thereof and are exhorted by the Apostle to proceed to perfection therin Hebr. 6.1 Secondlie whereas the Apostle hath discoursed so plentifullie of the principal and soueraigne sacrifice what reason was there to keepe silence of the secondarie sacrifice as you call it Might they heare of the greater and not of the lesse Might the Apostle vrge so earnestlie vnto them the sacrifice of the crosse and might he not in a word mention the sacrifice of the Altar Coulde the one be more offensiue vnto them then the other Let all men iudge what trueth there is in this deuise Of that which followeth concerning this matter nothing deserueth answere pag. 540. saue onelie that Master Rainolds asketh of me whether Melchisedech did not sacrifice I saie no doubt Melchisedech did sacrifice for otherwise he had not bene a priest But Saint Paul saith he maketh no expresse mention thereof What then I praie you Forsooth by Master Whittakers iudgement Saint Paul omitteth some principall part of Melchisedechs priesthood Whoe euer heard a more foolish collection it was sufficient for the Apostle that Melchisedech was a priest which is confirmed by plaine testimonie of scripture to rehearse anie speciall kinde of sacrifice by him offered was nothing necessarie to the purpose in hand And therefore the Apostle hath not omitted any principall part of Melchisedechs priesthood vnles you will say it cannot be prooued necessarilie that one hath bene a priest except euerie particular sacrifice that euer was offered by him be recorded and auouched This being moste absurd see how vaine a conceite of yours this was that the Apostle hath omitted some principall parte of Melchisedechs priesthood because he hath not declared expresselie what speciall sacrifice Melchisedech offered An other example I noted out of the sixt Chapter to the Romanes pag. 543. c. in that notable place where the Apostle writeth that the stipend of sin is death but life euerlasting is the gift of God Rom. 6.23 Vpon these words our Rhemists haue noted that the sequell of speach required that as he saide death or damnation is the stipend of sinne so life euerlasting is the stipend of iustice and so it is Wherein euerie man may behould their intollerable saucines and presumption in setting the holie Apostle to schoole in controling his speach in corrupting his meaning For if the case had stood so clearlie and roundlie as these men teach that euen as condemnation is the stipend of finne so is eternall life the stipend of iustice it had bene as casie for the Apostle to haue so written as to alter his wordes and hauing saide that death is the wages of sinne to affirme after an other manner of speach that life euerlasting is not the wages of iustice but the gift and free gift of God And doutles according to the doctrine of S. Paul and the holie ghost it is no other
but proude blaspemie to saie as the Rhemists saie that as death is the stipend of sinne so life euerlasting is the stipend of iustice seing the one stipend is of meere due and desert the other onelie of grace and mercie so that if God would enter into iudgement with vs according to the rigour of his iustice we could not chalenge euerlasting life for any iustice that we had wrought as all the scriptures doe moste aboundantlie and plainelie teach Their onelie excuse hangeth vpon Saint Augustine whoe in a certaine epistle writeth Epist 105. 〈◊〉 Sixtura that euerlasting life is repayed to our merites going before and yet may it well be called grace because our merites are wrought in vs by grace not gotten by our owne habilitie to like effecte he writeth in diuerse other places of his workes and treatises as euerie one knoweth that hath bene conuersant in reading his bookes What then shal we graunt Saint Augustine to be an author of this Popish and Sorbonicall doctrine of iustification by merite of workes Nothing lesse The answere is easie and no more easie then true that by merites Saint Augustine vnderstandeth good workes after the manner of speach in latine and by stipend or reward he meaneth that benefite or gifte which God repaieth to good workes to the workers of iustice What difference then is there betweene our Sorbonists and Saint Augustine with whome we also consent In wordes may seeme no difference at all in substance and truth of doctrine as great difference as is betweene heauen and earth life and death God and man We know and confesse with Saint Augustine according to the doctrine of holie scripture that life eternall is a reward of iustice and good workes but not as death is a stipend of sinne according to the Sorbonists and Rhemists religion And howsoeuer Saint Augustine pleaseth them in his exposition of this place the which notwithstanding being rightlie vnderstood maketh nothing for them yet other fathers haue obserued of the Apostles wordes set downe in this manner that eternall life is onelie a gift not deserued but freelie bestowed and that this was the cause whie the Apostle applied not the name of stipend to life euerlasting as he had done before to death Looke vpon Origen in his commentaries vpon the fourth of the Romans and the latter end of the sixt And this as it is sound and sincere doctrine so must it also of all Christians necessarilie be confessed For he that sinneth hath deserued death worthilie in respect of the sinne committed which is a transgression of Gods will and commaundement and for which without remission there is no hope to escape eternall condemnation But can he that worketh well for one or two or moe good workes claime vnto himself as a due debt the kingdome of heauen for the same For what if the Lord will examine our workes straitlie according to his lawe in euerie circumstance our inward zeale loue intention desire of Gods glorie continuance and perseuerance in well doing conformitie of our will with the rule of Gods word and shall finde in the worke and in the worker great infirmitie manie wants much imperfection manifold sins in the meane time both in thought in worde and deed shall the good workes notwithstanding being thus tried found in them-selues insufficient vnanswerable to gods iustice and also hauing manie sinnes inherent together with them in the same person stand vp before the Lorde and chalenge of right the reward of life euerlasting in his kingdome Neuer durste yet anie childe of God vpon trust and confidence of his owne iustice chalenge such debt at the handes of God or yet appeare at all in his presence The Prophet Dauid although he were a holie man and had not onelie repented hartelie for his wicked deedes but also brought forth manifold fruites of repentance and regeneration yet desireth moste humblie of the Lord that he would not enter into iudgement with him psal 143.2 for so much as if he woulde so doe neither he nor anie man liuing could escape condemnation And againe If thou saith he wilt marke our iniquities O Lorde whoe can stand before thee psal 130. â— Wherein he plainlie teacheth that for a man to trust in his workes how good or glorious soeuer they are or seeme to be and vpon this confidence of his merites to looke for heauen as a due reward at gods handes is not onelie to deceiue himselfe but to incurre that iudgemente and condemnation which the Lord for his sinnes and vnworthines that by examination he findeth in him might iustlie cast vpon him Therefore he saith in another Psalme that they are happie not which haue good workes wherein to trust psal 32. â— but whose sinnes are forgiuen and whose iniquities are couered And this haue also all the godlie fathers of Christes Church euermore confessed that their workes of due and debt deserued nothing of the Lord but punishment and therefore disclaiming all their merites and acknowledging their owne manifolde transgressions and imperfections they flie to the Lordes mercie onlie and trust to be saued by grace and remission of their sins not by desert or merite of their righteousnes that they haue wrought Yea the Romane Church it selfe which moste of all magnifieth the merites of workes yet being secretlie and as it were vnwittingly caried away with sway of this trueth hath sometimes made open confession thereof and taught all hir children to sing an other song then that which now so commonly is heard amongst them of iustification and saluation through merite of their workes For in the seruice that is prescribed for the dead this praier is set forth to be vsed of all and is oftentimes repeated Domine quando veneris iudicare terram vbi me abscondam á vultu irae tuae Quia peccaui nimis in vita mea In officis defunctoruns Commissa mea pauesco ante te erubesco dum veneris iudicare noli me condemnare Quia peccaui nimis in vitamea that is O Lord when thou shalt come to iudge the earth where shal I hide my selfe from the presence of thy wrath Because I haue siâ—ned exceading lie in my life My misdedes I am afraid of and I blush before thee when thou shalt come to iudge condemne me not For I haue sinned exceadingly in my life Thus is euerie one taught to praie and this you confesse to be a good praier and necessarie for all to vse as at other times so especially when death approcheth And verelie howsoeuer it is now for a fashion with great countenaunce and vehement disputation auouched by some that we merite heauen by our good workes yet I am perswaded that no aduersarie of conscience can otherwise thinke or dare in perill of death otherwise saie but that he hath deserued for his sinnes punishment and death euerlasting and cannot auoide the same if God will render to his workes the reward that of due belongeth vnto them and therefore casting awaie all trust in his workes will aske pardon and mercy not claime any debt or due reward of the Lord. So though in their life time many of them be obstinatlie bent and haue in their mouth nothing so much as good workes merite rewarde due debt recompense for their wel doing yet the time drawing neer when they must holde vp their handes at the barâ—e of the Lords iudgement seat and there must make answere for themselues and their workes must be tried by the lawe of God they giue ouer their former confidence they haue no ioie in them-selues yea they distrust their owne workes they tremble and quake inwardly they are in fearfull heauines and perplexitie of minde they knowe not whither to turne them-selues and if God giue such grace vnto them then they see and forsake their error of deseruing heauen then they confesse they are sinners and therfore guiltie of death and then learne that lesson in their end which afore in their life time they would not vnderstand Yet doth euerie faithfull Christian keeping as much as in him lieth the commandements of God hope for the kingdome of heauen aske eternall life yea and also in some sorte promise to his workes the crowne of glorie not for merite and worthines of his works but in respect of Gods meere mercy whoe hath promised to bestowe vpon vs and our workes greater reward then we can possiblie deserue This is the difference betweene the doctrine of Christ of the Prophets of the Apostles and of the fathers which we follow and the doctrine of the Sorbonistes and Rhemists and all Papists which whoe so holdeth shall be sure neuer to be saued Thus appeereth how vaine and childish it is that you intitle your schoole of Sorbone with the names of Salomon Dauid Esaie Ieremy Peter Paule Augustine as though they had euer bene entred into that Colledge and taken degree in your schoole whereas whosoeuer marketh the point of difference betweene their doctrine and that of Sorbone shall plainlie perceiue they were no Sorbonists nor euer alowed the Sorbonicall and pharisaicall iustice of merites How ignorantlie you obiect shamefull ignorance to me maie appeere by that which now and before hath bene aunswered it being indeed manifest that your selfe either know not the true state of the controuersie or els haue replied neuer a word aptlie to purpose Soli Deo sit gloria ERRATA Pa 37. lin 17. strange p. 86 15 there p. 143.1 meaning p. 144.17 renegates P 294 21 as well p 334.5 is as corrupt pag. 351 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in certaine copies p. 159. the last line and pag. 160. the first line read it thus before Valentinian to haue a Councell that a Councell by the Emperour c. Other errors perhaps haue escaped but the reader I trust will easilie espie correct and pardon them Imprinted by THOMAS THOMAS Printer to the Vniuersitie of Cambridge 1585.
a weakenes of your braine which causeth you to vtter such idle talke All Protestants not onelie I confesse that Melchisedech was a Priest that he offered sacrifice doth it follow therefore M. R. that the sacrifice was in bread wine as you pretend whome then do I forsake with whome doe I ioyne what fantasie is this that troubleth your head so much In this taking you beginne to throw out arguments Pag 63. which must needs be full simplie and miserably made Howbeit sooner may you deuise manie formall syllogismes for your facrifice then make one sound reason in diuinity for confirmation thereof Thus you haue framed your argument with your owne hands A Sillogisme of M. R. examined answered That Christ did and appointed to be done that may ought to be done But Christ at his last supper offered sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech and appointed the Apostles and priests to doe the same Ergo the Apostles priests may ought to offer sacrifice This syllogisme seemeth to be terriblye compounded and to prooue inuincibly the sacrifice of the Masse doutlesse Master Rainolds is persuaded he shall herewith fray vs all away But be not dismaied good Reader the light driueth darkenesse before it and trueth cannot be vanquished with an armie of false arguments be they neuer so cunningly framed much lesse with such slender sophismes as these Your Assumption hath two partes they both are false whereof the conclusion following cannot be hable to looke the trueth in the face For where you say I haue acknowledged the former part I acknowledge no such thing nor euer did Two graund and capitall vntrueths in the assumption of M. R. Syllogisme Christ at his last supper offered no sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech Christ appointed not the Apostles nor any els to offer the same Neither of these parts shall you prooue whilst you liue though you liue the last on the earth For what sacrifice offered Christ at his supper and what was the effect thereof was this a sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech then was it not the same he offered on the Crosse for that was not of Melchisedechs order being not in bread and wine as you will haue it but the verie bodie of Iesus Christ But your Church maintaineth that the sacrifice which Christ offered at his supper was the same that he offered on the Crosse Thus handsomelie your dreames hang togeather Againe if Christ at his supper offered such a sacrifice as was prefigured by Melchisedech which you affirme then must it followe that Christ fulfilled that figure perfectlie and so the same sacrifice nead no more to be offered whereof ensueth the desolation of your masmōgers whose occupation onelie and whollie standeth in renewing the sacrifice of the masse Then would I demaund what vertue and effect that sacrifice had which you teach to haue bene offered by Christ at his supper Did Christ thereby fullie appease the wrath of his father Did he fullie redeme mankinde Or did he these things but yet so slenderly insufficiently that there needed another sacrifice after namelie his owne death vpon the Crosse Answere plainlie as becommeth a diuine yea a Christian yea a reasonable man A true Syllogisme opposed against M. Ram. false hereticall Syllogisme And because you framed an argument for me as you say I will doe as much for you and thus I frame you another If Christ offered are all externall sacrifice of him selfe at his supper in bread wine then did Christ fully redeeme mankinde by a sacrifice made in bread and wine But Christ redeemed not the world by a sacrifice made in bread wine but by the sacrifice of his owne bodie vpon the crosse Ergo Christ offered no such sacrifice in bread and wine at his supper The partes are plaine need no further proofe And where you say that seeing Christ was prefigured by Aaron Melchisedech therefore he offered a sacrifice both in bloody maner as Aaron did and in vnbloodie as did Melchisedech I see you labour to put life into the dead carcase of your argument but all in vaine For it cannot be shewed either by scriptures or els by anie ancient fathers of the Church that Christ offered any reall sacrifice but onelie in bloody maner Heb. 10.14 Wherefore the Apostle so often repeateth the word Once excluding thereby all other maners of offering this sacrifice but one By one oblation saith the Apostle hath he made perfect for euer those that are sanctified Tell vs what maner of oblation that was bloody or vnbloodie bloodie I trust you will confesse and therefore no vnbloodie was necessary which neither could haue holpen seeing without shedding of blood there is not anie remission of sinnes Heb. 9.22 Whereby also may appeare that though the sacrifice of the masse be gainfull to such Popish Priests as M. R. his companions are yet in trueth being vnbloodie it is vtterlie vnfitte and vnhable to purchase remission of sins Such marchandize is lightlie to be valued as it deserueth But to answere a litle further concerning Melchisedech the similitude between him and Christ consisteth not in offering vnbloodie sacrifice In what respects Melchisedech was a figure of Christ as you vntruelie and wickedlie imagine but as the Apostle teacheth in that Melchisedech was both a king and a priest and is sette forth vnto vs in the scripture as eternall and more excellent then Abraham and the Leuitical priests In these respects was he a figure of Christ the eternal king and priest farre excelling al the priests of the Leuiticall order Because these thinges make nothing for your sacrifice you deuise a matter that was not to prooue a thing that is not and so build one lie vpon another the vnbloody sacrifice of Christ vpon the vnbloodie sacrifice of Melchisedech But this is the iust iudgement of the Lord vpon you that seing you haue troden vnder your feet the blood of the euerlasting Testament you should be giuē ouer to effectual illusions to embrace an vnbloodie sacrifice which is the deuise of your owne braine for the true glorius sacrifice of Christ vpō the crosse This former argument of M.R. hath begotten another like to it selfe Pag. 64. or rather more monstrous Thus it standeth An other Syllogisme of M. Rain like to the former answered They whoe may ought to offer sacrifice as did first Melch. afterward Christ are truely properlie sacerdotes But priests of the new Testament may ought to offer sacrifice in such sort ergo they are truly properly sacerdotes priests The Minor is the same with the conclusiō of your other argument as euidently false as the word of god is clearlie vndoutedlie true For if your priests offer sacrifice as Melchisedech and Christ did then are they priests of Melch. order not priests onely but kings For so was he the figure so is
Christ the truth You cannot pul in sunder these two offices but if you wil needs be priests that properly according to this order of Melchis then seeing that order of priesthood hath a kingdome inseparablie annexed to it it must necessarilie followe that you are also kinges and that properlie which were a verie proper thing indeede and greatlie to be accounted of Popish priests if they be according to Melchisedechs order must not be priests onelie but also kings If you deuide these offices in sunder it is blasphemy making a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech whoeis not also a king If you take both iointlie to your selues then will euerie hedge Priest be a gentleman a lord a King As this is most absurd monstrous so is that also that you should be priests according to Melchisedechs order For then further ought you to be eternall without beginning or ending of daies without father or mother as Melchisedech is described vnto vs in the scriptures and as Christ is in trueth and onely Christ So taking vpon you this priesthood of Melchisedech you commit horrible sacriledge and treason against the person of Christ our sauiour who will in time tread such vermine vnder his feete that creeping on the earth do presumptuously chalenge to themselues his speciall prerogatiues and royalties S. Augustine calling the ministers of the Gospell Priests speaketh improperlie Pag. 65. August de eiuit dei Lib. 20 cap. 10. as hath bene answered For although he saieth that all Christians are vnproperly called Preists and others in the Church are so called properly yet he meaneth not that there are anie such preists in the Church as Melchisedech or Aaron or Christ was but onelie that they are so termed by an vsuall and peculiar name which is not in custome of speach giuen generallie to all Christians This to haue bene S. Augustines meaning and the iudgement of the Church heretofore we may learne of Peter Lumbard How the fathers cal the ministers of the Gospell Priests Sent. lib. 4. Dist 12. â— to let the auncient writers passe For Peter first asketh this question whether that which the Preist doth may properly be called a sacrifice oblation His answere he maketh thus To this may be said briefly that which is offered and consecrated of the Priest is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is the remembrance and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation that was made vppon the altar of the crosse Yf then there remaine in the Church no sacrifice in proper and natural sense of the word as your owne doctour and Master of sentences confesseth there can not be remaining any Priests that maie so be called properlie For such as the kinde of sacrifice is such is also the kinde of priesthood if the sacrifice be not a sacrifice properly the priesthood cannot be a Priesthood properly but onely by a figuratiue and vnproper maner of speach That Augustine was a priest him-selfe Pag. 66. August Cofes Lib. 9. cap. 11.12.13 you labour to prooue out of his booke of Confessions in which place though he speak of an altar and sacrifice yet he meaneth not such altares and sacrifices as you haue erected and offered in all places This sacrifice that he speaketh of is the sacrament of Christes death the altar is the Lords table the remembrance of his mother in offering this sacrifice on the altar is giuing of thankes to God for her in celebrating the Lords supper Although I denie not but the superstition of praying for the dead was then crept into the Church so that if you will needes vrge that Monica desired to haue praiers made for her I will not greatly stand with you herein But that anie real sacrifice of Christ as you meane was offered for quick or dead in those daies that I denie and you can not prooue it by this or anâ— other testimonie of S. Augustine Where I saie that Christ hath committed his Church to be ruled by Pastors and Doctors for euer and not to Priestes pag. 67. you demaund whether this appointment had effect or no giue me warning to beware as though some danger were at hand what I answere But we shall easilie I trust driue awaie this craking Annibal from the gates of our Citie who commeth only to make a shew and hath no force to hurt Ephi 4.11 Ministers of the Gospell are ueuer called priests in the new Testament That Christ ordained Pastors and Doctors to rule his Church the scripture is plaine so that you may not forshame deny it now if these were priests trulie and properlie then should they haue bene so called and by this name commended vnto vs in the scriptures But wheras their office is declared diuerslie in great varietie of names yâ—t is this name neuer once giuen vnto them in no Gospell in no epistle in no booke of the new testament And maie we thinke that if the ministers of Christ in the new Testament were by Gods institution verie Priestes as these men beare vs in hand and had commission to offer so excellent a sacrifice as no Priest euer the like saue Christ himselfe may we thinke I saie or is it likelie that this name should neuer haue bene found in all the new Testament in this sense where are so manifold titles giuen vnto them as of Elders Ouerseers Rulers Shepheards Watchmen Ministers Stewards Seruants and such like Of all which names none pleaseth their humor but Priests they wil be called accounted as though Gods spirite which appointeth offices in the Church could not haue giuen fit names vnto them but would rather giue them anie name then that which is their proper name Anie man then that hath but halfe an eie maie soone see that the holie ghost in auoiding this name so carefullie hath giuen our Popish Priests a cleane wipe and both left them out of the dore and shut the dore against them though they striue neuer so much to creepe in yet are they to be driuen awaie by lawfull authoritie and kept forth as they that haue nothing at all to do in Gods howse But here M. Rainolds hath gotten a doughtie argument which I thinke because he knew not how to bring it in fitly in some other place hath halde it in here out of place He bids me shew where this Church for many hundred yeares was gogouerned thus which is as common an argument with them to vse his owne words as Dunstable hiewaie For this reason is euen their common pack-horse to beare the wholl burthen when all other faile where was your Church where were your ministers before Luther Whereunto that you may perceiue how farre we disagree from the Donatistes of whome you speake I answere that our Church was neuer so straited but that it might be found in all countreis christened and our ministers had the chiefest roomes till Antichrist by litle and litle had driuen them out and then afterwards