Stinckfâ—ldius and their scholer vvhether they be at Zuruke or in vvhat place else soeuer vnder the sâ—nne Thus Luther If you know this Maister Whitaker as you wil seeme to be ignorant of nothing what maketh you so busily to defend Luthers barbarous and proude vauntes as though he were such a piller without whom your church could not stande But belyke it is sufficient that he was an Apostata frier as were the founders of your gospel that he with you agreed in rayling at the Pope and Sea of Rome and so for his agreeing with you in these smaler toyes you care not for his disagreeing from you in those weightie matters Wel be it as you liste and perhaps you haue more reason then I perceaue otherwise you shall neuer be able to iustifie this demeanure in the sight of any man endued with common sence Let vs heare how conningly you cure this stinking sore for nothing stinketh more before the face of God and man then a poore contemptible wretch so Lucifer-lyke to prefer him selfe before inumerable excellent learned and glorious Saintes of God What distinction haue you to saue Luthers honestie Forsooth this In certaine cases Luther might more esteeme of his ovvne iudgement then of Austine Ciprian or a thousand Churches For if that vvhich Luther taught vvere agreable to Gods vvord then Luthers iudgment vvas to be preferred before the contrarie iudgment of al men and Churches Here M. VV. thinketh he hath spoken much to the purpose and therefore aduaunceth him selfe alofte Scripturam Lutherus protulit cuinullus mortalis resistit quaeque tandem Pontificiis decretis pesteÌ„ atque exitium afferet Luther brought vvith him scripture vvhich no mortall man can vvithstand and vvhich at length shall be the bane and distruction of the Popish decrees That I may the better conceaue this distinction and ether yelde to it if it stand with reason or discouer the vanitie of it if it fal out to be but a peeuish battologie of wordes as I trowe it will proue let me require a playner explication of that parte Luther might vvell prefer his iudgment before a thousand Austines Ciprianes and Churches if he spake vvith scripture Is this the meaning that in case and controuersie of religion if a thousand Ciprians that is all the Fathers teach vs one thing and bringe scriptures for them and one father Luther teach vs the contrarie and bringe scriptures for him may Luther in this case preferre his owne iudgement before al those Fathers if so as the speach it selfe is so monstrous execrable as the deuil him selfe can not open his mouth into more horrible pride so what heresie what Apostasie what Atheisme in the church can euer be coÌ„trouled if this rule be made currante why shoud Arrius yelde to the Councel of Nice Nestorius to the Councel of Ephesus Macedonius to the CouÌ„cel of Constantinople seinge they brought scriptures for them and by this rule ought to haue preferred their priuate iudgment before those byshops as Luther his offpringe doe theirs before the Councel of Trente or will he say that if perhaps a thousand Austines and Churches teache some doctrine without the writteÌ„ worde of God that is citing no text for it Luther against the same bring the written worde that is some texte of the scripture after his seÌ„se in this case he may better esteeme of himselfe then of al the rest But first he can neuer geue instance that ether the auncient fathers did so in their tymes or that we do so now for howsoeuer in the Councels of Nice of Ephesus of Chalcedon the byshops stoode much vppoÌ„ the traditioÌ„ of their elders ea que sunt patrum teneantur say they sic credere à sanctis patribus edocti sumus let vs hold fast the fayth and decrees of our fathers thus to beleeue vve haue bene taught by our holye fathers yet they waÌ„ted not scriptures as nether did the fathers in the Councel of Trent nor we at this day in our controuersies with the protestantes And if those auncient fathers had alleaged no direct euident place against Arrius Nestorius Eutyches yet notwithstanding the Christian people were bound to beleeue them grounding them selues only vpoÌ„ the Catholike vniuersal fayth of the churches which were before them as they did in the question of our B. Ladies perpetual virginitie And albeit the heretike brought some clauses of scripture for the coÌ„trary part yet ought al faithful men to yeld no more credit thereto theÌ„ to the deuil when he alleaged scripture against our sauiour because as the deuil so al heretikes may vse scripture against the true sense and meaning thereof the vniuersal church caÌ„ neuer teach or beleeue so as by Christ him self we are assured And this case in effect coÌ„meth to one issue with the former for geue this scope to an heretike that all the Bishops Churches Fathers may erre he alone if he can alleage a text may therefore rightly contemne al other in respecte of him selfe as euery Sectmaister doth and hath done where is the Churches quietnes what order is there for coÌ„tinuance of fayth to what ende was the comminge of Christ to what vse the sendinge of the holy Ghost Or perhaps M. W. wil say posito per impossibile that all the Churches fathers teach against scripture Luther alone teache with scripture then lo Luther maye thinke him selfe a better man then they all and this is true this I graunte as in like maner I confesse that if the heauen shoulde falle we knowe what woulde folow And yet of these two suppositions the Spirit of God putteth the later to be more possible that the course of heauen shal soner alter then the Catholike Churche of the new TestameÌ„te fal frome Christe to Apostasie But it may be M.VV. wil say I scanne his wordes to narrowlie his meaning is plaine that whereas Luther bringeth scriptures against vs that is against all the Austines and Ciprianes of the Catholike Church all the Byshops now liuinge he maye well truste his owne iudgmente if this be the meaning yet stil al commeth to one ende and whie may Luther so do more then Caluine whie Caluine more then Muncerus whie a ZwingliaÌ„ more then a Puritane Anabaptiste or Trinitarian Or what assurance hath he more then those other But if Luthers iudgment bringinge scriptures with him be so forcible against vs may not we trow you Lutherize a litle after your example and say the same against you As for example Luther hath made a booke entituled defensio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verborum coenae accipite comedite hoc est corpus meum contra fanaticos SacramentarioruÌ„ spiritus In that booke not very longe or large yet contayninge more substaÌ„ce then some whole volumes of his do his principal conclusion risinge vpon this texte of scripture and grounded vpon many texts of scripture beside is that he and his vvill
that it svvarueth from the Apostolicall doctrine and teacheth cleane contrarie to S. Paule and all scriptures if Luther flatly expresly deny it to be Apostolical and affirme it to conteyne no one title or letter of such matter as the Apostels are wont to haÌ„dle if WolfgaÌ„gus Musculus vse him so contemptuouslie as though he were some poore rascall not worth the naming and teache him what he should say and sette him to schole this being euident then F. Campions conclusion standeth strong that Luther with his complices contemne that parte of scripture howsoeuer he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strawen or wodden And therefore ether let M. VV. lyke a good childe confesse with Luther vvhom gladlie he vvorshippeth as his father and vvith the Lutherans vvhom he embraceth as his most deere brethren in Christ that this epistle is no more worth then his father and brethren make of it or if he mislike such consanguinitie as sure I am they abhorre him let him then detest them as profane and wicked men who so impiouslie reiecte the written worde of God that is the foundation as they say whereon is buylte their newe congregation and so may the reader note downe one more capital and substantiall point of dissension betwene those two churches lutheran zuinglian then heâ—herto he hath consâ—dered although nether can he so doe precisely but rather note it as a diuision amonge the zuinglians also for so muche as it appeareth by Musculus that the Zuinglians of SuitzerlaÌ„d no lesse then the LutheraÌ„s of Germanye disagree from the Englishe churche in their Canon of scripture yea the Englishe church within it self as shal appeare in the nexte chapiter CHAP. II. Of the Canonical scriptures and that the English cleargie in accepting some and refusinge others are ledde by no learning or diuinitie but by mere opinion and fantasie AFTER S. Iames foloweth a questioÌ„ proposed by M. Martin how it chauÌ„ceth that the English church doth admit S. Iames epistle which sometime was not admitted and yet wil refuse Tobias Ecclesiasticus the books of Machabees which were no farther disproued then that of S. Iames. The reason in truth is the same in effecte geuen by M.VV. because these later contayne such proofe of the Catholyke religion as by no sophisticatioÌ„ can be eluded S. Iames they thinke is not so flat but shifts they haue to ridde their handes of him well inough So much writeth Caluin Some there are that thinke this epistle not vvorthie of authoritie but I because I see no sufficiente cause vvhy it should be reiected gladly vvithout controuersie embrace it for vvhereas the doctrine of free iustification semeth to be refuted in the second chapiter in his place I shall easelie ansvvere that matter As if he had sayd that therefore he admitted it because he had found out a quidditie to auoide that hard obiection agaynst only faith which answere notwithstaÌ„ding because it is false peeuish sophistical and cannot abide the tryall as wel proueth Illyricus Pomerane Musculus they therfore thought the other way more cleanlie rather vppoÌ„ preteÌ„ce of some doubte made in the primitiue churche cleane to shake it of with the rest then vppon a vaine toy which must in fine shame it selfe make hazard of their solifidian iustificatioÌ„ which must needes come to the grounde if this Apostle retaine his old credite This I say in deede is the reason but because thus to haue spoken plainlie had geuen a sure demonstratioÌ„ to the reader that they make no more account of scriptures then of fathers no more reckning of Iames or Peter then of Gregorie or Austin if they be against their conceaued heresies therefore M. VVhit semeth to shape a more cleanlie answere and this yt is All the church saith he reproued not the epistle of Iames and they that reproued it vvere moued so to doe by no sure reasons but these bookes vvhich you name Tobias Ecclesiasticus the Machabees the vvhole churche of old reiected nether vvere they vvritten in the Hebrevv tounge vvhereas no bookes of the old testament vvere Canonicall but onlie those vvhich the lord commended to the old churche Two reasoÌ„s he seemeth to geue the first that no bookes in the olde TestameÌ„t are Canonicall but such as were written in the Hebrew the proofe wherof consisting onlie in M.VV. authoritie without ether reason or probabilitye or Doctor or Councell if I oppose against him S. Augustine with the catholike churche of that age I trust the reader wil not greatlie stagger which syde he ought to take and if this reason hold I marueile what shall become of Daniel a great parte wherof is held of them for Canonical yet is not writteÌ„ in the Hebrew His other argument is of more force that the vvhole primitiue church refused the bookes of Machabees Iudith Tobie but certaine onlv that vppon no good reason refused S. Iames. These two partes if he proue and shew this difference he sayth somewhat I wil be of iudgement as he is if not whereof I assure my self then as before so here styll lust and fantasie ruleth them in mangling thus the scriptures not reason diuinytie let vs see how he proueth that the whole churche reiected the former S. Hierom sayth the church readeth the bookes of Iudith Tobias the Machabees but reckeneth theÌ„ not amongst canonicall scriptures This for them how may we fynd now that not the whole churche but some particuler men and they not vppon any good reason refused S. Iames For this part we must credit M.VV. vppon his worde for besyde his worde reason or coniecture he yeldeth none but coÌ„trariwise to disproue this his distinction and approue that without reason or conscience he and his fellowes haue made choyse of the one with condemnation of the other thus to do M.VV. him selfe ministreth vs mattet abundant for thus he wryteth in his first booke in iustifiynge frier Luther against S. Iames. Luther vvas not ignorante vvhat the aunciente church iudged of Iames his epistle Eusebius doubted not to vvrite of that epistle expresslie I vvold have all men to knovv that the epistle vvhich is ascribed to Iames is a bastarde epistle vvhat could be writteÌ„ more plainly but perhaps Eusebius pleaseth you not geue me a reasoÌ„ vvhy heare then Hierome vvhom you knovv to have bene a Priest of the Romane Church The epistle of Iames is auouched to have bene set forth by some other in his name the one affirmeth it to be a counterfeite the other saith it is supposed to have bene published not by the Apostle but by some other vvhy then are you angrie vvith Luther vvhom you see not suddenlie or rashlie first to have begon to doubâ—e of that epistle but therein to folovve the iudgement â—â—stimonie of the auncient Church Let vs now ioyne together these two proofes of M. VV. with consideration what thence
In the nevv Testament S. Lukes Gospel The Epistle to the Hebrewes The Epistle of Saint Iames. The 2. of S. Peter The 2. 3. of S. Iohn S. Iude. The Apocalyps Vnto these partly your selues in your common bibles partly your brethren ioyne certayne other peeces both of the olde Testament and of the new as The prayer of Manasses Paralip lib. 2. The songe of the three children The story of Bel. Canticum canticorum and a parte of S. Iohns Gospel some of these held for canonicall these fiftene hundred yeares some these twelue hundred all aboue a thousand Nexte your distinction of the vvhole Church and some of the Church were it true as it is most false is vtterly refuted by these your owne doctors for by their sentence whatsoeuer hath bene doubted of not onely in the whole Church but in a part for they goe not about to proue that these were doubted of in the whole Church and leaste of all S. Lukes Gospell that may you doubte of and number amongst the bookes Apocriphal and both you and they proue as substantially that S. Iames was doubted of as you proue the same of Iudith Hester the Machabees or any other sauing that they fowly ouerreach them selues when they affirme that S. Lukes Gospell with those other was leaft out and not receaued for Canonical in the Prouincial Councel of Laodicea and the same confirmed by a general Councel afterward Then commeth to my remembrāce your profoūd argumēt against M. Campian in defence of Luther Luther despiseth S. Iames his epistle saith M. Campian you answere Bene habet crimen hoc omne Iacobi epistolam attingit c. That goeth vvell All this fault toucheth only Iames epistle Luther doth not in a vvorde violate Matthevv Marke Luke or Iohn nor Paule nor Peter only he somevvhat shaketh vppe Iames epistle A deepe reason as though S. Iames beinge canonical scripture were not to be esteemed as honorably and violated as litle as S. Peter or any of the other and as though he in so writing and you in so defendinge doe not lay the way open to shake of and violate all the reste as wel as that For now if a man burden you with the refusal of S. Luke your defence is already prouided bene habet al goeth vvel Al this faulte toucheth only S. Luke Our doctors doe not in a vvorde violate Matthevv Marke Iohn nor Paule nor Peter only vve somevvhat shake vp Lukes Gospel and so peece-meale til none be leafte you may and will shake out one after an other stil Bene habet all goeth vvell vntill you fall to open profession of Atheisme in the broade way whereof you are farre wel gone already Fourthlye because in the end of your preface yow bragge so much of your forefathers that they haue euer vāquished ours here you put vs in mind what forefathers those are Hetherto your forefathers were knowen to be Aerius in denying prayer sacrifice for the dead Vigilantius of whom yow learned to condemne the inuocatiō of Saintes honor done to them in the Church Iouinian in breaking vowes of chastitie deliberatelye made to God and making the state of matrimonye touching merite equal in the sight of God with the state of virginitie continentie Which men notwithstanding were forced to yeld to our forefathers S. Epiphanius S. Hierom and S. Augustine as hetherto al Christendom is witnes and therefore were not such victorious capitaynes as you woulde make them In this place as though your purpose were to ouerbeare vs with number and make your armye so much the more stronge you multiplye and set in ranke againste vs more fathers For whereas you so blasphemouslye speake of the booke of Iudith that it is far vnvvorthy to be called scripture and yet match S. Luke and the Apocalyps with it whereas you saye most plainlye of these and al the forenamed bookes that yow are not bound to admit them but may refuse them that they be read for moral lessons not for matters of religion you simplye disallow for canonical those two bookes And who are your fathers herein but those auncient Archheretikes Marcion and Cerdon those other for ther brutishnes called Alogi or Bruti In which your doinge as the reader may easely perceaue how yow trotte forwarde to playne Apostasie from Christe by callinge now the verye Gospel into questiō so why we should number you amongest those olde Brutishe heretikes your selues yeald vs more abūdāt reasō thē our fathers had in calling them by that name For your self M.VV. cōfesse and proue your doctors and maisters to be the most sensles and brutishe creatures that euer wēt on the earth For to auoide directe answeringe to the question proposed you hovv you knovv the bookes vvhich you call scripture to be heauenlye and penned by diuine inspiration that is by vvhat testimonie you knovv those vvritinges to be canonical or holye vvhich be so called you say and I vvith as good reason vvill demaund of you hovv you knovve the sunne to be the sunne or hovv you assure your self that God is God for vve knovv as assuredlye that these are the holy scriptures cōmēded by God to his Church vvritten by the Prophetes and Apostles and deliuered by diuine authorytie as vve knovv the moone to be the moone or at a vvord any other thinge vvhatsoeuer vve comprehend by most certaine knovvledge and this ansvvere Caluine also geueth you And this answere I admitte from you and Caluine and hereof I conclude that you are more trulye called Alogi and brutishe then were those other auncient heretikes For was there euer in the worlde any so notable a Choraebus or Grillus hauinge the shape of man that fell at brawlinge disputinge with his friēdes whether the sunne which we see were the sūne or the moone the moone as you do against Luther your churches against the Lutheranes whether S. Iames epistle be canonical then yf you thinke right as I truste you wil speake wel of your selfe with the same breath you condemne your father Luther and your brethren the Lutheranes for the veriest sottes and stockes that euer liued for they know not the moone they know not the sunne which to you shineth so bright cleare And to oppose your self vnto your brethrē at home and to your owne self how say you to S. Luke to the epistles of S. Peter Iude Iohn the Apocalyps be they canonical or no yf you say yea as I thinke you will or at the lest that was your opinion in September laste as your booke sheweth then your doctors now denyinge the same you see what is to be concluded that one parte of you is as wise as those former who know not the sunne from the moone Yf you denie and be of their iudgmente as it may be very wel your faith beinge as mutable as is the moone yet so you proue your self
no wiser then they who in so shorte space haue falleÌ„ out with your self altered your iudgmeÌ„te and now esteeme that for apocriphal which then was to yow canonical that is now iugde that to be the moone which then you thought to be the sunne Our lorde geue his people grace to thinke of you as you proue your selues that is so fantastical inconstant that you know not what to say and whyles you seeke to keepe your selfe aloofe from the Catholike churche the sure piller grouÌ„de of truâ—he you plunge your selues ouerhead and eares in such foule absurdities as neuer did heretikes before you For what is the reason of al this because besydes the written word or scripture yow wil not acknowledge any traditioÌ„ of the Church wherevnto by this question yow are enforced of necessitie For if we are bound to beleeue certaine bookes as for example the Gospel of S. Matthew S. Marke S. Iohn and S. Paules Epistles to be Canonical that is heaueÌ„ly and peÌ„ned by diuine inspiration and yet the same can not be proued by scripture theÌ„ cleare it is that we are bound to beleeue somewhat which by scripture caÌ„ not be proued and so the tradition of the Church is established And marueyle it is that yow perceaue not how grosly yow ouerthwart your self and plainly refel that which yow would seeme most earnestly to confirme For if yow march your beleefe of scripture with knowledg of the Sunne and Moone and such like as are knowen by only sense the light of nature then you deny it to be any article of your faith For these two are directly opposite and the apostle confirmeth this reason wheÌ„ he defineth faith to come by hearing and hearing by the vvord of God ergo fides ex auditu auditus per verbuÌ„ Dei And therefore if you beleeue not with humaine faith as yow beleeue Tusculanes questions to haue bene written by Cicero but with Christian diuine faith as yow beleeue Christ to be your sauiour if thus you beleeue the Gospel which beareth S. Matthews name as likewise that of S. Marke and S. Iohn to haue bene written by them then yow beleeue so because so yovv haue heard it preached and so yovv haue receaued and consequently by the Apostles authoritie that verie matter so preached vnto yow is the vvord of God which word of God whereas yow find not in the scriptures hereof it foloweth manifestly that somewhat is the vvord of God which is not scripture and therefore yow and your fellowes beleeuing only scripture beleeue not al the vvord of God but only a peece thereof and so did the worste heretikes that euer were yea so do at this day the verie Turkes and Mahometanes But to end this special matter with yow M. VV. touching your distinction betweene S. Iames and Tobias Iudith the Machabees c. where you make this to be the difference that S. Iames vvas refused but of a fevv and the other generally of the vvhole Churche tota Ecclesia repudiauit say you for declaration of your truth herein I referre you to the moste euident testimonies of the same auncient Churche S. Augustine setting downe the Canonicall scriptures as they were read and beleeued in his time placeth S. Iames I coÌ„fesse in order with the Gospels Pauls epistles yet not excludiÌ„g those other but in the selfe same place numbringe Tobie Iudith and the Machabees with the bookes of Moses and the Prophetes his saith he 44. libris veteris testameÌ„ti terminatur authoritas In these fourtie and foure bookes is concluded the authoritie of the old testament Likewise the Councel of Carthage approueth for Canonicall S. Iames but in the same CanoÌ„ it approueth as far the other forenamed and teacheth of them as directlie as of the other that they are Canonicall scriptures Somewhat before S. Augustines daies they were not by publike decree of the Church receaued as appeareth by S. Hierome and the Councel of Laodicea but then when there was as greate doubte of S. Iames epistle S. Paule to the Hebrewes and the Apocalyps touchinge the first it is manifest by that which hath bene said by you and your felowes Of the secoÌ„d there was more question then of the first and S. Hierome seldome citeth it but he geueth a note signifyinge that it was not in his time taken for Canonical In the Epistle to the Hebrevves vvhich the custome of the Latine Church receaueth not saith he it is thus vvritten Againe the blessed Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrevves although the custome of the Latin Church receaueth it not amongst Canonicall scriptures Againe this authoritie the Apostle Paule vsed or vvhosoeuer he vvere that vvrote that Epistle In catalogo he saith that euen vnto his time it vvas not accounted the vvritinge of Paule and that Caius an auncient writer denyeth it to be his and in his epistle to Paulinus sette before the Bible he saith that a plaerisque extra numerum ponitur of the more part it is put out of the nuÌ„ber of Paules vvritinges The like might be declared by S. CipriaÌ„ Lactantius Tertullian Arnobius and S. Austine if it were needefull and the Apocalyps was yet more doubtful then ether of these two as wee see by the Councel of Laodicea leafte oute of the rolle of Canonicall writinges when both the other of S. Iames and S. Paule were put in Wherefore as false that is which M.VV. constantlie auoucheth of the auncient Church touchinge the seueringe of these sacred volumes so hath he not yet nor euer shalbe able with reason to satisfie M. Martins demaund why they of England haue coÌ„desceÌ„ded to admit the one rather then the other And here the reader may consider esteeme as it deserueth of that glorious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in fine he singeth to him self settinge the crowne of triumphe vppon his owne head and his felowes Nothing saith he is novv more vulgar then the Papists arguments against vs. Quicquid afferri a quoquam potuit vidimus diluimus protriuimus vvhat so euer could be said of anie of them al vve haue seene it refelled it and trode it vnder foote he may consider I saie how like this man and his companions are to worke such maisteries who as yet knowe not what those weapons are which they should vse in atchiuing such conquests For whereas they vaunt to doe this by the written worde yet are not resolued amoÌ„gest them selues what that written word is and how farre it extendeth it is as fantastical a parte to bragge of victorie as if a mad man should ruÌ„ne into the field to slea his enemie and when he commeth there knoweth not with what weapon to begin the fight Wherefore wel may he and his felowes heare and see the Catholike doctrine as Esai speaketh of the Iewes concerninge the doctrine of Christ hearing shal you heare shall not vnderstand and seeing shal yovv
scriptures and Caluine more execrable then the rest addeth that the aūciēt Church expressed the verie forme and type of the Aaronical Leuitical sacrificing eo excepto quòd panis hostia loco animalis vtebantur sauing that insteed of a beast they vsed bread all which proueth that in propre maner of speache they sacrificed and therefore by your owne definitiō in propre speache were priestes And finallie doth not Illyricus with his companions confesse in worde proue by deede that sacrifices were ordinarelie offered to God in the flower of the primitiue Church in the middest of the persequutions for the soules departed in the honor of Saintes for general and particular necessities as is now vsed in the Churche of Rome Thus write they To this end S. Cyprian in his third booke and sixte epistle to the priestes of Rome willeth those dayes diligentlie to be noted wherein the martyrs departed this life In the same place he speaketh of oblations sacrifices obserued in the memories of martyrs Let vs be informed sayth Tertullian vvhat be those dayes vvherein our blessed brethren by glorious death passe to immortalitie that vve here may celebrate oblations and sacrifices in remēbrance of thē And there is verie cōmon mētion of oblations in Tertullian as in his booke de corona militis vve offer sacrifices yerelie for the dead and for byrthdayes S. Cyprian saith that oblations and sacrifices vvere yerelie made in the remembrance of martyrs lib. 3. epist 6. lib. 4. epist 5. li. 1. epis 9. he speaketh of sacrifice for the dead And to end with one sentēce of S. Cyprian by them alleaged thus they cite him Our lord Iesus Christe sayth S. Cipriā lib. 2. epist 3. be is the high priest of God the father and sacrifice to God the father he first offered and commaunded the same to be done in remembrance of him And that priest trulie executeth Christs steede or roome vvho doth imitate that vvhich Christ did and thē in the Church offereth he a true and full sacrifice to God the father if he begin so to offer as he seeth Christ himself to haue offered Thus ascēding from our time vp to the primitiue and most pure and vncorrupte age of the Church yet we finde not the performance of that promise order set by Christ that his Church should be gouerned by pastors that were not priests And here by the waye to put you in minde because in this preface so freshlie you prouoke M Martin now departed and renew M Iewels challenge may it please you being put a litle besides his byas of comparing phrases together which was the verie bones and marrow of M. Iew. diuinitie to waigh how wel you can make his challenge agree with the manifest confessions of these your own doctors and if it lyke you to vew Caluine in the booke before quoted yow shal there find fiue Doctors within M. Iewels compasse by name S. Ireneus Arnobius S. Athanasius S. Ambrose and S. Augustine not the least or meanest of the fathers ether for ātiquity or holines or learning reproued and checked by Caluin for this great ouersight forsooth because to proue the vnbloudie sacrifice of the church which they beleued els would they neuer haue applied the scripture to confirme it they misinterprete and falsly applie the scriptures ita vidiculè these are his wordes vt dissentire cogat ratio et veritas so ridiculously as both reasō and truth constraineth me to dissent from thē whereas if he had lyued vntil this time and had bene acquainted but with half those phrases which in the 17 article M. Iew. hath raked together of which benefite by your labours he might now haue bene partaker he neuer neded to haue runne into that desperate vaine of bidding plaine defiance to al the primitiue church And thus much being spoken by the way through occasion of M.I. challēg renewed by you let vs returne to conclude if it may be our former matter from this age vnto the primitiue church we find not as you see pastors without priests then it foloweth say we that Christ neuer appointed anye such For then surelie in some age yea in euerie age they would haue appeared And how you wil lose this knot I muche doute yet I feare you wil take Alexanders sworde and cut it a sunder and now applie that to your self which before you yelded to Luther that when your iudgment agreeth with scripture you set more therby then by a thousand Augustines a thousand Ciprians and al the churches If you thus say as I thinke you haue nothing els to say yet remember that besides these many Augustines and Ciprians and churches you haue one Christ standing against you who promised and apoīted as you confesse far otherwyse But passe we on what scripture haue yow against priestes S. Paule vvho saith that Christ is an eternal priest after the order of Melchisedec and hath his priesthode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what gather you of this you leaue the word in greeke as though it were so much the more terrible and able to confounde al priestes then if it were in latin Our old interpreter translateth it sempiternum Beza perpetuum Caluin immutabile Castalio nunquam transiturum the Englishe bible of one yere vnchangeable of an other euerlastinge make the best of it and take which you list or all if ye please The sense of the Apostle is easie inough by the comparison which he there prosecuteth that as Christ had many excellent prerogatiues aboue the priestes or priesthode of Aaron so amonge many other this was one that whereas the priesthode of Aaron passed from one to an other from father to sonne by reason of death Christ neuer dying but euer lyuing neuer departeth from his priesthode but reteineth it for euer To make the reader better conceaue this which though it be many times read in your congregations yet is perhaps neuer or seldome wel vnderstoode of the minister himselfe the priesthode of Aaron is brieflie to be recalled to memorie In the booke of Numbers God thus speaketh vnto Moyses Take Aaron and his sonne vvith him and leade them into the mountaine Hor. And vvhen thou hast taken from Aaron his priestlie vesture thou shalt put it on Eleazarus and Aaron shal die there Moyses did as our lord commaūded c. And vvhen he had spoiled Aaron of his garments he put them on Eleazarus and Aaron died there In this short storie is noted the nature and state of the leuitical priesthode passing from father to sonne and ending in the first by death in lyke sort as any other facultie of life or bodie ciuil or naturall endeth But in Christ it is not so who euer liuing keepeth euer his priesthode as wel as his life neuer departing with it to anie other as did Aaron to Eleazarus he to Phinees and so one to an other in course of succession So
syllable then he had of vvhole bookes vvhereof he hath suffered many I say not to be depraued but to be vtterly lost This Iudaical superstition c. Hetherto Castalio And D. Humfrey in his first booke de ratione interpretandi sayth Iudaismus quot locos deprauauerit c. The Ievvish superstition hovv many places it hath corrupted the reader may easely find out and iudge And in the next booke I like not that men should to much folovve the Rabbins as many do Nam quae Christum verum Messiam promittunt et annuÌ„ciant abâ—istis turpissimè câ—nspurcata sunt for those places vvhich promise and declare Christ the true Messias are most filthely depraued by them And Conradus Pellicanus sometime professor of hebrew in Zuricke writing vpon the 8â— psalme and those wordes of our trâ—nslation Conuertuntur ad câ—r vvhere 〈◊〉 cor the protestants according â—o the hebrâ—vv prints novv haue 〈◊〉 gesseth vvel no doubt riâ—htly that the difference came through the great likenes of tvvo letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and prefeâ—reth our reading before the hebrewes vvithal accuseth the Iewes of al times not only since Christ but also befoâ—e of nâ—gligâ—nce in coÌ„â—eâ—uing theiâ— holie boâ—kes Thus he vvriteth The old interpreter seemeth to haue read one vvay vvhereas the Ievves â—ovv reade an other vvhich I say because I vvould not haue men thinke this to haue proceeded from the â—gnorance or slâ—uthfulnes of the oâ—d interpreter Rather vve haue cause to finde fault for vvant of diligence in the Antiquaries and faith in the Ievves vvho both before Christs comming and fithence seeme to haue bene lesse carefull of the psalmes then of their ovvne Talmudicall songes And againe in the same volume vpon that verse of the psalme 108. Quis deducet me in ciuitatem munitam quis deducet me in Idumaeam vvho vvill bring me in to the sensed citie vvho vvill bring me in to Idumaea vvriteth thus The Syriake interpreter ether folovving or finding out or iâ—erâ—asing the fables of the Ievves translateth this verse after this sâ—r vvho vvil bring me in to that vvicked Rome vvho vvil bring me in to that Constantinople of the Idumeans sol centiously do the Rabbines of the Ievves abuse their authoritie not only in their commentaries but also in the translations of their lavv vvhich coÌ„monly are to be read vvhereby the miserable people reading so is easely seduced VVhere besides our principal purpose vve may learne vvithal that the Iewes haue one tricke of the ProtestaÌ„ts vz in to their bible coÌ„munioÌ„ bookes or such like vvherein is contâ—yned their maner of Seâ—uâ—ce to thrust besides the text glaunces against the Pope and Church of Rome as â—n deede the hatred of Christ Christianitie and that Church commonly runneth together The like testifieth Munster alleaging these vvordes of Abâ—n Ezra against the Christians Fâ—vv there vvere that beleeued in that man vvhoÌ„ these Christians haue made their Gâ—d and vvhen Rome did beleeue in the time of Constantine aâ—d altered the vvhole lavv and put in his banner the signe of the crucified man by the persvvasioÌ„ of that Monke of Idumaea that is the Romane bishop so Aben Ezra expoundeth it there vvere none through the vvorld that obserued that lavv besides a fevv Idumeans and here of it commeth that the kingdome of the Romanes is called the kingdome of Edom. Wherein a man may see and compare together the Iuâ—aical and Protestantical vayne in raylâ—ng at the Romane Church and those that liue in the vnitie of it To the Iâ—wes vve are Gentiles to the Protestantes vve are Idolaters In the Iewes speach and sense it is al one to say a Romane a Catholike or an Idumean that is a Gentile so is it in the speach and sense of the Protestantes saue that in steede of Catholike sometymes they vse the vvord Papist The Ievves peruert their diuine Seruice vvith the manifest abuse of scripture against the Romane faith and Church and do not our Ievvish Protestantes much more Cal to remembrance Christian reader their Geneua or rather Gehenna psalmes sung in their coÌ„gregations vvhere as they tel vs nothing souÌ„dâ—th but gods vvord the Canonical scripture see vvhether in any old Greeke Hebrew Latin or English psalters they find praying against the Pope to be deliuered froÌ„ al Papistrie That the Pope as wel as the Turke vvould thrust our of his throne our lord Iesus Christ Gods deare sonne vvhether in any old Creede ether Apostolike or made by Apostolike or honest men they are taught to beleeue release pardoÌ„ of their sinnes vvhich is in these mens diuinitie perfect entier iustification and that only by faith as in their rimâ—ng Creede vvithout rime or reason they sing Finally as the Ievvish Rabbines thrusting once in to their peoples eares that Rome is Edom and the Romane an Edomite mâ—ke that al scripâ—ure spoken against Edom soundeth against Rome euen so the Protestants telling their people that Rome is Babylon and the Pope Antichrist make them forthwith beleeue that vvhatsoeuer the scripture hath â—gainst Babylon Antichrist that maketh iust against the Romane Church the Pope and Catholikes But to returne to our original matter and to drawe to an end of this question touching the pure fountaines originals for plaine and euident demonstration how true that is I referre M.VV. to these two general experimeÌ„tes which at his leasure he may vew and consider of One is the great diuersitie of reading which in many places of the hebrew old testament we find For example whereof let him peruse Exod. ca. 2. losue 22 and 23. Iudic. 3. the first of Samuel ca. 10 17 22 28. 2 Samuel 7. Esa 14 33 54 c. and Munsters notes vpon those chapters where he shall find the reading and sense oftentymes as far disagreing as blacke and white And Munst in his preface forewarneth the reader thereof Sometymes sayth he euen amongst the hebrvves in one sentence I haue found diuers reading For sometymes dissensions are sound amongst theÌ„ some thinking this to be the true reading some thinking contrarie An other experiment is that the hebrew printes wante now somewhat which certainly was in the first originals Example whereof may be the Psalme 144. which being made according to the hebrew alphabete and hauing the verses in number answering to the hebrew letters the first beginning with Aleph the second with Beth the third with Gimel c. as doth the Psal 33. therefore should certainly haue 22. verses as hath that other this lacketh one verse in al hebrew copies so wanted it euen in S. Hieroms tâ—me and euident it is that the error is in the hebrew where lacketh the 14. verse which should beginne with Nan as it is very playne by the translation of the 70 and by our common Psalter Fidelis Dominus in omnibus verbis suis
styl that parcel but most vvanted it and manifest it is that the Ievves nether in our time keepe so honorably the translation of the 70. in their sinagoges much lesse did they keâ—pe it in S. Iustines daies vvhen as appeareth by the vvhole discours and manifest vvordes of this author in this same place they much more detested it The third a ligno is vvanting in al greeke and hebrevv bibles is only reserued in our ecclesiastical Breuiarie certaine Doctors as Tertullian Lactantius Cassiodorus and S. Austin vvho notvvithstanding so readeth it as though it vvere the common reading in the churches of Africa in his time and maketh no mention of any other reading vvhere those vvords should be leaft out And from S. Hieroms time vntil our daies very probable it is that these errors and corruptions haue multiplied not only for the general and particular reasons already touched but for this especially that whereas since that time the Iewes obstinacie barbarousnes impietie and ignorance in their owne tonge hath much increased the Christians notwithstanding haue not had any great occasion to handle much or exercise that language therefore haue had smaler regard to bookes written therein without which as first of al they perfectly receaued the Christian faith and planted it in these partes of Christendome so without it haue they as perfectly continued in the same and now enlarged it euen to the extreme corners of the world and without the which they haue for these thousaÌ„d yers liued most christiaÌ„ly as Saintes christianly as Saintes finished their teÌ„poral liues after liued with Christ for euer And now touching M. W. question demaunding how the Church hath faithfully conserued the bookes of scriptures who thus findeth fault with the hebrew bibles as corrupt I answere as before that the Church hath most faithfully conserued the scriptures albeit not in this or that tonge which the wanton curiositie of euery fantastical heretike coueteth We haue the true word and gospel of Christ though perhaps we haue not ten words in that laÌ„guage which our Sauiour spake And then why may we not haue the law the prophetes though there were neuer an hebrew bible in the vvorld Againe vnreasonably demaundeth he of our church for hebrevv bibles vncorrupt vvhich perhaps neuer had any such and neuer vndertooke to keepe the vvord of God in that language more then in Arabike or Syriake no more then she vndertooke to keepe S. Matthevves Gospel in hebrevv or S. Paules epistle to the hebrevves But if she deliuer faithfully to the Christians that vvhich she receaued of Christ and his Apostles touching al parts of Christian faith and religion be it vvritten or vnvvritten in one language or other she performeth that vvhich Christ committed to her charge and vvhich is sufficient for the saluation of euery Christian and vvhereby she proueth her selfe to be the House and Church of the liuing God the sure Piller and ground of truth the Spovvse of Christ and faythful mother of al Christians M. D. Whitgift thinketh it vntolerable that the English ministers should appoint vvhat maner of apparel is coÌ„uenient for them selues to vveare vvhat ceremonies or rites should be vsed in their poore Seruice He by many arguments taketh from them al authoritie in such matter vvil haue the vvhole Ministerie altogether to depend be directed by the superior magistrates the Quene and the Lordes of her CouÌ„cel Then hovv much more vntolerable is it that some one or other single minister should appoint the vniuersal Church gouernours thereof in what maner and fashion the word of God must be kept in what language as it were in what kind of paper or parchement he wil haue it written As if some busye headed felow in a coÌ„mon welth not contented to be ruled preserued by his Prince in true religion iustice and quiet possessioÌ„ of his owne should farther take vpon him to prescribe vvhat maner priestes hovv qualified and in vvhat Vniuersitie brought vp should preach vnto him the vvord of God minister the sacraments vvhat sort of men should exequute vnto him iustice and examine his cases of law by what capitaynes of vvhat byrth countrie and experience by vvhat kind of defence open force or secret policie fight by sea or rather land strength of horsmen or footemen he vvil be mainteined in peace and quietnes And vvhat meaneth he to require for pure bibles in any language of our Church vvhich he holdeth for Antichristian and the prelates thereof and al other Catholikes for members of Antichrist For vvhiles he thus thinketh vvhat soeuer bibles hebrevv or not hebrevv Greeke or Arabike vve offer him he can by reason yelde no more credite vnto them then to our latin no more then to our traditions or any other thing proceeding from vvarrant and credite of such professed enemies of Christ as vvel and learnedly proueth S. Austin in his booke de vtilitate credendi Much more agreable to reason ChristiaÌ„ diuinitie is it for him and his to resort to their ovvne church of elect predestinate or hovv so euer he list to terme them vvhich hath so florished these many hundred yeres by vvitnes of their ecclesiastical stories by report of M. Fox in his Actes and monumentes Let him resort to the brethren of Lions to VVycleffe and the VVycleffisâ—es to Robert Rigges Iohn Puruey Henry Crompe Iohn of Chlum Iohn Scut William Havvlam Richard VVich Iohn Hus alias Iohn Goose the Hussites and Thaborites of Bohemia and such other vvho as they tel vs vvere glorious pillers doctors and maintainers of their church and Protestant-gospel and like glistering starres shined in the face of the ChristiaÌ„ world And that I tye him not to particular meÌ„ or one only prouince of Bohemia in many other prouinces and kingdomes of the world hath their church continued as most confidently writeth D. VVhitgift against T. C. who framing an argument against the Archbishops authoritie draweÌ„ from this supposition VVhat if the vvhole church be in one prouince or in one realme vvhich hath bene and is not vnpossible to be againe M. D. VVhit answereth it thus To your supposition if the vvhole church c. I say that if the skie fal you may catch larkes as the common prouerbe is making it as vnpossible a case to haue the church of Christ in one only kingdom as it is vnpossible for the skie to fal And presently in the same page Do you not knovv that the church of Christ is dispersed thorough the vvhole vvorld and can not novv after Christs ascension be shut vp in one kingdome much lesse in one prouince except you vvil become Donatistes He that is not vvilfully blinde may see in to vvhat straightes you are driueÌ„ vvhen you are constrained to vse such impossibilities for reasons And M. VV. in this booke telleth vs that there neuer wanted mightie
euery day more and more misdoubt the ruine of their Atheistical gospel which dayly the more it is knovven the more it grovveth in horror and execration amonge honest natures not only such as are directed by the spirit of God but euen such as are somevvhat holpen vvith the assistance of natural wisedome and honest inclination But come vve to the particular crymes layde against vs and vvherevpon this dreadful inuectiue is properly builded vvhich is our corrupting the text or departing from our latin testament For as vve in examining their testament framed according to the greeke as they pretended reproued them not in their translation nor could so doe reasonably so long as precisely they kept them selues to their greeke for vvhether the greeke â—aâ—ere so to be folovved is an other question in like maner vve proposing to translate the latin vvhich to vs is as autentical as the greeke to them can not reasonabâ—y be blamed as false and corrupt translators but vvhere vve haue gone aside and leaft that original which vve pretended to translate And if herein vve haue erred vve gladly vvil acknovvledge our ouersight and are ready to ameÌ„d the same And here Reader hast thou specially to marke by what argument he verifieth that which he obiecteth Our prophane corruptions our outragâ—ous boldnes our more violence vsed to the holy testameÌ„t of Christ then euer vvas vsed by any kinde of heretike so notorious that al the world may iudge that our intent was To make the peopâ—e scorne and contemne the vvord of God how iustifieth â—e al this by what proofe for hitherto we haue wordes and nothing but wordes such as euery grammar-boy can picke out of the booke which he readeth and ioyne together But from M. W. the Q. Maiesties reader his auditors looke for sounder stuffe then such childish grammatical declaiming Many places saith he haue I noted vvherein you haue manifestly erred from that your vulgar latin edition that vvil I declare by one example the like vvhere of I could bring forth many Surely this is very weake to maintaine the greatnes of the accusation thundered out before And whereas you promise one example and geue vs two the reader may assure him self you would haue spared vs three if you had bene able But belyke these one or two are horrible monstrous faults and touch matters of maruelous great height Christs Diuinitie Humanitie Incarnation Heauen and Hel such as are the faults of these mens bibles and so these two may serue in steed of a number Let vs here them in M. W. owne words In the epistle to the Rom. ca. 13. v. 19. thus it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvhich vvords the old interpreter turned thus Non vosmet ipsos desendentes but by you they are turned othervvise according to the greeke veritie Not reuenging your selues The like place is in Matth. 4. v. 16. vvhere these vvords 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old interpreter turned The people vvhich vvalked in darkenes ambulauit in tenebris as also in Hierom vve reade but you folovving the greeke exemplat haue turned othervvise and more truly The people that sitteth in darknes Qui sedes in tenebris Thus M. VV. and this is al. And here first of al the reader may againe remeÌ„ber how iust cause I had to charge him with affected hypocrisie for exclaming so tragically vpon our testament wherein he findeth only these faultes which if they were faultes of what weight they are euery child may iudge But to passe that ouer let the reader see how blindly fovvly he is deceiued We haue left our latin folovved the greeke saith he in turning Defendentes Reuenging and why so hovv proueth he that vve leaue our latin he vvil ansvvere I suppose for reason him selfe yeldeth none because in al M. Coopers Dictionarie vve finde not that Defendere signifieth To reuenge If that be true then belike if vve vvere maister Coopers scholers the case vvould goe somvvhat hard vvith vs. But if he vvil vevv other Dictionaries as wel as M. Coopers he shal find both that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke in latin is truely turned by Defendere and Defendere in latin is vvel and properly turned in English by Reuenge So the greeke dictionarie of Basile printed the yere 1557. teacheth vs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 defendo vindico vlciscor in alicuius gratiam So the latin and french and latin greeke french dictionaries printed at Paris the yeres 1559.1575 1580. set forth by Sonnius Rob. Stephanus teach vs that Defendere signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 defender garder et preseruer venger as vvel to reuenge as to defend gard preserue And which is to vs more then al the dictionarie of the Church that is the auncient ecclesiastical vse of this vvord in the scripture fathers teacheth vs somtimes in this place this to be his proper grammatical ense and so the auncieÌ„t fathers vsed this word So Tertullian Durum videbatur populo a deo expectare defensam edicendam postea per prophetam mihi defensam et ego defendam It seemed a hard thing for the Ievvish people in Moyses time to expect reuenge from God vvhich vvas aftervvards promised by the prophete saing To me reuenge and I vvil reuenge Where manifest it is that Defendere and defensa is graÌ„matically Reuenge To reuenge manifest it is that S. Ambrose doth not expound but grammatically take the word Defendere in the self same maner that is to signifie ReueÌ„ge eueÌ„ as S. Hier. put it or rather as I thinke leaft it being so vsed by the former traÌ„slator So doth Haymo so doth S. Bede and maketh no scruple at it but in his commentarie taken out of S. Augustine expresseth by Vindicare that which our interpreter vttered by Defendere And the same is most plaine by the traÌ„slatioÌ„ of the bible it self For whereas in other places for example in the storie of Holofernes the greeke is That he sware he would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reuenge him self of al the laÌ„ds that doth the old interpreter vtter by Defendere And in the 9. chap. where Iudith praiseth God saing according to the later English bible O Lord God of my father Symeon to vvhom thou gauest a svvord to take vengeance of the strangers the latin is Gladium ad defensioneÌ„ abienigenaruÌ„ the greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the English bible printed two yeres before traÌ„slateth A svvord for a defence against the enemies and putteth in the margent Or to reuengment The former bible vseth only Defence not ReueÌ„ge at al whereby it is cleare that those traÌ„slators hauing belike some more skil in the old vse of this word theÌ„ M.W. accoÌ„pted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be wel turned ether by Reuenge which is more proper or by Defence which is also most true respecting the vse of the latin
418. They leaue corrupte the greeke 420. vsq ad 427. They interprete at pleasure greeke latin and euerie tong els 429.430 their straunge interpretations of scripture pa. 324.382.429.430.424 of fathers 217. Their maner of arguing 225. of one figuratiue speach they conclude as many as they list ibi et 226. The foly thereof 226.251.252 The agrement betwene the Protestants of our time and old heretikes pa. 430.431 they are most desyrous of noueltie 455.456.457 they mocke at the Prophetes and sundry writers of scripture 458. their preaching a verie mockery of scripture 458.459 they proceede to infidelitie pa. 2.3 559.560 et pref pa. 21.22 they make thēselues supreme iudges of scripture al other authoritie pa. 54 pref p. 19 20. c. they are obstinate in what soeuer absurditie they once take 237. they honour the Iewes more thē S. Paul 325 326. or the Church of Christ 353. like to the Iewes in malice against the Sea of Rome 329.330.331 they vse more reuerence to the images of beastes thē of Christ 514.515 Be they neuer so cōtrarie they are all assured of the truth pref 32. The Protestants allow all Sectes to rebelle for their seueral heresies pref pag. 16.17 R The Rabbines of the Ievves not to be folowed in the sense of the hebrue wordes pa. 434. the Protestants translating after them translate wickedly 434.435 They corrupt the text of scripture by mispoynting it 314.315 Power to Remitte sinnes geuen to the English ministers by act of Parlament pa. 79.80 M. Iewels chalenge touching the real presence artic 5. answered pa. 182. vsque ad 196 the Zuinglians most vsual and popular argument against it 178. answered at large 179. c. the first heretikes of the English church approued it 182. Many things in scripture as vncredible as that 183.184.186 the Zuinglians argument against the sacrament is the roote of Paganisme 184.185.193.199 It ioynerh them to the Anabaptistes Ebionites Nestorians 185.187 It is reiected by the auncient Fathers 188.198.199 Condemned by the Lutherans 189.190 answered at large by Luther 191.192 he supposeth it to proceede rather from Turkes then Christians 194.195 In the sacramēt al humane philosophical reason must yelde to faith p. 188.189.190.192.198.199.201.202 Scriptures and fathers for the real presence S. Luke 235.236 Ieremie 342.343 S. Chrisostom S. Leo. 238. S. Ciril 200. Heretikes for the real presence Melanchthon 190. Westphalus 190.191 Luther 221. Caluin 223. The ground of the Sacramentarie diuinitie p. 191. The Sacramentaries infidels 193. Infidels their forefathers in mocking Christians for their beleefe in the sacrament 222. how they deale with the fathers 193.194 no one father euer was of their religiō 167. See more in Supper The sacrament a figure ioyned with the veritie pa. 223.224 The Romane Church constant in holding fast the doctrine once deliuered pa. 300.301 pure for six hundred yeres after Christ in pref pa. 47. It can not be proued that she euer changed her faith ibid. 47.48.49.55.56 S Christ sacrificed at his last supper pa. 62. the sacrifice of the Church deduced thence 62.63 sacrifice offered by S. Austin for the dead 66. sacrifice for the dead and in the honour of Saints was vsual in the primitiue church 70.71 Christ a priest in respect of the churches sacrifice 530.531.532 In the church we see Christ sacrificed 217 218.219.220 True sacrifice in the church 214.215.229.230 Melchisedechs sacrifice See Melchisedech M. Ievvels chalenge touching the sacrifice artic 17. ansvvered by the chiefe protestants pa. 70.71.72 Saintes heare our praiers pa. 500.501 Sundry bookes partes of scripture denied by the protestants pa. 26. vsque ad 32. et 401.402 they refusing the authoritie of the church beleeue not the scripture 33.34.35.36 they open the vvay for euery man to deny vvhat he listeth 402.403 A part of S. Iohns gospel doubted of 364. S. Peters second epistle 441.415 the epistle to the Hebrues denied ibidem See S. Iames. S. Luke scripture made ridiculous vvhē it commeth to profane handeling 498. somevvhat is the vvord of God besides scripture 36.37 Scripture corrupted by heretikes in fauour of their heresies 176.177 in Genes against the sacrifice pag. 59.60 in S. Peter against freevvil and good vvorkes 416 417. Christs vvordes in S. Luke notably corrupted for the same purpose 420.421.422 Esai translated detestably agaistn Christs incarnation 439. S. Peter corrupted to make God the author of sinne 451.452.453.455 S. Paul against Christs diuinitie 315. Act. 3. against the real presence 174.179.180 against the immortalitie of the soule 273.274 scripture falsly interpreted by heretikes is the vvord of the Deuil 180.50 The protestāts by their exāple make the text of scripture very vncertaine pa. 241.242.243 one yere canonical the next yere not 366. It is not to be altered vpon one doctors reading 244.245 the partialitie of heretikes choosing precisely one or other reading because it best serueth their heresie 246.247.248.249 they apply scripture to proue any thing be it neuer so vnreasonable 255. to proue Atheisme 408.409 Bookes of scripture faithfully kept by the church though the hebrue text be false 346.347 heretikes may not prescribe the church in what tonge to keepe them 347.348 Stancarus iudgement of the principal Protestant writers pa. 96.97 The Septuaginta interpreters condemned by Luther pa. 305. The Zuinglians true opinion of their Supper p. 209. it differeth nothing from common breakfasts 209.210.211.213 it is no more the body of Christ then a paynted scutchion is king of France 210. only bread 210.214.222 the Supper of the Sacramentaries hath no vse of Christs wordes 257. their arguments against the words of Christ in S. Luke foretold answered by Luther 258.259 T Tradition of the Church necessary pa. 36. S. Hierom author of the common Translation of the nevv Testament vsed in the Church p. 294.295 by appointemēt of Pope Damasus 294. it is approued by the Councel of Trent 281.389 It agreeth with the auncient greeke 372.373 commended for synceritie by the Protestant writers 374.375 defended by them preferred before al nevv 383.387.388.389 preferred before the greeke 393. not to be corrected by the reading of some doctor 394.395 M.W. argument against the same 391.392 the answere 392.393 c. English translations of the nevv Testament al approued by M.W. pa. 262. his wickednes therein 263.264 Such translations leade men to Atheisme 271. are condemned by the learned Protestants 271.272.273.274.275.436 for Hel they trāslate Graue most wickedly 272. thereby mouing men to thinke that the soule is mortal 273.274 A briefe sūme of damnable faultes cōmitted by those translators 278.279 English Translations made in schisme al naught 385. English Translations leaue the hebrue 312. differ notably one from an other 321. Protestante Translations of the new Testament all partial in fauour of their peculiar heresies pag. 365. Luthers condemned by Zuinglius 376.377.378 Al Zuinglian translations condemned by Luther 378.379 that of Basile condemned by Beza 379. item Castalios 380. Caluins corrupteth the text 381. Bezaes most variable and
1. cal 4. v. 27. see before pag. 59 The end of M.W. doctrine touching Antichrist If the Pope of Rome be Antichrist there be many worse Antichristâ— in the world M. Iewels maner of answering D. Harding He leaueth out the best part of D. Hardings booke An vnconscionable way of answering Apud Sander pa. 764. Sander pa. 767. Ibid. pag. 770.771 â—â—g 774. Vnreasonable mangling corrupting and falsifying Apud Sander pa. 785. Apud Sand. pag. 789. Illyr Luther Luther To. 7. Defensio c. contra fanaticos sacramentariorum spiritus fo 381. The Protestants forbid the reading of scripture See after pa. 459. The heretikes alter their workes continually Of the name Protestants and Sacramentaries Ful. in the Answere to M. Martins preface pa. 17. Pag. 653. 1717. Those that professe the English religion are not Catholikes Brentius et Lutherani passim See before pa. 39. Nor Protestants Sleidan li. 6 fol. 102.101.109 Ibid. lib. 7. fol. 110. et 114. et lib. 8. fol. 128.131 Those of the English fayth are most properly called Zuinglians or Sacramentaries Apol. Ecclesiae Anglicanae d. â— Protestants Hussites Gospellers See before pa. 16. Actes and monumentes pa. 901.902 Ibid pa. 993. aeditionis postremae Sacramentaries Lutherans Zuinglians These names them selues vse besides a more general name vsed and confirmed by Act of Parlament see before pag 21. Sleid. lib. 8. fol. 128.131.133 et lib. 9. fol. 150. Ibid. lib. 7. fol. 107. et lib. 20. fol. 368. lib. 21. fol. 382.390 ibid. lib. 5. fol. 75.78 The proceding of the new gospel In prefat pag. 2. In respons ad episto Campiani prefa pag. 2. The Heretikes corrupt their ovvne vvryters Anno 1568. Colloq Alt. in respo ad excusa cor fol. 227. 2. RespoÌ„ ad Hipothe a fol. 284. ad fo 290. fo 353.355.441 442.443.526 Ibi. Saxoni ad respons de difcess fo 539.540 Vvestphalus in apologia contra caluÌ„ Cal. ca. 46. pag. 458. The vvorks of Luther corrupted by the Caluinistes in Geneua Detruncaeti Bull resp ad Cocle. ca. 3. Pag. 4. Ibid. Manifest contradiction Duraeus fol. 8. S. Iames epistle denyed by the ProtestaÌ„ts Pomeran ad Rom. ca. 8. In Annot. in â—o Test pag. vâ—i S. Iames epistle the Apocalips lefte out of the Protestants bibles Câ—â— 1. li. 2. c. 4. colum 54. Cent. 2. ca. 4. colum 71. Luther 10.5 in 1. Pc. ca. 1. Muscu in locis coÌ„mu ca. de lusti num 5. pag. 271. pag. 4. M.VV. notable vvranglinge pag. 3. Illirieus in praefa Iac. Had it not bene a goodly matter vvorthy the labour of such greate men in the Tovver disputations to discusse vvhether Luther called S. Iâ—mes Epistle stramineâ— made of stravve simply or oÌ„ly in comparison * Cont. Campi pag. 198. Pag. 4. Whit. cont Camp pag. 17 1â—.19 Cal. in argument ep Ia. The Heretikes sit in iudgemente vpon the scriptures allovv disallovve as they find moste fit for their sectes Whit. pag. 5. The reason why the english cleargie admitte some books of scripture and refuse others Aug. de doct chri li. 2. c. 8. A ca. 2. vers 4. vsque ad finem 7. ca. Pag. 5. Contr. CaÌ„p pag. 9. vide ibi pa. 10.12 M. VV. reasons make most against him selfe pag. 5. The summe of the Tower disputation touching the scriptures The fourth dayes conference Whit. pref pag. 4. 5. con Camp Pa. â—0 Ibi. A. 2. â— Ibi. 3. b. 8. The firste dayes conference in the Tower D. 1.2 Sundrye bookes of the scripture denied by the protestantes S. Lukes gospel doubted of Contr CaÌ„p pag. 9 exagitat The open way to deny al scripture pag. 24. Aug. de heresiâ— heresi 53. Epiph. here 75. Hiero. cont Vigilanti Ioâ—iniat The protestantes as in suÌ„dry other partes of their doctrine so in denying certaine books of scripture imitate the auncieÌ„t heretikes The 4. daies conference Epiph. here 42. Epiph. her 51. W. contra Cam. p. 28. Insti li. 1. ca. 7. ¶ 4 The protestants refusing the authoritie of the church can neuer geue reason how they know some bookes and not other to be canonical scripture Cont. Campian pag. 9. I. Tim. 3. v. 15. The protestats refusing the churche beleeue not the scriptures See after chap. 16. Rom. 10. ver 17. 1. Cor. 15. ver 11. Somewhat is the word of god besides scripture Aug. de doc Chris l. 2. ca. 8. Con. Cart. 4. ca. 47. Con. Laod. can 59. The epistle of S. Paule to the hebrewes as much doubted of in the primitiue Churche as that of S. Iames. and bâ—â—n as much as those books of the olde testament which the protestants reiect Hier. in Esai cap. 6. et 8. Latina coâ—suetudo IdeÌ„ in Hier. cap. 31. Hiero. in Catalogo Caius CoÌ„ei Laod. can 59. Pap. 24. M.VV. brag of coÌ„futing the catholike doctrine vayne and impossible Mat. 13. v. 14 Mat. 7. v. 6. Mat. 16. Luc. 22. Luther tom 2. contr Regem Angl. fol. 342. The coÌ„mon vaine spirit of euerie Secte of protestants Henricianae ecclesiae Pag. 6. Luthers extreme hatred against the Sacramentaries Zuinglians Cleâ—â—â—ius a Zuinglian made a booke intituled victoria venitatis â—utiâ—a papaâ—us Saxonici an 1561 Confess orthodox Eccles Tigâ—r tractat 3. â—o 108. Immaniter contra nos expuit Ibid. in prefat fol. 3. â— Lauatieâ— in historia Sacram. fol. 32. Luther reiâ—cteth the bible translated by the Zuinglians how much more ought catholiks to auoyded the same In coÌ„fessio Tigur vers supra fo 30. Confes Tigur tract 3. fol. 108. The Zuinglians condemne them selues in defending Luther M.W. distinctioÌ„ wheÌ„ Luthers iudgemeÌ„t is to be preferred before al the Church The folie of M.W. distinction Cone Chal. actio 1. Lirine cont haeres ca. 43. Mat. c. 4. v. 6. Ioan. c. 14. et 16. Ephes cap. 4. b. c. Esa ca. 59. v. 21. In this case the authoritie of the deuel as wel as of Luther is better theÌ„ all Fathers or al the angels of heauen Gal. 1. Ierem. 31. g. 33. d. Luthers iudgement with scripture against the Sacrametaries Luther to 7. A defence of the literal sense of our Sauiours wordes etc. against the fanatical sprites of the SacrameÌ„taries Ibi. fol. 383. The Sacramentaries enemies of the gospell by Luthers iudgmeÌ„t coÌ„firmed with scripture Euerie protestant soueraine iudge of scripture CouÌ„cels doctors old new See the 5. chap. in the beginning pa. 7 Mat. 10. v. 24. pa. 6. Who are truly priests Melchisedec did sacrifice The sacrifice of Melchisedec denied generally by the protestants though confessed by M. W. Gen. 14. Heb. c. 7. v. 6 Mus in loc com cap. de Miss papist pa. 492. Bib. printed anno 1579. Corruption of the scriptures Cal. in com in episto ad Heb. c. 7. v. 9 Ibid. Caluin reiecteth the auÌ„cieÌ„t fathers touchinge the sacrifice of Melchisedec Cal. in psal 110. Heb. 5. v. 11. 1. Cor. ca. 2. ver 5. ca. 3. ver 2. Hier. ep 126 ad Euagri Greg. Nazi Christ did sacrifice at his
particular Synodes or general Councels yea many times commonly before the vniuersal and Catholike Church the holy scriptures and Spirite of God him self So that as the first of these two that is their mutability in faith withdraweth me froÌ„ al dealing with them as men altogether irreligious vnchristian and godles so the second that is the want of al sound arguments of disputation as much discourageth me from writing vnto them as men altogether vngrouÌ„ded vnlearned contentious such as loue to mainteine an endles talke of al things but haue no order or forme to coÌ„clude resolue of any thing These two partes I wil declare and make manifest by a fevv examples In England what point of religion is by statute more carefully prouided for by seueritie of punishment more vrged by preaching or writing more aduaunced by al meanes possible more beaten in to the heads of the subiectes then the Princes supremacie in causes ecclesiastical for denial whereof so many true and faithful subiectes in our memory haue suffered death Yet on the coÌ„trary syde the subiectes of Scotland were wel allowed to restraine or to speake playnly to keepe in captiuitie their owne Soueraine for intermedling in the Churches affaires as appeareth by their Iustification not long sithence published in their language where the author thereof and the ministers vse these wordes The discipline of the kirke was openly impugned vvhen as the king by the persvvasion of the enemies of the kirke vvas induced to make him self and his priuie councel iudges in the cognition of matters mere ecclesiastical and concerning the doctrine of the preachers and to take vpon him vvhatsoeuer iurisdiction the Pope vsurped there in of old yea and more ouer to discharge the general assembly al pastors vvithin this realme to proceede to the sentence of excommunication also to suspeÌ„d the same At the last some preachers haue bene stopped by commaundement c. This is the faith gospel in Scotland and in England how freely the Puritanes inueigh against that spiritual primacie let their bookes coÌ„monly printed testifie namely the great volume of M. Cartewright against D. Whitg wherein at large he discourseth that that part of the English faith carieth with it infinite absurdities is against the doctrine of the Apostles monstruous in diuinitie iniurious to Christ against the primitiue and Apostolike Church and the vvritten word of God yea vvhere he pronounceth boldly that whiles the common protestantes of England go about to gratifie princes with this spoile of Christ they leaue theÌ„ no place in the Church of Christ Touching the doctrine of baptisme then which nothing is more necessary as being the gate of al other sacrameÌ„ts and the first entrance of christianitie the Communion bookes commonly printed coÌ„mend and allow this faith That by that sacrament children be regenerate and graffed in to the body of Christes congregation and made partakers of the death of our Sauiour And the minister chargeth the people preseÌ„t not to doubte but earnestly to beleeue that Christ vvil sauorably receaue those present infants vvith the armes of his mercie that he vvil geue vnto them the blessing of eternal life and make them partakers of euerlasting ioye Yet coÌ„trarywise in the Tovver disputation the doctors there teach That al those vvhich are baptised are not the sonnes of God because they haue not al the spirite of adoption and children baptâ—sed if they be not gods elect baptisme can not make them his children and so many dying immediatly after baptisme are notwithstaÌ„ding assuredly damned The Communion booke turned into latin and printed at London by Thomas Vautrollerius the yere 1574 Cum priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis wherein they would seeme to notifie their faith to the rest of Christendome touching priuate baptisme ministred in houses by lay men or womeÌ„ in case of necessitie willeth al men to assure them selues that a child after that sort is lawfully and perfitly baptised And touching the parties ministring that sacrament it saith Ego vos certiores facio quod rectè praestitistis officium vestrum in bacre etc. I assure you you haue vvel performed your duety in this matter and kept a right order in the baptizing of this infant vvho being borne in original sinne and the vvrath of God novv by the lauer of regeneratioÌ„ in baptisme is ascribed into the nuÌ„ber of Gods children and made heyre of eternal life Yet M. VVhitaker in this booke teacheth the contrary and saith it is the heresie of the Pepusians and Marcionites to permit womeÌ„ such authoritie euen in case of necessitie which he calleth fained and imaginarie thereby signifying plainly that he beleeueth with the Anabaptistes that baptisme is not necessarie for the washing away of original sinne And the CommunioÌ„ booke also imprinted three yeres after vz the yere 1577 by Richard Iugge printer to the Quenes Maiestie Cum priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis drawing neere to the doctrine of the Anabaptistes and the practise of the church of Geneua where such priuate baptisme is vtterly disliked quite abolished altogether leaueth out that whole Tracte of priuate baptisme The same first booke published in latin touching the sacrameÌ„t of Confirmation containeth this good catholike doctrine that Confirmatio illis adhibetur qui iam baptizati sunt vt per impositionem manuum et orationem vires et defensionem accipiant contra omnes insultus peccati mundi et diaboli Confirmation is applied to them vvhich are novv baptized that by imposition of hands and praier they may receaue strength defense against the inuasions of sinne the vvorld and the deuil In the later Communion booke these wordes as likewise the whole Tracte appertaining to CoÌ„firmation is cleane omitted The reason whereof can be no other then that the Church of England in this point hath altered her faith and ioyneth more neerely then heretofore to the order of Geneua where as witnesseth M. Cart. though it were somtimes allowed yet afterwardes vpon better aduise M. Caluin cheefe Superintendent there thrust it cleane out of the church Touching the article of Christes descending into hel the Communion booke and Creede turned into ryme and sung commonly in their congregations beareth the word in hand that they beleeue as doth the Church catholike yet others by publike writing and disputation refelling that article geue vs iust occasion to suppose that they beleeue vvith Caluin in that point vvho acknovvlegeth no other descent of Christ into hel but his paine vpon the Crosse vvhere yet aliue he vvas damned in soule or as he speaketh sustayned the paines of a damned spirit vvithout any difference but that his torments were not eternal as theirs are In their Communion they sing and say publikely That Christ is the only begotten sonne of God begotten of his father before al vvorldes God of God light of light very God of very God of
groundes of disputation such as are vsed ether in our church or in their owne and how far these men be groweÌ„ to a headstroÌ„g desperatnes beyond the maner of al the auÌ„cient heretikes For when S. Austin and the old fathers had to dispute with such as Donatistes ArriaÌ„s Manichees Pelagians and others they vrged them with the authoritie of Gods Church with the iudgement of the Sea Apostolike the Succession of bishops in the same with the determination of general Councels finally with the name Catholike and that which was so called of al men and the heretikes seemed to be moued therewith and acknowledge such maner of argument But the heretikes of our time conteÌ„ning impudently al these Church Sea Apostolike Succession of bishops general Councels and whatsoeuer els may be inuented are come so far that they now despise and treade vnder foote the name Catholike which the Apostles by diuine wisdome found out and by their Creede sanctified appropriated to true ChristiaÌ„s members of Christs only Catholike and Apostolike Church in so much that in the sinode holdeÌ„ at Altemburg betwene the Diuines of the Palsgraue of Rhene and the Duke of VVirtemberg when one part brought forth a text of Luther against the aduersaries they perusing the place at large and finding there the word Catholike streightwaies reiect the whole as corrupt and counterfaite because Luther was neuer vvont to vse that vvord Ista verba catholicè intellecta non sapiunt phrasin Lutheri say they and vpon this only reason conclude that booke not to haue bene made by him And yet would to God our aduersaries could be content to yelde to the very scriptures them selues such peeces I meane and bookes as they leaue vnto vs and hetherto with vs acknowledge for Canonical VVouâ—d to Gâ—d they could frame them selues humbly to admitte such scriptures when of theÌ„ selues they are playne for vs against them For so surely buâ—ldâ—d is the Catholike cause that by such helpe she is able sufficiently to defend her selfe and confound the aduersaries But whereas besides the reâ—usal of al the forenamed witnesses both of our church and of their owne as though none euer besydes them selues in particular no Saint or man ether in heaueÌ„ or earth had wit learning or grace whereas I say besides al this they expound the same scriptures by plaine partialitie fantasie frensye whereas they make them selues the only arbiters both what bookes are Canonical what Apocriphal and which is the true sense of them whereas in examining the sense they runne sometime from greeke to latin sometime from lâ—tin to greeke sometimes vrge one or other greeke example against innumerable latin sometimes prosse one or other fathers reading against al greeke commonly corrupt the sense both of latin and greeke sticke only to certaine heretical versions made by their maisters in fauour of their seueral heresies whereas they are groweÌ„ to such extreme folly hardnes impudency it may seeme nothing els but wast of vvords to deale vvith men whom contention pride ignorance malice and obstinacie against the Church and her pastors hath so pitifully blinded Novv if I may vvith the readers patience descend from this vvhich I speake generally of the English protestants to apply the same more specially vnto the party vvhose booke I haue to examine it shal both iustifie more clearly that which hetherto hath bene said touching their irreligion want of faith and withal set forth the practise of those proud and arrogant rules of answering which I before haue noted and besides shew what stuffe is contained in his booke of Antichrist wherein he so vainely and insolently triumpheth It hath bene an old disease of auncient heretikes first of al to inuade the cheefe pastors of the church that they being remoued from the gouernment them selues might more freely spoyle the flocke as witnesseth S. Cyprian And for like reason their maner hath bene more malitiously to barke at the Sea Apostolike as saith S. Austin In this as in many other mad partes the heretikes of our age haue not only matched but also far surmounted the heretikes of auncient time For when as vpon their first breach from the church spreading of this new heresie they were reproued by their cheefe pastor and gouernor vpon malice and spite and desire of reuenge they brast forth into this rayling to cal him Antichrist not meaning for al that to cal him Antichrist in such a seÌ„se as the church and faith of Christian men vnderstandeth vvhen vve speake of Antichrist vvhich shal come in the end of the vvorld and of vvhom S. Paule to the Thessalonians and the scriptures in some other places specially do meane but in such a general sense as S. Iohn intendeth wheÌ„ he saith that novv there are many Antichristes and vvho so denieth Christ to haue come in flesh he is Antichrist But the later Protestants going beyond their maisters as commonly it fareth in euery heresie to make their cause more plausible and iustifie their schismatical departure from the church more assuredly haue taken vp the proposition in the more extreme and desperate sense and now hold the Pope of Rome to be that singular Antichrist of whom S. Paule and some other of the Apostles fore-prophecied This wicked and shameles assertion being refuted at sundry times and of sundry men namely of D. Sanders not only as false vnprobable but also as heathenish vnpossible M. Whitaker hath now taken vpon him to make a reply against his argumentes and maintaine that former assertion of his brethren but after such a sort as partly argueth in him want of al religioÌ„ and conscience partly declareth him to haue deepely impressed in his harte a vvonderful pride and coÌ„tempt of al others a principal note and marke of Antichrist And to beginne vvith the later I vvil shortly runne ouer one or tvvo of the first demonstrations and M. W. ansvveres framed there vnto First of al D. Sanders disputeth that the succession of the Romane bishops can not be Antichrist because Antichrist is one man vvhich he confirmeth by sundrie good testmonies of scripture vvherevnto he ioyneth the vniuersal consent of al the auncient fathers His vvordes are Denique omnes sancti patres Graeci Latini Syri quiper tot saecula vel in Oriente vel in Occidente vel in Aquilone vel in Meridie vixerunt secundùm fidem traditionem ab Apostolâ—s acceptaÌ„ de Antichristo locuti sunt velut de homâ—ne vno Briefly al the holy fathers Greeke Latin Syrian vvho for so many ages liued ether in the East or VVest or North or South according to the faith and tradition receaued from the Apostles haue spoken of Antichrist as of one man VVhat is M. VV. answere to this After certaine cauils made to the places of scripture thus at a clappe he dischargeth the fathers writing according to the faith
answere to the next demonstration where to S. Austin and S. Hierome reaching Peters chayre and succession of Priests in that Sea to be the very rocke vvhich the proud gates of helâ— ouercome nor which thing they affirme vpon manifest warrant of Christes wordes he answereth vpon warrant of his owne vvord that that succession of priestes is not the rocke the gates of hel haue prevayled against that church so as the faith vvhich somtimes florished there novv appeareth no vvhere in it long since is departed into other places Whereas D. S. replâ—eth this to be false and and that church euer to haue reteyned the same true faith and neuer to haue brought in any heresie or made any chaunge of doctrine vvhich he proueth by al historiographers that euer liued in the church Eusebius Prosper Beda Regino Marianus Scotus Schafnaburgensis Zonaras Nicephorus Cedâ—enus Sigebertus Gotfridus Viterbiensis Trithemius and many others against them al this only censure he opposeth Historias vestras Sandere non moramur vve regard not M. Sanders your stories and yet him selfe for his ovvne side bâ—ingeth not so much as one story So that against scriptures reason councels fathers old and nevv historiographers al kynd of vvriters him selfe euer cometh in as an omnipotent and vniuersal Apostlâ— Doctor Father c. as though in his only vvord consisted more pith then vvas in al mens that euer liued since Christes time And now somwhat farther to descrie the incredible vanitie folie pride and selfe loue of the maÌ„ let the reader note the grosse and barbarous impossibilitie of that paradox vvhich by this his supreme authoritie he vvould defend He graunteth the Church of Rome to haue bene pure godly christian for six hundred yeres after Christ as before hath bene declared VVhen then grew it to be so impure wicked and Antichristian ten yeres after For thus he writeth Six hundred and ten yeres after Christ or there about Bonifacius the third gouerned the Romane church VVhat vvas he to ansvvere truly very Antichrist In which wordes ioyned together thus much he saith in effect That whereas within the space of ten or twelue yeres before the Romane church was religious and euangelical in such sense as they vnderstand it that is abhorred the Popes vniuersal iurisdiction as Antichristian and limited his power within the precinctes of his owne Patriarkship reuerenced euery prince as supreme head of the church within his owne dominion detested the sacrifice of the masse as iniurious to the death of Christ acknowledged no iustification but by only faith allowed mariage of priestes and religious persons as agreable to the libertie of the gospel held for sacramentes none other but Baptisme the Eucharist and Baptisme an only signe not remitting synnes and the Eucharist a sole figure from which the truth of Christes body was as far distant as heauen is from earth and so forth according to the rest of the articles of their reformed faith within the decourse of so few yeres al these thinges were turned vpside downe the contrary faith planted in steede thereof That is the Romane church of late so sound and perfite sodaynly became most corrupt and impure she approued the vniuersal authoritie of the Romane Bishop and appointed no boundes or limites to his iurisdiction which was mere Antichristian she tooke from Princes their Supremacie she brought in the sacrifice of the masse and highly aduaunced it against the death and sacrifice of Christ she acknowledged iustification to proceede not of only faith but of workes also she established the single life of priestes and votaries and condemned their mariages as sacrilegious and execrable for two sacramentes she admitted seuen to baptisme she attributed remission of sinnes and in the Eucharist she beleeued the real and substantial veritie of Christes presence so forth according to the articles of Catholike religion or papistrie as these men terme it Now whereas thus much is comprised in their paradox of making the succession of the Romane bishops Antichrist whereas such weight lieth in the matter which of it selfe to common intendement is so absurd vnreasonable and in deede vnpossible whereas we also bring forth Fathers Councels and Doctors auouching the contrary gather thou Christian reader whether vve haue not iust cause vtterly to discredite them in this so blunt sensles assertioÌ„ vntil we see their Chronicles their monumeÌ„ts their aÌ„tiquities some maner warraÌ„t besides their owne in a matter of such importance Whereas they allow vs no such and yet chalenge to be credited vpon their owne vvord assure they selfe reader their dealing in this behalfe is not only foolish vnlearned and ignorant but also inhumane furious and diabolical Notwithstanding whereas M.W. besides those former profes which to any indifferent man may seeme more then sufficient requireth of vs farther declaratioÌ„ that in these later ages the Romane church hath not departed from that faith which in her first time she professed to content him if any thing mâ—y content him and make more euident the inuincible equitie of the Catholike cause I wil proue the same by such â—istoriographers as him selfe I trust wil allow for vpright and nothing fauorable to our cause Those witnesses I meane to be first of al him selfe and then Iohn Calum Peter Martyr Martin Luther Flacius Illyricus with such other pillers founders of his owne congregation Out of him self this I gather That to haue bene the true and Christian faith which the Romane church maâ—ntained the first fiue hundred yeres at what time that church vvas must pure excellent preserued inuiolablâ— the faâ—th deliuered by S. Peter and S. Paule This proposition is commonly found almost in euery page of M.W. answere to the second DemoÌ„stration Out of the other Caluin Luther c. this I gather that the Romane church in her first primitiue puritie maintained and beleeued the Popes Supremacie the sacrifice at the masse the same to be auailable for the dead priesthode the real presence c. no lesse then we do now This thou shalt find witnessed by their seueral confessions and approued at large hereafter in places conuenient The conclusion hereof rising is this first that these are no pointes of false or AntichristiaÌ„ doctrine but such as Peter Paule taught the primitiue Romane church Next that the later Romane church hath not departed from the former but hath kept inuiolably the self same faith without chaunge or alteration And so the false supposal whereupon this booke standeth being by such euideÌ„ce refuted the rest of the building must needes come to ground Now I say farther that this point which M.W. taketh for a most certaine and cleare veritie that is the fal of the vniuersal church for after the fal of the Romane church they can shew none that stoode and it is their general both preaching and writing that she corrupted the whole world with her errors and her
apostasie from Christ these later hundred yeres vpon which as I haue said dependeth the verie substance of this his booke is an absurditie in Christian religion so foule monstruous and abominable that it can not be defended of any man except he first of al deny the very incarnation of Christ his preaching his death and passion his eternal kingdome priesthod the sending of the holy Ghost the entier summe of all whatsoeuer hath bene written by the Apostles or foretold by the prophetes For to what end was Christes incarnation but to ioyne him selfe vnto a Church from which he would neuer be separated To what end was his preaching but to erect and instruct such a Church To what end his death and passion but to redeeme sanctifie such a Church leaue vnto it an euerlasting remedie to blot out her sinnes and offences How is he an eternal king who hath not an eternal people obeyng him and obseruing his lawes how an eternal priest whose priesthod and sacrifice for so many hundred yeres was applied to none auailed for none and to what puâ—pose was the holy Ghost sent but to remayne vvith the church for euer and leade her into al truth And vvhat is the summe of the gospels but a declaration that Christ by him self by the holy Ghost by his Apostles founded such a church in vvhich his wil should euermore be openly preached his sacramentes rightly euermore ministred true faith and religion alvvaies preserued a certain vvay for conuerting infidels to the faith for coÌ„futing errors and heresies be continued and al true ChristiaÌ„s maintained by lawful pastâ—rs in vnitie of his true faith against al blastes of vaine doctrine euen vntil his coming to the general iudgement Finally that such a citie and common welth it should be so coÌ„stant so stroÌ„g so vnmoueable that it should vpholde the glorie and name of Christ â— gainst Princes against Potentates against Kings and Emperours against al the force of the world the deuil though they al with might and mayne applyed their whole power to the suppressing and rooting out of it And the self same is the effect of al the auncient Prophetes that the preachers of Christes catholike church should neuer cease day nor night to preach the truth that howsoeuer darknes couered al other nations yet the light there of should neuer be extinguished that the spirite of God and truth of doctrine should neuer depart from it but remayne in it froÌ„ one generation to an other euen for euer that it should neuer be brought in to a narow roume as was the synagoge of the Iewes but should be diffunded thorough al prouiÌ„ces of the earth that the course of heauen of the sunne of day and night should rather faile then priests and preachers of the new testament that albeit other monarchies had an end were altered as the Assyrians the Persians the Macedonians the Romanes yet this should neuer suffer any such a teration but should stand vnchangeâ—ble for euer Wherefore to affirme that this Church hath failed is to affirme that Christ his Apostles Prophetes are al liers that what soeuer is written in the old and new testameÌ„t is all vaine and fabulous For touchâ—ng the straunge deuise of an inuisible church which some of them haue of late imagined it is nothing els but a mere poetical fansie a fansie vvhich consisteth only vpoÌ„ their ovvne vvord and credite for profe vvhereof they neuer yet brought any scripture couÌ„cel father doctor chronicler or writer nor euer shal be able a fansie by which any sect neuer so horrible may defend them selues to be a Church as wel as they a fansie framed and patched together of mere contrarieties and contradictions a fantastical opinioÌ„ which being long since abandoned of the learned protestants in other countries as most vvicked and pestileÌ„t is novv I knovv not vpon vvhat miserie and necessitie receaued of our English Diuines VVhensoeuer vve thinke of the church saith Melanchthon let vs beholde the company of such men as are gathered together vvhich is the visible church nether let vs dreame that the elect of God are to be found in any other place then in this visible societie For nether vvil God be called vpon or acknovvledged othervvise then he hath reuealed him self nether hath he reuealed him self els vvhere saue only in the visible church in vvhich only the voice of the gospel soundeth Nether let vs imagine of any other inuisible church but let vs knovv that the voice of the gospel must sound openly amongst men according as it is vvritten Psal 18 Their sound is gone forth in to al the earth Let vs knovv that the ministery of the gospel must be publike and haue publike assemblies as it is sayd Ephes 4. Let vs ioyne our selues to this company let vs be citizens and members of this visible congregation as vve are commaunded in the 25. and 83. Psalme VVhich places and other the like speake not of Platoes Idea but of a visible church c. And in sundry other places refelling this mad fansie he euer concludeth Necesse est fateri esse visibilem Ecclesiam de qua filius Dei c. It is of necessitie that vve confesse a visible church whereof the sonne of God saith Matth. 18 Dic ecclesiae Tel the church vvhereof Paule saith 1. Cor. 4 VVe are made a spectacle to the vvhole vvorld to angels and to men VVhat a spectacle I beseech you is that vvhich is not seene and whereunto tendeth this monstruous speach vvhich denieth the visible church Delet omnia testimonia antiquitatis abolet iudicia facit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 infinitam illam Cyclopum politiaÌ„ in qua◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vt est apud Euripidem It abolisheth al testimonies of antiquitie it taketh avvay al iudgementes it causeth an endles confusion and induceth a common vvelth of vnruly ruffians or Atheists vvherein no one careth for an other And Caluin interpreteth the article of our creede Credo Ecclesiam CatholicaÌ„ of the Catholike visible Church saith furthermore that the knowledge therof is so necessary that there is no hope of life by grace in this world except we be conceaued brought forth nourished aâ—d ruled by her so long as we liue Adde quod extra eius gremium nullae est spâ—randa peccatoruÌ„ remissio neque vlla salus teste Iesai c. 37. vers 32. Ioel. ca. 2. v. 32. Ezechiel ca. 13. v. 9. psal 106. v. 4. Adde here vnto that out of the lap of this visible church no pardon of synnes is to be hoped for nor any saluation as vvitnesse Isaie Ioel Ezechiel and the Prophete Dauid And OecolaÌ„padius writing vpoÌ„ the Prophete Isaie and those wordes ca. 2. Fluent ad eum omnes gentes Create is the dignitie saith he of the Christian church aboue the synagoge of the Ievves in that it shal
Chap. IX Wherein is refelled M.W. answere to certaine places of S. Chrysostom touching the real presence and sacrifice Pag. 203. Chap. X. Of the place in S. Lukes Gospel cap. 22. corrupted by Beza Pag. 231. Chap. XI M.W. general answere to the booke of Discouerie and of the notable impietie committed by the translators of the English Bibles Pag. 260. Chap. XII M. W. reasons against the latin bible are answered and the same bible is proued to be in sundrie places more pure sincere then the hebrue now extant Pag. 280. Chap. XIII Of the puritie of our latin testament in respect of the greeke copies now extant Item a comparison of our translator with other of this age with an answere to those obiections which M. W. deuiseth against him Pag. 360. Chap. XIIII That to leaue the ordinarie translation of the bible appointed by the Church and to appeale to the hebrue greeke and such new diuers translations as the protestants haue made is the very way to Atheisme and Infidelitie Pag. 406. Chap. XV. How M.W. inueigheth against the new testament lately set forth in this college with a cleare refutation of such faultes as he findeth in the translation thereof Pag. 443. Chap. XVI A defence of such faultes as are found in the Annotations of the new testament Pag. 474. Chap. XVII Of certaine blasphemies contained in the Annotations pag. 527. The Conclusion Pag. 548. A REFVTATION OF M. WHITAKERS REPREHENSION OF THE LATE ENGLISH TRANSLAtiō and Catholike Annotations of the new Testament and of the booke of Discouery of hereticall corruptions CHAP. 1. Of Luthers contemning S. Iames his Epistle and callinge it STRAMINEAM AMONG sundrie cōtrouersies raysed by the Protestants in our dayes one and that of greate weyght and consequence is the Canon of holy Scriptures that is what bookes are to be admitted into diuine and supreme authoritye and as certaynlye wrytten by inspiration of the holy Ghoste to be receaued without any doubte or contradiction In examininge which question the behauiour of our aduersaries deserueth diligent consideration For as in the beginning they much praysed the Fathers Church Councels of the firste fiue hundred yeares not for any respecte or reuerence they bare vnto them but by so doinge to discountenance and thrust out of credite the Fathers Church and Councels of the later thowsand by whom they saw most euidently their heresies to haue bene condemned so not long after for lyke purpose they made vaūt of the scriptures agaynst those very first and moste auncient Fathers not for any iuste honor or regarde which they had of the scriptures but by that meanes to disgrace the Fathers and ease them selues of answering their authoritye when soeuer they should be pressed therewith For that in deede they accompte not of the very scriptures more then of the Fathers but turne them ouer for vs to defende no lesse then the Fathers time and experience hath shewed their publike wrytinges professe as by that which hereafter ensueth shall manifestly appeare and M. Whitaker though in worde he would fayne dissemble the matter yet in facte and truth playnly declareth so much which being so let the Christian Reader as in other things so in this especially note the proceeding of that which these men call the gospell the grosse impietie wherevnto it tendeth and in to what open profession of infidelitie in a shorte space it is likely to breake out which in the compasse of so few yeares is growen to such a head that now already they dare as boldly call in question and deny partes of the holy scriptures as not long sithence they made the like quarels against the wrytings of the auncient Fathers Let the Christian Reader note I say not their wordes but their doinges not their coūterfeit dissimulatiō in speach pulpit sometyme vsed but their euident practise reasons asseuerations published in bookes confirmed by arguments deduced by necessarie coherence from their doctrine and many wayes expressed by them selues in sundry their Cōferences Institutions and disputations and he shall easely perceaue our aduersaries after denyall of the Fathers Councels Tradition and the authoritie of the Church Catholike now at this present to stand vpon lyke deniall of the written worde the Apostles Prophets so as they leaue no one ground whereupon a christian man can rest his fayth or stay him selfe Thus much I gather not onely by the writinges of sundry other Protestants whereof some I shall touch hereafter but euen of M. Whitakers discourse in defence of Luther about S. Iames Epistle whose words and reasons for this purpose and the Readers better intelligence I will sett downe and prosequute somewhat the more at large And firste of all concerning S. Iames his Epistle M. Martin reproueth M. Whitaker for denyinge that Luther called that Epistle stramincam and in so cleare a case charged Father Campian with a notorius lye It is easie to gesse sayth M.W. vvhat a fellovv vve shall fynde you in the reste vvho are not ashamed in the very beginning to lye so egregiously When F. Campian replyed that it was in some one of Luthers first editions though otherwyse altered in the later nether so sayth M.W. Praefationem illam purgatam esse dixisti quam tamen constat nullo vnquam verbo mutatam esse You saye that preface vvas corrected vvhereas it is certayne that there vvas neuer anye vvorde changed in it Now this being the faulte which M. Martin layeth to M. W. see how wel he defendeth himselfe First because after he had read ouer all Luthers prefaces vpon the new Testament as he sayth he found none such there of he inferreth He is not to be accounted impudent as you call me vvho denieth that to be true vvhich he knovveth not to be true but he that to deceaue others defendeth that as false vvhich he knovveth to be most true but I am so farre from acknovvledging this to be true that I neuer thought it to be more false then I thinke it novv I will not wrangle vpon the definition of impudency but whether this dealing be not moste shamelesse and detestable in a Christian let any man of indifferencie iudge First it can not be excused of grosse and insolente boldnesse and rashnesse vpon the vew of one onely edition to deny so peremptorily a thing obiected so often by so many learned men of name and for ought I coulde yet reade or heare neuer denyed by the Lutherans especially whereas withall nothing is more notorious then the manifold alteratiōs which Melanchton and those of VVittenberge haue made in Luthers works corrupting deprauing putting in and taking out so much and so far forth as pleased their chāgeable humor where of the zealous Lutherans in a synode holden at Altemburg by procurement of the Duke of Wirtemberg and Palsgraue of Rhene lamentably complayne Electorales say they Lutheri scripta enormiter quám faedissimé deprauant ita vt post obitū Lutheri c. The
canonical scriptures And that this fault lye not altogether vpon Luther and the lutheraÌ„s VVolfg Musculus a famous wryter amongst the Zuinglians vpon lyke reason pronounceth lyke sentence They obiect vnto vs sayeth he the place of Iames. but he vvhatsoeuer he vvere though he speake othervvise then S. Paule yet may he not preiudice the truth And after he hath at large shewed the disagreemente betweene those two Apostles thus he breaketh forth into the open reproch of S. Iames. VVherefore he S. Iames alleageth the example of Abraham nothinge to the purpose vvhere he sayeth vvilte thou knovv ô vayne man that fayth vvithout vvorkes is dead Abraham our Father vvas he not iustified by vvorkes vvhen he offred his sonne Isaak He confoundeth the vvord fayth hovv much better had it bene for him diligently and playnely to haue distinguished the true and properlye Christian fayth vvhich the Apostle euer preacheth from that vvhich is common to Ievves and Christians Turks and Diuels then to confound them both and set dovvne his sentence so different from the Apostolicall doctrine vvhereby as concluding he sayth you see that a man is iustified by vvorkes and not by fayth alone vvhereas the Apostle out of the same place disputeth thus c. And after he hath made S. Paule speake as he thinketh best he inferreth Thus sayeth the Apostle of vvhose doctrine vve doubt not Compare me novv vvith this argument of the Apostle the conclusion of this Iames A man therfore is iustified by vvorks and not by fayth only and see hovv much it differeth vvhereas he should more rightly haue coÌ„cluded thus c. In which discourse the Reader may see that he not onely contemptuously refuseth to call him an Apostle and euer nameth him as opposite to the Apostle but also that he refuteth him as making false arguments and taketh vpon him to be his maister and as it were calling him ad ferulam checketh and controwleth him for a corrupter of scripture misapplying the word of God and wickedly pullinge downe that which S. Paule had so wel built vp All which beinge so plaine euident and manifest and the worde straminea found out at length acknowleged by M. VV. a man wold thinke all this matter ended and that egregious lye fathered vpon M. Campian turned vpon M. VV. head withall M. Campians first reason iustified wherein he burdened the Protestantes with denial of the holy scriptures And yet M. VV. yeldeth not but like a valiant soldiar is so farre from geuinge ouer that he pursueth his aduersarie still as though he had the better of him and whâ—e so or how can he possiblie defend him self forsoothe because Luther non plane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stramineam appellauit Luther sayed not playnlye and simplye that it vvas stravven or made of stravve but in comparison of Sainte Peter and Sainte Paules Epistles I beleeue in deede Nether did F. Campian or M. Martine saye so or any wise man els for although he were as madde and shamelesse in his assertions as euer was heretike yet to haue termed that epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stramineam simplye made of stravve or any otherwise then to haue signified the vnworthynes of the same in respect of holie scriptures and in that sort it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a worde of blasphemous contempt had bene as wonderful as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to haue affirmed that is was made of woode or morter And here in the verie fronte and beginning let the reader note in M.VV. the liuely paterne of a perfecte wrangler maintaininge a continuall bablinge vppon wordes and neuer drawing nigh to the pointe Father Campians and M. Martins charge vppon them beinge euidente that they contemne the written worde as is proued by Luther M.VV. knowinge not wel what to say runneth he knoweth not whether vp and downe and aboute forwarde and backward now grauntinge and by and by recalling so that in the compasse of one leafe in one plaine matter he hath more contrary windinges and turnings then a graue and sober man could be driuen vnto in the wryting of a large volume First there is no suche thinge and F. Campian lyeth egregiously nowe him selfe hath founde it out then there was neuer a worde chaunged in Luthers preface now the later editions differ much from the former againe Luther calleth it not simpliciter stramineam but in respect of S. Paules epistles and S. Peters If this serue not the turne then I require you saith he to bring forth the other wordes that folow arida tumida contentiosa or els this of straminea is no great matter yet one fetche more Although I vvil not defend this of Luthers yet you haue iniuried him in saying that he called it omnino stramineam altogether made of stravv looke saith M. Martin in Illyricus and there you shall finde the matter graunted I haue so done saith M.VV. let me be counted impudent yf you finde this vvord there Thus muche I graunt Illyricus saith that Luther rehearseth graue causes vvhy this epistle ought not to be esteemed for a vvriting of Apostolicall authoritye But vvhat is this to the purpose as though he that denieth the epistle to be apostolical termeth yt stramineam made of stravv This is a copie of M.VV. vayne in wryting first to deny the matter be it neuer so euident and wheÌ„ the matter is coÌ„fessed theÌ„ to cauil vpon syllables and when matter and forme the verie syllables are founde yet to yelde to nothing but to keepe the pen or tounge walking as though in this point lyke verball grammarians and ridiculous sophisters we principallie hunted after these syllables stra mi ne am which neuerthelesse are found and not as students searchers of truth in diuinitye soughte out first and cheeflie whether by these and the lyke contemptible speeches the aduersarie laboured to disgrace deface that Apostolical writing and so impiouslie to auoyde suche authoritie when he should be pressed therewith Wherefore to draw to some issue howsoeuer Luther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called it stramineam or called it not or whether he spake so in respect of the matter of the epistle or the forme or by way of comparison with S. Paule or whatsoeuer other quidditie M.W. ether now hath or hereafter shall deuise if Luther did yt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to deface the epistle which M.VV. denieth not and to dispossesse it of Canonicall authoritie as the thing it self speaketh if by his example the Germane Diuines churches altogether contemne it if vppon Luthers sentence Illyricus pronounce that Luther in his praeface rendereth great causes vvhy this epistle oughte in no case to be accounted for a vvriting of Apostolicall authoritie vnto vvhich reasons I thinke euerie godlie man and not geuen to contention ought to yeld if Pomerane say the vvriter thereof maketh a vvicked argument concludeth ridiculouslie if Vitus Theodorus thrust it cleane out of the booke if the Centuries affirme
see and yovv shall not see and wel may they treade it vnder theire feete as our Sauiour parabolically forespake that heretikes wold doe when he said Nolite proiicere margaritas ante porcos ne forte conculceÌ„t eas pedibus suis but to refel confute suppresse it that is no more possible then that Christ should be false of his worde and promisse that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it And whereas it hath coÌ„tinued by the protestaÌ„ts coÌ„mon grauÌ„t aboue a thousand yeares in truth euer since Christ his passion against other maner of tempests then these are heretikes of excelleÌ„t learning heresies of maruelous subtilitie most mightie Emperours rulers of the worlde now to imagine that it maie be vanquished of these grosse and contrarie heresies fortified with no maner of learning wherof manie are so base that men eueÌ„ by the light of nature abhorre theÌ„ hauing nothing to mainteine theÌ„ selues but onlie a vaine challeÌ„ginge of the Spirite and bold crakinge of the vvord of the Lord which a parrat caÌ„ doe with a litle instruction as well as they thus I saie to talke were more fit for Pasquillus Estaticus or a sicke man wheÌ„ he raueth than a sober Diuine that wayeth what he speaketh CHAP. III. Hovv M. VV. defendeth Luther preferring his priuate iudgment before all auncient fathers and Doctors NEXT commeth in againe frier Luther whoÌ„ M. Martin accused for saynge that he esteemed not a thousande Augustines CipriaÌ„s Churches wheÌ„ they are against him That the reader may better carie awaie the matter I wil first put downe Luthers wordes where vpon this controuersie standeth after it shal be easier to iudge how aptlie M. VV. defence is framed The wordes of Luther are in his booke written against King Henrie the eight her Maiesties father and are these But I saith he against the saynges of fathers of men of Angels of deuels set not old custome not multitude of men but the vvord of the onlie eternall maiestie the Gospel here I stand here I sit here I glorie here I triumphe here I insult ouer Papists Thomists Henricists Sophists and all the gates of hell much more ouer the saynges of men be they neuer so holie Gods vvorde is aboue al the diuine maiesty maketh for me so as I passe not if a thousaÌ„d Austines a thousand Ciprians a thousand Kinge-Harrie Churches stoode against me God can not erre or deceaue Austine Ciprian and likevvise all other elect might erre they haue erred here ansvvere maister Harrie here plaie the maÌ„ I coÌ„tene thy lies I feare not thy threates here thovv staÌ„dest astonished like a stock c. These are the wordes with which M. Martin findeth faulte M.VV. defendeth them thus If Luther had preferred him self before all fathers Churches he vvere not to be borne vvithal but this Luther neuer challenged to himself But in some causes Luther might esteeme more his ovvne iudgement then the authoritie of Austine or Ciprian or a thousand Churches For if that vvhich Luther taught vvere agreable to Gods vvord Luthers iudgment vvas to be preferred before all the contrary iudgments of all men liuinge Before I enter into the examination of this answere let me demaunde this one thinge in courtesie of you M.W. what the reason is whie you so busilie and eagerlie defende Luther be his wordes neuer so strange or fanatical or whie is the Pope Antichrist for resisting your Gospel whereas Luther you aduaunce if not into the place of Christ yet at least amonge the number of his Apostles Did the Pope of Rome euer persequute your zuinglian gospel with more deadly hatred then did that pope of Saxonie Did he not from the verie beginning to his later breath holde you and your brethren for most damnable wretches and professed enemies of the eternall testament of Christ Are you ignorant how for this cause he wrote whole volumes agaynst your first Apostle Zuinglius Read you neuer the Confession of your brethreÌ„ of the Tigurine church where thus they complaine Lutherus statim ab initio mâ—rdere furere conuitiari bacchari coepit c. Luther presently at the beginning began to byte to play the mad man to raile and rage and besides this he filled his bookes vvith the horrible names of Deuils Sectaries Sprites mad men and vvhatsoeuer slaunders came to his minde he cast them out agaynst vs outragiously Complaine they not in the preface of that Confession that he inueigheth against them as against obstinate heretikes and such as are guiltye to themselues of all impietie as prophaners of the Sacraments and the most vyle and pestilent men that goe on the ground He proscribeth and condemneth first of al the faithful doctors and ministers of God Oecolampadius Zuinglius and their disciples vvheresoeuer they be all frindship and communion vvith vs he compteth vvicked abominable and vvhat soeuer commeth froÌ„ vs be it letters be it bookes be it salutations be it benedictions he vvill not only not reade but he vvill not so much as vouchsafe to looke vppon them or heare them spoken of so farre forth that when Eroschouerus the zuinglian printer of zuricke sent him a bible traÌ„slated by the diuines there Luther sent it him backe againe with this greetinge that he should not send him anie thinge that proceeded from the ministers of the Tigurine church for he vvould haue no dealinge vvith them nether vvoulde he receaue or reade their bookes for the churches of God could not communicate vvith theÌ„ Yea he protesteth that he had rather susteine a hundred seueral deathes then to become of your opinion or shew any couÌ„tenance of bearing fauour to it The Lord defend sayth he that I vvittingly and vvillingly by the authority of my name should couer or confirme the verie least error of the fanatical SacrameÌ„taries Nam vel centies laniari aut igne comburi malleÌ„ c. For I had rather be torne in peeces or burnt vvith fier a huÌ„dred times theÌ„ to folovv the opinion and agree in doctrine vvith zvvinglius Oecolampadius the rest of those miserable vnfortunate fanatical men Finally know you not M. W. that thus he began thus he went foreward thus he continued thus he ended his daies dyinge such a mortal enemye to you that he seemed to make his hâ—tred and detestation of your church and gospel a peece of his iustificatioÌ„ before Christe as in his last Confession made a litle before his death and recorded in the foresaid Confession of Zurake it appeareth Ego qui iam sepulchro vicitus obambulo hoc testimoniam et hanc gloriam ad Christi saluatoris tribunal perferam c. I saith he that novv vvalke nye to my graue vvill carie this testimonie and this glorie to the tribunal seate of Christ my Sauiour that I haue vvith all earnestnes condemned and auoyded those fanaticall men and enemies of the Sacrament Zuinglius OEcolampadius
downe in forme by M.W. the Minor is the conclusion of the last argumēt and so proued sufficiently alreadie then I hope the Conclusion will stand wherefore leauinge this matter for M. W. to scanne and to recorde with him selfe who is that Baal founder of the priesthode of the new testament now may we vew with better iudgment how substantially he answereth S. Austines place de Ciuitate dei where S. Austine doth distinguishe betweene all Christians vvho are vnproperly called priestes because of their mistical Chrisme and vnitie vvith Christe others qui proprie iam vocantur in ecclesia sacerdotes episcopi that properlie are novv called in the Church priestes and byshops and properlie such are they by M. W. definition which properly offer sacrifice M.W. āswereth that the name priest vvas of olde tyme after a more peculiar sorte applied to the pastors and ministers that handled the vvorde and sacramentes but there vvas an abuse in so speakinge then you agree not with S. Austine who teacheth that propriè in proprietie of speach they were so called who if they had then to execute no other priestly function then haue now the Englishe ministers as M. W. supposeth or wolde pretend I graunte the worde prieste could not be applied to them but as abusiuely as if one woulde cal a ciuil magistrate by that name or one of the Quenes Readers in the Vniuersities For preachinge of the worde ministringe of some one or other sacramente although in the Catholike Church it be done by priestes yet properlie that is not the reason why they are called by that name but the true reason is that which M.W. rendereth quia propriè offerunt sacrificia because properly they offer sacrifice Now that S. Austine meante of priestes in this sort that himselfe was such a prieste to passe ouer many pregnante and euidente places in him for breuities sake I refer you to the knowen story of his mothers death Where she firste of al in her death-bed requesteth that her sonne vvould remember her at the altar of God When after her death the corps beinge brought into the Churche and placed beside the graue before the tyme of burial prayers were sayd the sacrifice of our price and redemption offered for her when afterwarde S. Austine in his moste deuoute zelous praier made to God for her reckneth this to her singuler commendacion that at her departure she tooke no care for costlie maner of burial or sumptuous monumente but only desired to be remembred at thy altar ô Lorde from vvhence she knew vvas dispensed that holy sacrifice vvhereby vvas blotted out the handvvrittinge vvhich vvas againste vs vvhereby triumphe vvas obtained against Satan our eternal enemie straight waies inspire saith he ô Lorde my God inspire to thy seruants my brethren that vvho-soeuer of them shal reade this may haue remembrance at thy altar of Patricius and Monica my father and mother But againste this M.W. hath an obiection as common plaine to them that know oughte in diuinitie as Dunstable hye way answered before hāde abundantlie in the annotacions of the the new testamente Heb. ca. 7. v. 12. 17.23 his argument is I say there are no priestes of the new testamēt that offer sacrifice after Christ who is the eternal priest according to the order of Melchisedec obtaineth sacerdotiū 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an eternal priesthod he hath made an end of al sacrifices takē away the succession of priestes cōmitted his church to be ruled by pastors and doctors for euer To beginne with the laste where you ende if Christ abolished all priesthod and left his Church to be gouerned for euer by pastors and doctors which were no priestes had this appointemēt and ordinance of his effect yea or no if no beware what yow say for litle differ you from a Iew a man of Mahomets religion and weake is your faith in Christes godhead if you thinke that in so manie places of scripture he appointed such a regimente for his Church which after his departure neuer tooke effect if yea then shew vs where or when was his Church so gouerned was it a hūdred yeares ago before Frier Luther first of all in our memorie induced this kinde of gouernment you must needes say no. Ascend we then 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and ten ages vntil S. Gregories time was it al this while gouerned by such pastors as you describe I wene as yet you wil say sure I am you should say no. For those pastors were styll priestes and that in proper sense as appeareth by al stories Suche were our first Apostles the conuerters of our nation those excellent men SS Augustine Paulinus Laurentius Melitus Iustus c. sacred by the Pope of Rome or other lawfull Bishops in obediēce of the Sea of Rome offering sacrifice liuing and dying as priestes as by the goodlie storie of Venerable Bede our coūtryman you may euerie where learne Such pastors and priests they were by whom and vnder whose regiment our Churches were first builded and the ecclesiastical state of our realme ordered as now vnder the regiment of them that cal thē selues pastors no priestes and are in deede no more the one then the other all is pulled downe and ouerthrowen And if in anie other countrie of Christendome the churches had any other regiment such as you pretēd now in England of pastors no priestes shew vs your bookes and we wil beleeue you But you wil say from S. Gregorie vpward all was smooth and iumpe as it is now in the English congregation Suppose that to be true how in the meane seasō can you iustifie your owne saing that Christ delyuered his Church to be gouerned for euer by suche maner of pastors Cā Christes decree be made frustrate for so many ages Can mans iniquitye as you in your Apologie commonlie but most bluntlie obiect stoppe the course of Christes omnipotent and eternal prouidence know you not how copiouslie S. Augustine hath confuted this self same slaūderous obiectiō in your forefathers the Donatistes But passe we on come we to the first fathers of the primitiue Churche were they lay ministers after the maner of the English congregation that is pastors no priestes how dare or can you say so seing in S. Austine manifestlie you see a sacrificing priesthod seing your self acknowledge Sainte Hierome to haue bene a priest of the Romane Church which neuer yet approued any such ministery as you haue inuented seing your greate Rabbine and synke of iniquitie Iohn Bale calleth S. Leo the great and first of that name in plaine termes an idolater for this cause seing your chiefe capitayne Apostle Caluine and after him P. Martir and before him Huldericke Zuinglius affirme in generall of the fathers in the primitiue Church that for maintenāce of the vnbloudy sacrifice they forced abused the
the spirite of grace CHAP. V. Of Penance and the value of good vvokes touching iustification and lyfe eternal NEXT in place foloweth Penance wherein M.W. keepeth his accustomed speaking so doubtfullie and ambiguouslie that he semeth not fullie resolued what to affirme yet in fine as commonlie his maner is he yeldeth sufficient matter to ouerthrow him selfe M. Martin here noteth him of two faultes one that he iniurieth the fathers the other that he contrarieth him selfe the iniurie done to the fathers is this that he affirmeth S. Ciprian and other fathers to haue depraued the doctrine of penance Before he come to iustifie this accusation he falleth into a common place common to all sortes of protestātes taking to him selfe supreme iudgement ouer the fathers complayninge of the Catholikes that so it fareth vvith them that excepte those thinges may preuaile vvhich in the fathers are most corrupte or vitious they are not able to maintaine their cause Whereunto I answere that so it fareth with the protestantes that except they may be soueraigne iudges of fathers Councels Church and al they must hold their peace and say nothing for this is as stale a tricke and currant amōgst any sect as any thinge hitherto spoken of to protest much reuerence to the fathers whē they are not against the word of God that is against their cōceiued heresies marie thē boldlie to stande with the word against them and say they were all beetle-blynd and saw nothinge for when and wherein the fathers hold with them then in such matters they were worse then madde altogether voyde of common sense if they would thus inueigh against thē In the last question presse them with the fathers and the primitiue Church touchinge external pristhod and the sacrifice it was their error saith Caluin Illyricus Zuinglius and Bale Presse the sacrilegious vowbreakers with the consent of the primitiue Church for condemnation of their vnlawful mariages I knovv saith Peter Martir and declared no lesse to my auditors in Oxford that Epiphanius vvith manie others of the fathers erred in that they helde it a fynne to breake the vovv of virginitie and they do ill to number it amongest the Apostolicall traditions Charge the English Puritanes with the consent of Antiquitie for obseruation of feasts holy-dayes in honour of Christ and his Saintes M. T. C. answereth VVhereas M. D. VVhiteg citeth Augustine and Hierom to proue that in the churches in their tymes there vvere holy-daies kept besydes the Lordes day he might haue also cited Ignatius and Tertullian and Ciprian vvhich are of greater aunciencie and vvould haue made more for the credite of his cause for it is not to be denied but this keepinge of holy-dayes especially of Easter and Pentecost is verie auncient and that these holy-dayes for the remembrance of Martyrs vvere vsed of long tyme. but these abuses vvere no auncienter then other vvere grosser also then this and therefore I appeale from these exāples to the scriptures Charge the Trinitarie Protestantes the Arians of Polonia Seruetus with the Coūcel of Nice and Crede of Athanasius the Councell of Nice say they vvas a congregation of Sophisters and the Crede of Athanasius may more iustlie be called the Crede of Sathanasius the first Nicene fathers vvith Athanasius inuented this tripartite God they vvere all blind Sophisters Ministers of the Beast slaues of Antichrist and bevvitched vvith his enchauntmentes for that the Pope is Antichrist in that as in verie manie other pointes they are iust of M.W. faith In like sorte dealeth the Lutherane Vbiquitarie against vvhose monstrous heresie vtterlie destroyng the mysterie of Christe Incarnatiō vvhen Bullinger vrged the consent of al the auncient fathers Brentius presētly gaue this general answere The fathers altogether in this question are of no vveight or authoritie They vvere taught not in the schole of the holy Ghost but in the schole of Aristotle they vvere deceiued and blynded by Aristotle humaine reason of celestial matters they haue childish imaginations and grosse dreames earthlie fansies and carnal conceites Thus answered Brentius and thus saith Bullinger of him Inuenit compēdium ad omnia veterum testimonia respondēdi A shorte compendious vvay hath he founde to solue all places of the fathers thus sayth euerie heretike touching euerie controuersie wherein the fathers stād against him the selfe same way hath M.W. taken But because this way is ether to large therefore to daūgerous as lying wide open for euerie kind of heretike that hath bene is or cā be or to straight if M. W. wil make it priuate to him self and deny it to all others let him therfore without this preiudicate condemnation geue reason whie he offereth the fathers this intolerable iniurie for so it must be called vntill he proue the cōtrarie his reasons are these Penance consisteth not in certaine externall penalties or in a certaine exquisite seueritie of discipline vvhich the Apostle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvherebie the bodie is chastised vvith certaine voluntarie punishmentes but in internal dolour conceiued through remembranco of out sinnes and in amendmente of lyfe and the fathers vvhen they supposed that by such greuous penalties their sinnes should be acquited and God pleased they erred greuously and somevvhat diminished the force of Christes deathe and bloud by vvhich onlie our sinnes are expiated for pardon of sinnes is to be expected of nothinge but of the bloud of Christ In which wordes three thinges I note his description of penance his reason prouinge the same and the sequele or absurditie which he inserreth thereof wherein stoode the auncient fathers error His description of penance is partlie affirmatiue as that he requireth internal greefe of hart and correction of life partlie is negatiue as that he remoueth from it all externall chastisement or discipline In the first we agree with him in the seconde we say he erreth and vnderstādeth not the scriptures As without the first the second is worth nothinge so ioyne them bothe together they greatlie please God are highlie commended in the Gospel our Sauiour when he denounced vae to Corozain and Bethsaida sayng if the miracles vvrought in thee had bene done in Tyre and Sidon they had not onlie done penance longe agoe but they had done it in beare-cloth ashes he sheweth this external afflictiō to be verie commendable and to make the penance more auaylable and withall pointeth the Iewes to their Prophetes who willed them with such external humiliatiō to prostrate them selues before God thereby the sooner to procure his mercie Conuert ye to me sayth the Prophete Ioel vvith al your hart in fastinge and mourninge and lamentation and rente your hartes and not your garmentes saith our Lorde omnipotent In the later parte of which sentence as he disproueth externall signes without internall remorse as being hipocritical reiected of God by
the Prophete Esaie so in the first part coupling both toghether he sheweth what is perfect penance as likewise doth our Sauiour in S. Matthew where he condemneth that Pharisaical error but that wickednes being remoued the thinges in them selues he approueth calleth them the iustice of Christians who for the same haue their revvard vvith God and that M. W. replie not this to haue bene a Iewish ceremonie and therefore abrogated he may learne if he know not or he may remeÌ„ber if he haue forgotten that this is a duetie morall and therefore practised not onlie in the law but also out of the law and before the law and after the law both in the tyme of nature and grace Touching the lawe of nature before the law of Moyses I referre him to S. Hierome in his booke against Iouinian partlie because those examples are by him wel set forth and vrged against Iouinian partlie because M.W. may withall finde that his opinion is not new but was of old defended by that fleshlie heretike This morall duetie grounded on the law of nature God confirmed and established by his writteÌ„ law as we reade in the booke of Numbers Thus vnder the law the prophet Dauid did penaÌ„ce Thus out of the law the Niniuites did penance and God approued their doinge Thus that wicked Kinge Achab did penance the scripture alloweth him therin Thus in the time of grace S. Paule chastised him selfe and enioyned penance to others The Apostles vsuallie enioyned fastes before they ordered priestes as appeareth in the Actes This kinde of fast and penance vsed Timothe wheÌ„ though otherwise weake feeble he altogether abstayned from wine so far forth that the Apostle S. Paule thought it needeful to appoint require him to vse a litle vvine because of his vveake stomake and manie infirmites Touchinge which place were it not that M.W. hath already condemned the fathers as erringe in this point I could wish him quietlie and consideratlie to reade S. Chrisostomes notable homelie tom 5. Homelia 1. ad popul Antioche Finallie in one worde that true Christians should thus doe that is vse prescript kinde of fastinge and discipline in the new testament our Sauiour euidentlie foretelleth when he saith in excuse of his Apostles because they fasted not as did S. Ihons disciples Can the children of the bridegrome mourne as long as the bridegrome is vvith them but the dayes vvil come vvhen the bridegrome shal be taken avvay from them and then they shal fast which fast must necessarilie be vnderstoode of a fast dâ—ffering from that which they obserued with Christ And so nether can be vnderstood of the fast from sinne for so Christ would not allow them to breake their fast nether of fast as fast signifieth temperance in diet for Christ neuer allowed them excesse or intemperance and brieflie caÌ„ signifie no other fast but such as the Church after Christes departure vnto these dayes hath and yet doth obserue Agaynst al this M. W. alleageth two Greeke wordes of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is accordinge to his sense seueritie of discipline in punishing the bodie the English Testament tourneth it sparing the bodie whereunto the Apostle opposeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the same place is traÌ„slated satisfying of the flesh And what meaneth M.W. by this allegatioÌ„ thinketh he that the Apostle discommendeth the first and exhorteth men to the second is he so verie an Epicure that he can but once imagine of S. Paule that he should wish men to pamper vp their bodie and employ them selues to satisfie the flesh if he meane so let him speake plainlie that men may see to what filthines this new Gospel tendeth If otherwise why alleageth he those wordes in this place and against fasting and penance why at all alleageth he the bare wordes without a coÌ„mentarie Touchinge the sense let the reader peruse the Annotation vpon the same in the Catholike English TestameÌ„t he shal quickly see what pithe there is in M. W. greeke citations with which I know not to what purpose he would seme to illuminate his writinge Verie wel and succinctlie Theodorete geueth the sense of that place otherwise obscure and hard Oportet sua sponte abstinere non tanquam ab abominandis sed tanquam a suauissimis The Apostle meante not to withdraw men from abstinence they must abstaine from meates and drinkes not as from things impure and abominable for that is Iudaical but as from things pleasant and delectable to the flesh and this is Christian His reason why he disliketh the former workes of penance is because they are iniurious to Christs passion ond death the onlie price and satisfaction for sinnes This argument is al one with the last of priesthode and therefore in parte is satisfied alreadie For a surplusage I adde that these and the lyke reasons procede rather of ignorance then ought els therefore if he would first learne what is the meaning of the Catholike Church and all Christians he would neuer so idlie trouble the world with such stuffe nor so wickedlie controule the learned auncient Bishops and withal he might ease him selfe of some labour Verie diuinelie saith the holie Councel This satisfaction vvhich vve vndertake for our sinnes is not ours so that it is not by Christ Iesus for vve that of our selues as of our selues can do nothing by his cooperatioÌ„ vvhich strengtheneth vs can do al things so man hath not vvhereof to glory but al his gloriation is in Christ in vvhom vve liue deserue and satisfie doing fruites vvorthie of penance vvhich of Christ haue force by him are offered to the father and by him are accepted of the father Thus the Councel whose doctrine wel vnderstoode maketh far more for the honour of the Crosse and bloud of Christ then doth our aduersaries without comparison And surelie ether our lucke is euill in these our dayes whose happe is to fal amongst such peruerse aduersaries that what-soeuer we can do one way or other wil gnawe at it or els our aduersaries lotte is strange and maruelous amongst whom scant any one can frame an argument against vs but presentlie he hath a brother of his owne that is readie to pul him by the sleeue and cal him foole for his labour M.W. reproueth the fathers and in them al catholikes for that by our workes we pull from Christ and diminish the vertue of his bloud Contrary-wise that most graue and learned father Iohn Brentius so M. Iewel calleth him inueigheth against vs for that by our workes we geue to much to Christ and magnifie more theÌ„ we ought the vertue of his Crosse and in truth if there were any fault in the doctrine of the Church BreÌ„tius reason carieth far more probabilitie theÌ„ M.W. Thus he reasoneth Iactat Sotus se Christo nihil detrahere sed potius glorificare sed coÌ„tra
because I couet to be short and these matters are now so cleare and manifest to men neuer so litle exercised in these questions that I do rather marueyle wonder at the dulnes and passing ether ignorance or shamlesnes of our aduersaries then greatly take care how to refute so sensible and knowen a falshode Yet one thing I may not pretermitte which the foresayd historiographers most euidently affirme and by plaine demonstration proue and wherein the primacie of the Romane Church shyneth as bright as the sunne at noone in a somers day that is the demeanure of the bishop of Rome in generall Councels in which the whole church being gathered together if at any time or place then and there this power is principally to be considered And haue we any thing there for our purpose Is it possible that within the first 500. yeres in the aunciēt general Councels ought should be found for proofe of this supreme authoritie vvhich is plainelie contrarie to the auncient Councels inuaded the church vnder Phocas many yeres after the tyme we speake of except the Apologie of the English Church and the Protestantes in their writinges lye to notoriously It is verie true saith Luther and the Pope him selfe knovveth it vvel inough and nothing is more manifest by al the decrees of the old Councels and al vvritings and stories of al holy fathers vvhich vvere before the first Pope by name Bonifacius 3. that the bishop of Romes authority vvas no greater then the authority of other bishops How the honor of that Apologie Luther may be saued I leaue it to M. W. but otherwyse then as of an incredible fowle lye I can not iudge of that assertiō except I would discredite these other writers who affirme the contrarie and proue the contrarie that out of most autentical recordes and that by this very Leo magnus in M. Iewels iudgement so greate an enemy of this supremacie For continuing there narration of the same Popes They summoned general Councels say these writers they vvere the Presidents in general Councels they confirmed general Councels and sometimes in part sometimes vvholie they disanulled general Councels and this is manifest in Leo his epistles and the general Councels thēselues keapt vnder him Epist 93. ca. 17. vve haue sent letters saith he to our brethren and felovv-bishops of Tarraco in Spayne of Carthage in Afrike of Portugal and Fraunce and haue sommoned them to meete at a general Councel and Leo sent Paschasinus bishop of Sicilia to be President in the Councell of Chalcedon vvhich is manifeste in the Acts of that Councel And the same Paschasinus the Popes vicar condemned Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria for this reason because he durst hold a Councel vvithout the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike and Cecropius bishop of Sebastopolis saith in the same place vve may not call the second Councel of Ephesus by the name of a Councel because it vvas nether gathered together by the Apostolike authoritie nether proceeded it orderly in actis Concilii Chalcedonensis See Leo epist 10. ad Flauianum and 12. ad Theodosium Thus Leo condemned the second Councel of Ephesus and required an other to be gathered epist 24.25.28.30.31.32 and vvhereas Anatolius bishop of Constantinople vvould haue set him self before the churches of Alexandria and Antioche Leo epist. 53. vvriteth vnto him most vehemently and shevveth that to be against the canons of the Nicene Councel and that he vvil not permit those churches to leese their old prerogatiues vvhich thing he auoucheth also in his epistle to Pulcheria and there againe he rebuketh the ambition or insolencie of that Anatolius and signifieth expresly that he doth abrogate and disanulle all the decrees of the bishops there gathered together so many as vvere contrarie to the rules of the Nicene Coūcel And the Coūcel of Chalcedō of 630. bishops assembled out of al the world thus vvriteth to Leo. vve beseech you that you vvil honour our iudgement vvith your approbation and as vve of zeale haue put our consent to these good decrees so let your Supremacie fulfill to vs your children that vvhich is conuenient Finally this principalitie of the Romane church Leo laboureth to persvvade in most of his epistles as in his epistles to Anastasius bishop of Thessalonica to the bishops of Germanie and Fraunce to Anatolius bishop of Constantinople in sundrie other vvhere very painfully he goeth about to proue that singular preeminence vvas geuen to Peter aboue the other Apostles and that thence rose the distinction of bishops and especially the primacie of the Romane church and that therefore he is bound to take the care of al churches Thus far they whereby we see that S. Leo thought this primacy due to the church of Rome not by decree of Emperours or Councels but by the expresse ordinance of Christ him selfe in the Gospel And in all this can M. W. fynde neuer a sentence clause or example for the Supremacie thinketh he that M. Iewels grāmatical diuinitie of comparing wordes and phrases tempered together with a huge heape of corruptiōs lyes wil serue in the iudgmēt of any reasonable man against such a troupe of sensible demonstrations gathered vrged to this purpose by his owne brethren whē as the greate generall Coūcels acknowledge such authoritie the greatest patriarchs of Constantinople Antioche Alexandria submit them selues to such authoritie the bishop of Rome a man of such excellencie for learning wisdom and godlines as Leo was exercyseth vpon them such authoritie prescribeth to them lawes Canons and decrees gouerneth in their prouinces and in al other in Africa in Mauritania in Aegipte in Syria in Asia in Grece in Spaine in Fraunce in Germanie in al parts of the Christian world Remembreth he not that Theodore Beza and the church of Geneua answere these places by calling him plaine Antichrist for vsing this authoritie Cōstat Leonem in epistolis Romanae Sedis Antichristianae arrogantiam planè spirasse It is manifest say they that Leo in his epistles doth clearly breath forth the arrogancie of that Antichristiā Romane Sea yet S. Leo in Geneua a verie Antichrist for his writing behauiour about the Supremacie for the self same matter in England is a pure Protestāte He taught M. Iewel that the authoritie of the bishop of Rome was no greater then the authority of any other bishop of thee ô Leo he learned this heresie if he vvere deceaued thou Leo deceauedst him Surely it was an ouersight that he forgat to put in the rolle S. Bernard the bishop of Rochester and Sir Thomas More For of them in this case he learned as much as of S. Leo or of S. Gregorie who notwithstanding is an other of his maisters But what a froward and ouerthwart scholer he was who here againe so blyndly mistooke his maister I thinke few of his schole-felowes are ignorant and it is so cleare that in truth it greueth me to spend tyme
and it is no reason that any one should take to him selfe that vvhich by equal right agreeth to al. This being the true meaning of such places and this being verie often times geuen by S. Gregorie him selfe saepe et in multis epistolis you see how iustly we accuse both M. Iewel you of wilfulnes and blindnes how iustly we obiect vnto you a verbal and talkatiue diuinitie who could not or would not see that is which so commonly repeted againe and againe in so many epistles But maketh S. Gregorie ether in this word or in al his words or workes ought against the primacie of that church This writer proceedeth on thus Verumtamen ex aliis constat c. notvvithstanding by other places it is euident that Gregorie thought that the charge and principalitie of the vvhole church vvas committed to Peter by the voice of our Lord. And thus much he vvrote plainely almost vvord for vvord lib. 4. epistola 32. to the emperour Maurice and confirmed it by testimonie of scripture It is manifest saith Gregorie to al men that knovv the gospel that by the voice of our Lord the care of the vvhole church vvas cōmitted to holy S. Peter Prince of al the Apostles For to him it is said feede my sheepe Iohn 21. To him it is said I haue prayed for the that thy faith fayle not Luc. 22. To him it is said thou art Peter and vpon this rock I vvil build my church c. Mat. 16. Behold he receaueth the keys of the kingdom of heauen povver to bind and loose is geuen to him to him is committed the charge principalite of the vvhole church And yet for this cause Gregorie thought not that Peter vvas the forerunner of Antichrist Thus he prouing both by scripture by reason that S. Gregorie though he disliked and condemned that proude name of vniuersal bishop both in him selfe and others as doth also Pope Gregorie the 13. at this day yet he nether disliked nor condemned the supreme charge and gouernment of the church for Antichristian which him selfe exercised nether could he so do except he first cōdemned for Antichristian S. Peter the Apostle who receaued it and Christ our Sauiour who gaue it So tha◠M. Iew. hath hetherto shewed smal wit learning faith or honestie in making these mē S. Gregorie Leo Xistus Anacletus his maisters in that heresie against the supremacie who haue not only no one word or sillable against it but contrariwise haue whole and long epistles chapters discourses examples and factes arguments reasons scriptures to proue it And here the reader may gesse how like I were to cloy him with abundance and store if I would in like sort go thorough with the other articles which I might do as wel and with as great aduantage But I wil not cast more water into the sea and therefore nether wil prosequute in this order the other two questions but only touch them in a word and so proceede to other matter As here against the Pope so against the real presence for the zuinglian imagination M. Iewel likewise chalengeth al the fathers vnto him namely those aboue rehearsed S. Gregorie S. Leo c. and besides S. Austin S. Hierom and S. Chrisostome then which I thinke he could not haue picked out amongst al the fathers more heauy and deadly enemies to him touching any parte of his false faith and those two partes of the real presence and sacrifice especially For was there euer besides this wicked man any Luther or Bucer or who so euer was worse then other so desperate in lying that would say S. Gregorie was a minister and ministred the holy communion as now is the fashion in England when his bookes in so many places shew him to haue bene a prieste and a prieste to celebrate masse and not to minister communion vnto whom other protestants commonly attribute the framing of the masse because of two or three rites which he ordeined therein Whom for this cause Theodorus Bibliāder scornfully nameth patriarcham caeremoniarum the Patriarch of ceremonies Melanchthō that he horribly prophaned the Communiō allovving by publike authoritie the sacrifice of Christes body and bloud not only for the liuing but also for the dead Flacius Illyricus that by miracle he cōuerted a faithles vvoman vvho beleeued not that the body of Christ vvas substancially in tbe Sacrament ex Paulo Diacono lib. 2. cap. 41.42 and that euery vvhere be doth inculcate sacrifices and masse and by diuers miracles confirmeth the same against whom Petrus Paulus Vergerius for authoritie place and estimation as great a Protestant as any in our dayes hath written a whole booke entituled de nugis fabulis Papae Gregorii primi and finally to passe by many others when your owne English writers protest him to haue bene a perfite and absolute Papist that therefore your first Apostles and Euangelistes in bringing in this your Gospel did directly oppose them selues vnto him and rooted out that which he and his Legate our Apostle S. Austin had planted Gregorie the first saith your Chronicler Iohn Bale the yere of our lord 596. sent Austine the monke to plante in our churches his Romane religion But Latimer is much more vvorthie to be called our Apostle then Austine For Austine brought nothing but mans traditions masse Crosses litanies c. vvhereas Latimer vvith the hooke of truth cut of those superstitions vvhich he had planted and cast them out of the Lords vineyard And doth not M. Horne the late called bishop of Winchester in playne termes reuile this glorious Apostle and name him most ethnically a blinde bussard because he was ignorant of your Alcoran and knew nothing els and therefore induced our forefathers to no other Gospel then to the auncient Gospel of Christ and religion Catholike And doth the other S. Austin make more for you in this point of your vnbeleefe then doth this later S. Austin or S. Gregorie I know you alleage him much more but with what honestie I had rather you should heare of your owne father Luther then of me In my iudgement saith Luther after the Apostles the church hath not had a better doctor then vvas S. Austin And that holie man hovv filthilie hovv spitefullie is he mangled and disfigured by the Sacramentaries that he may become a defender patrone of their venemous blasphemous and erroneous heresie Verely as much as in me lieth so long as I haue breath in my body I vvil vvithstand them and protest that they do him iniury vvhich thing any man may do vvith an assured and confident mynde because the Sacramentaries only pul teare his vvords into their ovvne sense prouing their applicatiō by no reason but only by vayne boasting of their most certaine truth And concerning the rest of the fathers whereas M. Iewel affirmeth that they all taught as he did against the real presence Luther contrarywise
of my opinion and thinke the sense which I geue to be the onely true and yours to be the false shal he be so bold to shut out yours and thrust in his owne with like necessitie restraynt as you haue done if so then you know the Lutherans thinke as I say For thus writeth Illyricus and he writeth as it may seeme directlie against your Beza Some vnderstand this place that Christ is receaued or coÌ„teyned of the heauen vvhich sentence is against the scope of the Apostle and should set forth rather the infirmitie then the glorie povver of Christ For so of angels yea of deuils it may be sayd that they are receaued or coÌ„teyned of heaueÌ„ because the vvorde coeluÌ„ sometime in the scripture signifieth the ayer A goodlie matter he vvho by vvitnes â—o the scripture filleth al thinges vve vvil say is receaued or conteyned in a certen place almost as it vvere in a prison Secondarily what wicked and vncoÌ„scionable dealing is this in spending so many wordes not to speake any one worde to the purpose whereunto you should speake al or els hold your peace speake nothing Was not that the point of his reprehension not because you gaue a passiue for an actiue or deponent but because you did it in this place and did it to this end that so you might seeme by scripture to exclude Christ froÌ„ the sacrament For this reason Beza geueth and for this reason M. Martin reproueth Beza Bezaes corruption and of this M.W. speaketh not a worde or if he do it is a manifest falsitie For if M. Whit. sayng that Beza did it for that only cause to auoyde doubtful speach oppose him selfe to M. Martin in this it can not be excused froÌ„ a playne lye for so much as in Bezaes behalfe he auoucheth that to be true which Beza him selfe protesteth to be false They so conclude Christ in heaueÌ„ saith M. Martin that he can not be on the altar and Beza protesteth that he so translateth of purpose to kepe Christes presence thence Yet a third faulte you haue committed besides in iustifying this smal demie sentence and that is whereas M. Martin for the better strengthning of his reason against you ioyned to it the authoritie of Illyricus and Caluin you omit them bothe This translation of Beza is so far from the Greke saith M. Martin that not onely Illyricus the Lutherane but Caluin him selfe doth not like it Which wodes if you had ioyned to the rest if you had but named those men your slender reasoÌ„s in the eyes of your reader would forthwith haue appeared contemptible And wel he might haue marueyled how you durst defend such a translation which not only Illyricus a famous LutheraÌ„ but also Caluin a prince amongst the ZuingliaÌ„s in plaine speach reprehendeth whereby a man may see that you seeke not for truth but only to talke on and serue the tyme abuse the reader And yet once againe vnder preteÌ„ce of a litle simplicitie and most rude and simple sophistrie a fourth fault haue you made worse then the former running first from one sense to an other and then from one worde to an other and so in fine whiles you would seeme to make S. Peter speake clearly and plainly you make him speake falsly heretically whereof forthwith I shal haue occasion to treate The place which you cite out of Nazianzene oportet Christum a coelo recipi maketh no more for you then doth the article of our Creede ascendit ad coelos or sedet ad dexteram patris and I marueile what Catholike beleeueth the contrarie and therefore I let it passe As ye proceede the reason beginneth to appeare why you would so fayne haue that forged interpretation of Beza to stand for good For now you beginne to frame against the real presence argumeÌ„ts drawen from natural and mathematical conditions of a bodie whereby the reader may learne the more to detest and abhorre the whole race of your heretical translators For as our Sauiour saith in the field of his Catholike church in the night vvhen men vvere a slepe his enemie came and ouersovved cockle among the vvheate and vvent his vvay and some time passed before the cockle thus sowen appeared in like maner these feedemen of the same aduersarie wicked corrupters of the good feede and worde of Christ first fall a traÌ„slating of the scripture with many goodlie and plausible pretenses of gods honor the peoples commoditie and publishing gods blessed booke c. And so while no man thinketh amisse of them as it were in the night and darknes being espied of none among the good seede of god they mingle sow their owne wicked and abhommable darnel which at first is not seene but in tyme sheweth it selfe For when M.W. so smoothly went away with the matter and found fault with M. Martins ignorance for dislyking so plaine a thing when he told vs of actiues and passiues that there was no difference betwene the first quem oportet coelum capere and this second quem oportet coelo capi but that this later is more cleare and perspicuous who would haue supposed any great mischeefe to haue bene hidden therein But now euen thereof he frameth his principal argument to spoyle the church of Christes real presence VVith like sinceritie translate the Lutherans for their Lutherish the Brentians for their Vbiquitarie the Trinitaries of Pole for their Arian and Sebastianus Castalio for his Academical heresie sprinkling heare and there many drops of poyson with which symple soules are daungerously infected before the mischeuous practyse be of many discouered But let vs heare M. W. argument drawen as he would haue vs suppose from the former falsified text of scripture but in deede from Aristotle and Euclide If Christes body sayth he be natural and of the same substance that ours is then can it be conteyned but in one place and if it be in heauen it is not in the sacrament But Christs body is such a body consubstantial to ours in al things sauing glorie and immortalitie and that body of Christ is novv conteyned in heauen as Peter saith therefore it is not in the Sacrament much lesse in infinite Sacraments This argument feareth not your forces For if Christs body be together in heauen and in the sacrament then Christ hath a double body or rather infinite bodies but this is false ergo that Furthermore if Christs bodie be circumscribed vvith some certaine place in heauen and reteyneth all properties of a true body the selfe same in the sacrament be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incircumscript inuisible c. then contradictories maye be verified of the same bodye But this can not be therefore the other is vnpossible Of this kinde of reasoning which may be enlarged as far and amplified by as many circumstances as ether Geometrie or Philosophie or any sense seing hearing tasting handling or humaine reason or
presence VVell it may be that an other opinion more agreable to mans reason may please an idle mind especially if the opinion be furnished and commended vvith argumeÌ„tes vvel handled But vvhat shal become of vs intentation vvhen our coÌ„science shal be called to accompt vvhat cause vve had to dissent from the receaued opinion in the Church Then these vvordes This is my bodie vvil be thunderboltes So Ioachimus VVestphalus in his Apologie against Caluine answering this very argument the body of man is circumscribed in a place therefore at one time it can not be but in one place therefore not in al places vvhere the supper is ministred Is not saith he this Geometrical argumeÌ„t fetched froÌ„ Euclides demonstrations the piller and vpholder of all these Sacramentaries Doth not this vphold the building of their syllogismes vvhich corrupt verie many places of scriptures Most truly is verified of the Sacramentaries that memorable saying Take from heretikes that vvherein they agree vvith Philosophers and they cannot stand Take from the Sacramentaries that vvhich they dravv from Philosophie and hovv smal a quantitie vvill remaine of the great volumes of al the Sacramentaries Hovv long vvil it be before the doctrine of Berengarius fall to the ground VVel and truly vvrote Tertullian that Philosophers are the Patriarches of heretikes For philosophie brought forth all heresies and she begat the error of Zuinglius Finally because the English church in their Apologie acknowledgeth Luther for a most excellent man sent from God to lighten the vvhole vvorld and M. VV. saith that they vvorshippe him as their father in Christ I answere as that excellent man of God and their father answered long ago His discourse being longe I wil gather shortly the summe of it set it downe in his wordes If M.VV. would be better satisfied I remitte him to the maine worke First he confesseth this argument to be fundamentum quod habent omnium praecipuuÌ„ the chief ground foundation of the Sacramentaries But he asketh vvhat scripture they haue to proue that these tvvo propositions be so directly contrary Christ sitteth in heauen and Christ is in the supper whereas they can bring none he concludeth The contradiction is in their carnal imagination not in faith or the vvord of God vvhich teacheth no such matter Next vvhere-as Gods povver surpasseth al cogitatioÌ„ vvorketh that vvhich is to our reason incomprehensible and vvhich only faith beleeueth and the same God said This is my body vvhich shal be deliuered for you hovv can I persvvade my conscience saith he that God hath nether meanes nor abilitie to do as his vvordes sound Then he sheweth that although in the mind of man these thinges are contrary yet in the mind of God they worke no more repugnance then Mary bringing forth in her virginitie is against that vniuersal sentence Increase and multiplye or this proposition Christ is God ouerthroweth this other that Christ is man Out of which thus premised he falleth in to a vehement exhortatioÌ„ that al ChristiaÌ„s beware of the Sacramentaries in this kind of argument for so much as directly thereby they draw men to Paganisme and infidelitie the principal partes of our faith being in like sorte subiect to the controle of carnal reason humaine philosophie Boni isti Sacramentarii saith he sua nausea aditum parant ad Christum Deum ipsum omnes articulos abnegandum c. These good SacrameÌ„taries by their lothsomenesse make a vvay to denie Christ and God him selfe and al articles of our faith and truly for a great part they haue already begoÌ„ne to beleeue nothing For they bring themselues vvithin the compasse of reason vvhich is the right vvay to damnation and them selues knovv that these Ethnicall cauils ether are nothing vvorth against this article or if they coÌ„clude ought against this they do the like against al. For the vvord of God is foolishnes to mans reason 1. Cor. 1. and they vvould neuer haue vttered this if they had any regard of the scripture and vvere not their harts ful of infidelitie so as their mouth speaketh of the abundance of their hart After this he noteth the vnequal dealing of the Sacramentaries This truly saith he is vvorthy of admiratioÌ„ that none of the fathers vvhereof there is an infinite number did euer speake so of the Sacrament as do the Sacramentaries but cleane contrary Yet notvvithstanding if perchauÌ„ce they fal vpoÌ„ some odd place in a doctor that soundeth tovvardes their opinioÌ„ as vvhere S. Aug. saith corpus Christi in vno loco esse potest here saith Luther by reason of their preiudicate opinion they snatch at that make much of it vvhereas othervvise against the saings of all the fathers they are most stiffe and stubburne and sensles more vnmoueable then is any rocke amiddest the sea and though the fathers all vvith one mouth affirme yet the Sacramentaries harden them selues to deny them Last of all against Zuinglius and Oecolampadius vsing in their bookes the selfe same reasons which M. W. vseth here and triumpheth so insolently he concludeth as I conclude against him If these be the grounds and reasons vvhich should certifie vs of truth approue our faith and confirme our conscience then truly vve are in euill casâ— If a man had deliuered me such bookes vvithout title and name and I knevv not othervvise such excellent and learned men to haue bene the authors of them I should surely haue thought that some iâ—sting Comediant or Turkish vagabond had made them in despite and derision of Christians Verily I see not hovv they can be excused vvith any probable pretence as many other heretikes haue had For it appeareth that they play vvith Gods vvord of vvilfulnes malice And I thinke it can not be that such cold toyes and bablinges should in deede moue a Turke or a Ievv much lesse a Christian But that great lothsomenes and disdaine of the sacred supper and immoderate greedines to defend their opinion maketh them so mad or giddie that vvhat-soeuer they take hold of though it be but a stravv yet they imagine it to be a svvorde or a speare and that at euerie stroke they kill thousandes This is the terrible argument so magnified by M. W. quod impetus nostros non pertimescit that feareth not our forces an argument which plucketh vp the verie rootes of Christianitie gain saith many places and histories of the Scripture and maketh frustrate the testameÌ„t of Christ an argument carnal ethnical and for such contemned of the auncient fathers and condemned by the late heretikes of greatest learning an argument which Luther would neuer beleeue could proceede but from a Turke had he not seene it in the bookes of some of the Zuinglian Sect vsurping the name of Christians such an argument as he accompteth them heretikes wilful and inexcusable who are ought moued therewith finally such an argument
as M.W. can neuer maynteine except withal he maynteine him selfe to be an Anabaptist an Ebionite and a Nestorian And thus much touching your philosophicall reason wherein I haue staied somewhat the loÌ„ger partly because you crake so much of it as though it were verie pregnant partly because it is an argument whereinto both in pulpit and writyng you gladly fall because it standeth wel with sense and reason easely deceaue the simple partly also because it toucheth M. Iewels challenge which here is disproued sufficiently except these great States and Euangelistes so magnified by your selues be so fowly ouerseene as so vehemently to auerre that which hath no one clause of Scripture Father Councel or Doctor to vphold it And if they do so in this where they vse such heate and detestation how may we credite them in any other parte of their doctrine how may we be perswaded but they continually lye and deceaue vs in like sorte But I trowe you wil not iudge so rashly especially of Luther what soeuer you accompt of Barns Frith Westphalus Melanchthon and Illyricus and those auncient fathers alleaged by him and his companions for seing the whole church of England commendeth Luther for a man so excellent sent of God to geue light to the vvhole vvorld I hope that you being but a simple member of thar church wil not by defending the contrary oppose your selfe vnto him And certaine it is you can not come from God if you poore worme resist withstand that excellent man whom God sent to be your Prophete and Euangelist which is as monstrous a case as if some simple sheepe should presume to direct his skilful pastor some ignorant scholer to teach his maister most learned or some Alexander a myserable coppersmith should oppose him self against S. Paule whom Christ had made his gouernor and furnished with sufficient giftes to instruct him and al the world besides But you haue I feare a general salue for such fores that you beleeue nether Luther nether yet the church of England any farther then they agree with Gods worde your owne conceite thereof And so still the supreme rule determition of al shal rest in your owne handes After your reasons against the sacrament you bring in to like purpose a place out of S. Ciril that Christ is ascended in to heauen and is absent from vs in the presence of flesh vvhich if vve did not beleeue vve vvould neuer say the Crede so oft as vve doe nor keepe the day of Christes AscensioÌ„ so honorable and festiual as you I thinke may knovv Mary if you thinke there is more pith in S. Cirils vvorde of absence you myght better haue obiected Christes ovvne vvordes The poore you shal haue alvvaies vvith you me you shal not haue but then for ansvvere I should haue sent you to the note vpon that verse as I do novv also for this the reason being al one For that S. Ciril vvas not a Sacramentarie appeareth most clearely by a large discours vvhich he maketh as it vvere of purpose against that maner of reasoning vvhich you haue geuen out in this place Thus he vvriteth Quomodo potest hic nobis carnem dare c. The Ievves aske hovv can he geue vs his flesh Thus they crye out vpon god not vvithout great impietie nether remember they that vvith god nothing is impossible But let vs making great profit of their sinnes and hauing a firme faith in these mysteries neuer in such diuine thinges vtter or so much as thinke of such doubting for that vvord Quomodo hovv is Iudaical and cause of extreme punishment And after a long and good treatise against such peeuish fantastical toyes as here M.W. obiecteth for profound arguments thus he concludeth Yf notvvithstanding al this thou Ievv crye stil hovv is this done I folovving thy ignoraÌ„ce vvill demaund of thee hovv so many miracles vvere done in the old testament the passinge ouer the red sea Moses rod made a serpeÌ„t etc. vvherefore vve ought rather to beleeue Christ humbly to learne of hym then like drunken sots to cry out hovv can he geue vs his flesh by vvhich questioning thou must needes be driuen to deny the vvhole scripture In vvhich vvords vve see he reckeneth you amongst the Ievves accompteth you nethâ—r verie learned nor much better then an Infidel for these stout reasons vvhich here you so magnifie And Peter M. being pressed vvith the authoritie of this Ciril that Christ by the mystical benediction that is by receauing of the Sacrament dvvelleth corpâ—rally in vs vvhich M. Ievvel after his maner ansvvereth verie learnedly though verie easely by comparing it vvith an other phrase that corporally is as much as truly and truly may signifie spiritually and that is al one vvith tropically saith more rudely yet more sincerely The flesh of Christ so to dvvell in vs corporally that the substance of his body should be coÌ„municated vvith vs that is as this man interpreteth it be mingled vvith our flesh it is not in any case to be graunted no not if a thousand angels much lesse if one Ciril said it For it can not be that Christs flesh should so be diffunded or multiplied in infinite men and places which sheweth that Peter Mart. tooke not S. Ciril to be of your faith touching this article of the sacrament The place vvhich you cite out of S. Damascene because you direct me no vvhere to find it I vvil not bestovv the paines to seeke it being graunted it is not much to the purpose and I marueile vvhy you put it in greke as though there vvere some great terrible bugge in it That vvhich vvas circumscript saith he vvas circumscript vncircumscript vncircumscript and visible visible and inuisible inuisible vvhich I take to be as true as that a spade is a spade and a mattock a mattock fier is fier not vvater and the sunne is the sunne and not the moone And if you meane hereof to infer your heresy that therefore Christ is not in the sacrament frame you the argument perhaps it vvil persvvade much In the meane season that Damasc vvas no more of your religion then S. Ciril I refer you for proufe to his books de Orthodoxa fide vvhere namely in the fourth you finde a verie good and large chapter against your Zuinglian heresie especially against your philosophical fansies he disputeth thus If the vvorde of god be liuely forcible if vvhat soeuer our lord would he did if he said let light be made it vvas made let the firmament be made and it vvas made if by the vvorde of god the heauens vvere established and vvith the spirite of his mouth all the povver of them if heauen and earth and vvater-fier and ayer and al their furniture and man him selfe vvere perfited by his vvorde if vvhen god the vvord so vvould he became man and of the moste pure and immaculat
to his disciple but the sonne of God ascending leaft to vs his flesh And Elias did so but him selfe being depriued of his cloke but Christ both leaft it vnto vs ascended hauing the selfe same vvith him Therefore let vs not fainte in courage For he that hath not refused to shed his bloud for vs all and hath communâ—cated vnto vs his flesh and the self same bloud againe he vvill refuse nothing for our saluation These are S. Chrisost wordes which tende to set forth not a similitude but an opposition not an equalitye but a supereminent excellencie in our Sauiour I wil shew you an other maner of thing saith this holy father far greater then that of Elias And how so and wherein standeth that so great and singuler difference In this That Elias leaft his cloke but the sonne of God his flesh which none but the sonne of God could doe Againe Elias leauing his cloke loste it and so was bereaft of it but Christ the sonne of God as a worke proper to his diuine maiestie both leaft his flesh with vs in the world and yet lost it not but caried the same flesh with him in to heauen Furthermore Elias tooke some paynes for the sauing of his people but neuer shed his bloud for them much lesse could he impart to them the same for this was aboue the compasse or reach of humaine imbecillitie But Christ both shed his bloud for our redemption and againe imparted vnto vs the self same bloud as the same doctor sayth elswhere Quod est in calice id est quod fluxit è latere et illius sumus participes That vvhich is in the chalice is that vvhich gushed out of his side and vve are partakers thereof This is the most euident speach and sense of S. Chisostome and no man I suppose can be so simple but he may forthwith see how well this matcheth with the doctrine of the catholike church how dissonant it is from the preaching of your congregation especially if he know your doctrine a right and be not deceaued with your fantastical painted words which you sometymes vse to beguile simple sowles seeming to aduaunce that very hyghly and magnifically which in deed your selues esteeme most basely coÌ„temptibly For thinke you of your CoÌ„munion otherwise then as of common bread and wine withouâ— al grace vertue or sanctificatioÌ„ with a bare figure of Christ absent which figure your selues caÌ„ not explicate nor shal be euer able to geue reasoÌ„ but you haue or may haue as good figures at your common breakfastes diners and suppers This is your faith in that poynt yf you be Zuinglians and beleeue as the church of Geneua The Eucharist saith Zuinglius or communion or lordes supper is nothing els but a coÌ„memoration in the vvhich they that firmely beleeue them selues to be reconciled to god the father by Christes death bloud sett forth his liuely death that is praise it geue thankes and preach And when Luther obiected to him that he and his felow heretikes were diuided amongst them selues he answered thus vvhereas thou sayst Luther that there are sectes amongest vs it is false both I Carolostadius OecolaÌ„padius and the rest auouch that the bread and vvine be only figures mary vve shift the vvords of Christ after a diuers maner verba diuersimodè expedimus And in an other booke against Luther It is to be noted saith he that Paule 1. Cor. 11. after the vvordes of the institution calleth it no othervvise then bread and the cuppe For he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is this bread of the supper or that bread hunc hunc paneÌ„ qui praeter panem non est quicquam amplius this bread this bread I say vvhich is nothing els but bread Al which he there expresseth by a playne similitude in this sort Behold this is the sacramental presence of Christ in this supper as the Emperour or the King of Fraunce are said to be in the kingdome of Naples because their banners or signes be there vvhereas in the meane season the one of them liueth in Spaine the other in FrauÌ„ce But the bread and vvine are no more one and the same thinge vvith Christes body and bloud then those kinges banners be the very kinges them selues because they note vnto vs the maiestie and povver of the kinges And that you cauill not that this is not the faith of your Geneuian church so shrowde your selfe in your ordinarie cloude of wordes whereby you seeme to speake honorably of this sacrament heare you what Theodore Beza writeth whom you extoll so highly Dico impudeÌ„tes esse calumniatores c. I say they are impudent slauÌ„derers vvho imagine that there vvas euer any coÌ„trariety betvvene the doctrine of these most excellent men Zuinglius OecolaÌ„padius and Caluine touching the sacramentes I say also that the selfe same faith in euerie respecte is proposed and defended in the Churches of Suizzerlande Sauoy and Fraunce in the Flemmish Scottish and as I thinke in the English churches also Wherefore this being your faith that in the Sacrament there is nothing but bread in such sort as hath bene declared I say with Zuinglius panis panis nihil amplius bread bread and nothing els now compare your faith with S. Chrisostome and see how handsomlie you can patch it together thus you must needes say Elias departing out of this worlde leaft his cloke but Christe leaft a thing of greater power and miracle for he leaft vs breade and wine Elias leaft his cloke and so loste it for he caried it not with him but Christ ascending leaft vs bread and wine and tooke vp bread and wine to heauen with him Againe where in Elias hath no part of coÌ„parison the bloud which Christ shed for our redemption that he imparted vnto vs in the chalice Here you must helpe me thorough for I know not what you wil say but sure I am one of these two it must needes be ether that Christ redeemed the worlde by wine which is the bloud of the grape and so coÌ„municated such wine and bread with vs and this standeth iumpe with your figuratiue supper Communion or that he redeemed the worlde with his owne pretious bloud and so communicated the same with vs in the B. Sacrament which is our faith mary you will none of that In conclusion aduise your selfe better what you write and thinke not with such balde toies to shake of such graue authoritie Regarde the wordes meaning and scope of the author so except you be to dul you can not be ignoraÌ„t but that you cleane peruert this father turne him quite vpside downe For whereas he would infinitely preferre that facte of Christ leauinge the sacrament of his body to his Christians before the facte of Elias leauinge his cloke to Elizeus for of our coÌ„uersinge with Christ in heauen by faith and vnderstanding here is no
in his owne forme partly because the sacrament is a figure vvhich hath the veritie ioâ—ned vvith it and therefore may wel haue his denomination of the principal partly because beyng inconuenient ether in respect of gods wisedome or of our infirmitie to receaue that glorious body in his owne forme which reason Theophilacte S. Damascene S. Cirill S. ChrisostoÌ„ and other fathers geue god hath appoynted these externall sacramentes for instrumâ—ntes by mâ—anes whereof we mâ—ght truly be made partakers of that which otherwise we shoulde abhorre But graunt we now to M.W. that it is only a phrase of speach to say vve see Chrâ—st or his body and bloud how foloweth his reason therefore it is also but a phrase of speach to saye the body is there at all Suppose a man may stand in argument that the Apostles seing the humanitie of Christ sawe not the sonne of god sawe not the creator of the world will your philosophie or diuinitie serue you to infer ergo that person or man whom they beheld was not the sonne of god Agayne what logicke what wit permitteth you from one particular to conclude as many as you liste It is a figure when we reade in scripture god hath hands face nosetrils ergo it is a figure when we reade that Christ tooke flesh of the virgin It is a figure when Christ said that he descended from heauen ergo his ascension is not true but imaginarie It is not possible for vs in the height excellencie of the diuine misteries and the basenes of our vnderstanding and barrennes of our tonge scarce to thinke much lesse to speake of them but we shal fall in to some vnproper termes as appeareth by the whole course of diuinitie From which necessitie he that taketh this licence which M. W. alloweth to him selfe from one word spoken figuratiuelie at his pleasure will deduce the like of an other he will make Christian religion as variable as is the raynebowe as vnconstante as the wethercocke And yet this lose kinde of talking for who can call it reasoning is the verie roote and mother of the Zuinglian gospell for vpon this piller was erected the sacramentarie heresie in Zuricke as Zuinglius him selfe signifieth for thus he reasoned When Christ sayd this iâ— my body he spake tropically because when Moyses sayd the lambe is the pasouer which notwithstanding is a text of his owne coyning as Luther proueth against him this is a tropical speache Agaynst which Luther replying and scorning sayth it is as valiant wyse a proufe as if a man would argue that Sara or Rebecca brought forth children and remayned virgins because our Ladie did so or that Pilate and Herode vvere tvvo glorious Apostles of Christe because Peter and Paule vvere But see you not saith M. W. that S. Chrisostome is full of vehemencie and amplification He is vehement I confesse perhaps amplifieth But wherein is he vehement or what doth he amplifie a lye or a truth a truth to witte the dignitie of priests say you Then there were priests and so there was a sacrifice by your owne definition and playne it is that S. Chrysostome so much advaunceth the priest in regarde of the sacrifice Now this amplificatioÌ„ must rise vpon a true grounde othervvise he may rather be said to magnifie a lye then to amplifie a truth Then gather me out of S. Chrisost any one truth vvhere vpon he doth thus enlarge and vse his vehemencie Nay consider by your opinion and faith vvhether almost euery vvorde in this place be not a lye VVe see Christ sayth he that is a lye and novv refuted by you VVe see him offered that is a lye and a blasphemous lye The priest beÌ„t earnestly to the sacrifice that is a lye for there vvas no such sacrifice within six huÌ„dred yeres after Christ The people receaue the pretious bloud that is a lye for no man beleeued the reall presence vvithin six hundred yeres nether O miracle saith S. Chrysost ô singular goodnes of god he that sitteth vvith his father aboue at the selfe same momeÌ„t of tyme is receaued in the church at the priests hands that is a lye for so should the body of Christ at one tyme be in a thousand places vvhich is agaynst M. Ievvels sixt article there fore needes it must be false so to speake or thinke What truth novv remayneth for S. Chrysostome to amplifie vvhereas euerie vvord he speaketh beyng taken as it standeth according to your religion is false Belike he mâ—aÌ„t to aduauÌ„ce such dealing of bread and vvine as you vse in your congregâ—tions and consequently your ministerie vvhich is promoted to so vvorthie a vocation But vvhat sentence vvhat vvord vvhat sillable hath he to that purpos yet graunt it be so TheÌ„ your faith and religion being all one vvith S. Chrisostomes as you tel vs let your ministers vse such amplification to their people and you neede not to be ashamed to borovve or learne of so excellent a doctor and see vvhether both the people vvill not crye out vpon them as false prophetes and the Commissioners bring them vvithin the Premunire for preaching agaynst the pure gospel receaued and authorised by parlament Let them preach that they offer and sacrifice their lord and maister that they are earnest lye beâ—t to performe that dutie of priesthode that at their hands the peopâ—e receaue the pretious bloud of Christ let such preachers be brought before you M. W. as thâ— publike professor of diuinitie and I appeale to your conscience vvhether you vvill allovv such preaching as an amplification of their mâ—nisterio not condemne it as vvicked and detestable and blasphemous against the gospel Finally M. W. could in no place more vndiscreetly haue vsed this maner of ansvvere then here For S. Chrysostome so placeth the sacrifice of the church betvvene tvvo notorious sacrifices and maketh the comparison betvvene all three so nighly and exactly preferring alvvayes ours by infinite degrees of excellencie that a man vvith halfe an eye may see that M. W. thrust it in rather because he had so read in M. Ievvel then because he coÌ„siderately perused the place him selfe Before the vvords pertayninge to the sacrifice of the church S. Chrysostome thus speaketh of the Leuiticall sacrifice All thinges vvere terrible and dreadfull about that sacrifice and priesthode but if you match it vvith this sacrifice and priesthode vvherein by the priest our lord himselfe is sacrificed all that is nothing as in the vvords set dovvne in the beginning appeareth Immediately after thus he proceedeth vvilt thou see the excellencie of this holines by an other miracles put before thy eyes Elias and that infinite multitude aboute him and the sacrifice lâ—yd vpon the altar the prophete pâ—vvring forth his prayers suddenly fyer descending from heauen and consuming the sacrifice all straunge and full of admiration Ab illis sacris ad nostra sacra te transfer
that taketh avvay the sinnes of the vvorlde Call S. Iohn to M. VVhitakers consistorie he wil â—â—â—ke him recant his speach For first Christ is no lambe because he hath no woll on his backe It is the self same reason which here is vsed against S. Luke about the meâ—â—all of the chalice Then being driuen from that the adsurditie of tautologia still remaineth Behold this lambe is the lambe of God what an idle speache is this what is this double lambe therfore sende it to Geneua to be cast a new in Bezaes forge The Catholiks of old time to proue distinction of persons in the deitie vsed that place of Genesis pâ—uit dâ—miâ—â—â— aâ— domino our Lord rayned from our Lord to proue the Trinity of persoÌ„s they vsed the place of the psalme Benedicat nos Deus Deus noster benedis at nos Deus God our God blesse vs our God blesse vs. This to a Trinitarian is absurda sententia and induceth a pluralitie of Gods vvhereas S. Paule saith vnus Deus vnus Domâ—nus oâ—â— God one Lord what remaineth theÌ„ but that according to the arrest of this supreme arbiter we fall to newe casting of the scripture and so in short space no doubt we shal growe to perfectioÌ„ that is to the Turks Alcoran if we be not come so farre already The scriptures are full of such absurdities which neuerthelesse are absurdities only to carnal cogitatioÌ„s to Sathan Sathans ministers but to theÌ„ that haue learned in the schole of the holy Ghost to subiect their vnderstanding to the obedience of faith they are nothing so And M.W. if he had in him any droppe of religion fayth he should thus thinke Howsoeuer I can reconcile two or three Gods with one the bloud shedd on the crosse with that which was in the chalice were it bloud or wine let Christs wordes stande as he spake them and the Euangelist wrote them and let vs afterward in the name of God be we Lutherans Zuinglians Caluinists Trinitaries or Anabaptists eche according to his priuate spirite search for the sense as wel as we can Christes soule went downe to hell saith our Creede and S. Luke It is absurde sayth Beza and papisticall and therefore for soule I haue translated carcas and for hell graue whom in so doing the English congregation approueth That Christ ascended into heauen it is a fansie of Aristotle and Mahomet sayth Brentius and to the Lutherans it is absurda sententia shal they now leaue out that word and put in the text for ascendit euanuit or disparuit he vanyshed out of sight in steede of he ascended which to them is the true and only sense of the place and which they may and ought to do by like reason and authoritie But S. Basil you say readeth as you translate graunt he did so but what translate you S. Basil or S. Luke if S. Basil you haue done wel to folovv your greeke copye If S. Luke then do you vvickedly to alter S. Luke vpon coniecture of one greeke doctor all greeke copies and doctors being to the contrarie And vvhat if S. Basil in an other place reade otherwise shal we not make a vvise patching of scripture if vpon euerie particular doctors citation vve alter the holie text S. Aug. in many places S. Bernard and other good men dravv exhortatioÌ„s for their frends or monks or people and commonly they do it in the verie phrase of scripture yet because they knitte together many sentences of scriptures that be in diuers places they must of necessitie adde some words or parcels of their owne Nether is it material if ofteÌ„times they leaue out one worde or a fewe words But if by such authoritie we should alter our text we should in short space haue so many texts that in deed we should haue no text because we should haue no certaine text whereunto we might trust And why remember you not that which in this self same place M. Martin tolde you out of Beza who noteth it to be the custome of the auncient fathers in citing scriptures to alleage the sense not to sticke precisely vpoÌ„ the words And that therefore how soeuer they reade that is no certaine rule to reforme or alter the vvordes of scripture But here you make your aduantage of M. Martins words and say if Basil cited not the vvords but the sense of the scripture theÌ„ Beza vvhen he so traÌ„slated missed nothing of the sense so M. Martin doth novv plainly acquite Beza vvhoÌ„ before he accused For if Basils vvords geue a true sense and the interpretation of Beza and ours all agree vvith Basils vvords then your accusation is false that vve had corrupted the sense of the scripture Somewhat you saye and this hath some appearance more then any thing that you haue sayde hitherto yet you reache not home and you are ouer hasty in your conclusion S. Basil geueth a true sense I confesse whether you respecte the particular matter whereunto he applyeth the place or the generall doctrine of the catholike church For his wordes are sufficieÌ„t for the one and the other And so are the wordes in our vulgar Latin and English and may well be taken as agreing with S. Basil hic est calix nouum testamentum in sanguine meo qui pro vobis fundetur This is the chalice the nevv testament in my bloud vvhich shall be shedde for you And whosoeuer readeth and taketh these later wordes as referring them to the bloud of Christ shedde on the crosse he thinketh very well and truly and no man would euer finde fault with such a sense or citation if it stayd there For this nothing impayreth the other truth whereof we speake that the same bloud is in the chalice But when there riseth vp a new heresie by one truth ouerthrowing an other and by one part of the sentence destroyng an other as it fareth betwixt vs this circumstance so farre altereth the case that the old father alleaging the text without any thought or imagination of heresie did well and christianlike the new heretike enforcing the same in defence of heresie doth nâ—ughtely sacrilegrously as for example If some good man as S. Basil or S. Bernard to induce his auditors to the loue of Christ had vsed this sentence of the Apostle In this appeared the benignitie of our lord sauiour tovvards vs that not by the vvorkes of iustice vvhich vve did but of his infinite mercie he saued vs. This place according to the sense had bene well trulye cited For albeit infinite is not in the text yet that is no hinderance to the meaning and although I name not Christ god yet nether that worde hindereth any thing because in a Christian audience it is all one to say our lord and sauiour Christe or our god and sauiour Christe But if there rose vp some Nestorian heretike that should diuide Christ from god and make two
cuppe that is the mettall could not be shed or powred out and therefore the wordes must needes be vnderstood of the thing conteyned in the cuppe all Catholikes now liuing all Catholikes from Christes time all heretikes though otherwise most peruerse obstinate enemies of the truth Lutherans Zuinglians Anabaptistes of any secte fashion all creatures indued with witt and reason man woman and childe agree and as Beza confesseth it is a trope vulgar and vsuall to all languages and nations But vpon your trope where you interprete the bloud of Christ by wine and refer the later part not to that which was in the chalice and so deny the reall presence no Catholike now liuing no Catholike euer liuing agreed the church of God from the beginning hath abhorred it the very graÌ„mat graÌ„matical coÌ„struction refelleth it your owne brethren deteste it Luther the Lutherans condemne it yea the Sacramentaries them selues many of theÌ„ account it a very dull and blunt euasion so far forth that Carolostadius the first father of your Sacramentarie heresie though he be not commonly so esteemed thoughte it a more cleanly expositioÌ„ to say that Christ referred those wordeâ— hic est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus to him self sittinge at the table as if Christ had sayd iccipite manducatâ— take ye and eate and be merie for I am he that must die for al. And Hulderike Zuinglius that most excellent man sent from God vvith Luther to lighten the vvhole vvorld by the iudgement of your English church is so vncertaine of your trope that he alloweth wel of this exposition and geueth you good leaue to folow it and it was allowed of many thousand Sacramentaries besides him Touching Zuinglius his wordes are euident Carolostadius pius homo c. Carolostadius that godly man saith Zuinglius doth interprete the vvordes of the supper as though Christ had directed them not to the bread but to him self sayng take eate for I vvill deliuer this body for you This interpretation he proueth because the prophetes foretell that Christ should be crucified c. And after many places of scripture brought to proue this exposition he geueth in his owne iudgement thus Ego hominis pii laudo industriam de fide gratulor hanc Carolostadii sententiam qui probauer it nos minime offendet I commeÌ„d the diligence of this godly man I praise the lord for his faith if any man vvil folovv this his opinion I shal lyke vvel of it So that great is the difference betwene our trope and yours as great as is betwene our doctrine and yours that is as great as is betwene truth and falshod light and darknes heauen and hel and therefore except you furnish it with better reasons then this your figure wil remaine a poore beggerly heretical shift deuised by a few of one sect and contemned by many of the same secte and infinite of other sectes when ours shal stand accounted a certaine truth not only to Catholikes heretikes of al sorts but also to al men endewed with coÌ„mon wit or reason And this is all that M.W. bringeth for the defence of Beza wherein after a number of faultes errors ignorances impieties he hath so behaued himselfe that he hath leaâ—t the matter worse then he fouÌ„de it so that in the next writing he hath not so much to labour for Beza so Lucifer like controling the Euangelist in one worde as he hath to shift for him selfe vvho in a greater peece and more important hath so damnably and detestably thvvarted the same Euangelist and our B. sauiour and like a playne Atheist worse then Beza hath more defaced that first and principal part this is the nevv testament in my bloud this speach of our Lord and sauiour he hath reproued I say of â—aurâ—logia vayne repetition and absurd consequence How much better and more honest had it bene for him and Beza both to haue folowed the sober counsaile of their father Martin Luther I go vâ—â—o saith he de iris Sacramentariis hoc sanc suaderent c. I truly would geue the doting Sacramentaries this aduise that seing they vvill needes be madde let them play the mad men rather vvholy then in parte Therefore vvhereas they must aduenture somevvhat let them make short vvorke and raze altogether out of the supper those vvords this is my body vvhich is geuen for yovv For touching their faith and celebration of their supper they haue no neede of these vvords but it is all one if thus they keapte it Christ tooke bread gaue thankes brake it and gaue it to his disciples sayng take eate do this in my remembrance For this proueth sufficiently that bread is to be eaten in remeÌ„brance of Christ. This is the vvhole and entier supper of the sacramentaries And then to vvhat end keepe they in the booke that other superfluous and vnprofitable text Yea as though he had foreseene this desperate boldnes whereunto the Zuinglians are now growen he before hand euen particularly and in the self same words warneth vs of these very reasoÌ„s or rather peeuish and shameles assertions which Beza and M. W. throw forth for singular mightie argumeÌ„ts against this clause of S. Lukes Gospel For what is Bezaes demonstration against the later part qui pro uobis fuÌ„ditur with which he is so offended forsooth this aut manifestum est solacophanes aut potius quum haec essent ad marginem annotata ex Mat. Mar. postea in coÌ„textum irrepserunt Ether there is some manifest fault in the Greeke or vvhich I suppose rather vvhereas these vvords vvere noted in the margent out of Matthevv and Marke aftervvards they creapt in to the text And what saith Luther of this Thus he speaketh to the Sacramentaries Quid inepti nihilne consilii habetis c. vvhat ye fooles haue ye no vvitte you must venture Dicite verba illa primum margini ascripta postea vero ab aliquo textui inserta say that those vvordes vvere first vvritten in the margent and then by some odde felovv thrust in to the text and not vvritten so by the Euangelist seing you haue a sure rule to proue al this and your rule is that that is not true vvhatsoeuer seemeth superfluous and vnprofitable vnto you And what is M.W. argumeÌ„t against the first parte this cup is my bloud of the nevv testament Mary that this implyeth an absurde sentence it is tautologia an idle repetition And what saith Luther of this vvhereas those vvordes that shevv the real presence of the bodie and bloud haue nought to do in the Sacramentaries supper eodem modo his quoque argumentari licet mera tautologia est haec verba in cana poni They might do very vvel here also to make this argument that it is tautologia a vaine repetition to put these vvords in the supper and therefore they ought not to haue any place there vvhereas the
new or serious disputatiō touching this vsing or abusing of wordes when by what authoritie and how far such mutation is necessarie or allowable Only resting my self vpon the Protestants common and vulgar kind of disputing that is vpon the first and original deriuation and signification of Ecclesiastical words I wil by manifest and plaine examples taken from their vse and practise shew how absurd and vnreasonable their dealing is in this behalfe Vpon this ground 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say you is wel translated image and hereupon because we geue reuerence to images which reuerence is wel expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the distinction betwene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing saith M. D. Humfrey and he refuteth it at large in his booke of M. Iuels life the rest of the protestants of that secte commonly are of the same iudgement therefore we are condēned of you iustly as Idololatrae Idolaters for geuing honour reuerēce to sacred images which in greeke are called Idols Let vs note now whether this Idolatrie turne not on your owne head Honor not you the Quene in her images in her cloth chayre of estate in her maces in her seales and letters in keeping holie her Natiuitie Assumption to the crowne I somewhat disaduantage my selfe for perhaps this in deede draweth neere to true Idolatrie But let it passe with the rest The Protestantes geue honour to the images of the Quene Images and idols are al one ergo the Protestantes are idolaters Or more briefelie and plainelie thus Euerie prince in his realme is an image of the true god that is and idol of the true god Ergo the Protestantes in that they worship serue their princes worship serue idols and so by M.W. iudgment are Idolaters Againe church you saie is vvel expressed by congregation What is congregatiō in greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvhich being a vvord made English by custome as vvel as congregation it can not be any error to vse that in place of congregation and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke is superintendent or ouerseer in English both these translations are vsed iustified by your English bibles Novv if your knovvledge be so good in the English as I take it you can not be ignorant that an ouerseer is as properlie and vsuallie expressed in our language by this word surueyer which commeth directly from supra videre to ouersee And vvhat of al this Forsooth that it is no error vvhen vve talke of the byshops of the English church or congregation to vvhom you dedicated your latin translation of M. Ievvel if vve say you dedicated it to the most reuerend surueyers of the English synagoge Euangelium the gospel in greeke you wot vvel vvhat it signifieth good nevves or tidinges and testamentum in hebrevv and greeke is in English and latin couenant foedus as Beza commōly trāslateth it inscribing both his Testaments the greater and lesser printed the yeare 1565 Iesu Christi nouum Testamentum siue foedus as properly a bible is nothing els but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a booke for it is the selfe same vvord If so then vvhen one commeth to you and bringeth you good nevves and tidings that a benefice is befallen yovv yovv may say he bringeth you the gospel of a benefice or vvhen your farmer receaueth of you a lease vvith a nevv couenant he receaueth a lease vvith a nevv testament and Lucians Dialogues because they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore they are a bible almost as good as yours But in one example to shevv hovv voyde of sense vnderstanding yovv proue your selfe in this discourse by like reason in euery respect as you can iustifie the aforesaid vvordes you may and must iustifie the translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvashing as wel as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thankesgeuing the vse of Baal for dominus lord for it signifieth so precisely in the hebrevv whence commeth Baalzebub the idol of Accaron called in contempt yet according to the true original and primitiue signification of the vvord dominus muscae lord of a flye 4. Reg. 1. And vvhat signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diabolus in greeke vvord for vvord calumniator a slaunderer And angeli 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 messēgers as you translate it Heb. 1. v. 7. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvynde translated likewise so by yow Ioan. 3. v. 8. and Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the anointed both in greeke and hebrew vsed so by yow in sundrie places of the bible These being all alike so as you can not find any exception to disproue any sillable and so al approued by your English translations which now you loue more then euer you did because they are found to be without al fault let vs suppose in our grandfathers time some Catholike priest or Byshop in our realme to haue exhorted his people to charitie deuotion reformation of their liues Suppose he spake vnto them in this sorte I that am your priest bishop placed in this church by the holy Ghost for the feeding of your sovvles do denounce vnto you in the name of Christ our Lord that except you with more deuotion come to receaue the B. Sacrament and performe better your promise made to God in baptisme you shal be bodie and sovvle condemned to hell your portion shal be with the deuils I say with Beelzebub and his angels The meaning of this euery Christian doth know and no doubt it might and I thinke would moue a Christian audience Let vs now after your translations turne the same into the phrase and stile of the new gospel and see how it wil sound Let vs suppose some of your youthful ministers or superintēdēts to make the same exhortatiō Thē thus must it rūne I that am your elder or surueyer and superintendent placed in this synagoge by the holy vvynd for the feeding of your carcasses do denounce vnto you in the name of the Anointed our Baal that except yow with more deuotion come to receaue the thankesgeuing and performe better your promise made to God in vvashing you shal be condemned bodie and carcas to the graue with the slaunderers I say with the Lord of a flye and his messengers How deepely this would sinke into the hartes of your Euangelical auditorie let their owne conscience be iudge But touching you if you continue as you here begin and say al this goeth wel there is no fault in it I appeale to common sense whether you haue not as litle wit and capacitie as euer man that bare the name of a Christian Diuine I say consequently that hereof it foloweth you haue no shame nor modestie For vvhat Christian had he ether of these would not at the first warning reuoke or moderate so grosse filthie absurdity whereby must needes folow the contempt and plaine euacuation of the whole Church of the sacramēts
there is no more daūger in such alteration then if a man should in translating of Plato or Zenophon vse the like libertie and turne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gratiarum actio or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a secret let him learne of Beza vvhom he so aduaūceth what daunger ensueth of such noueltie Beza much detesting in others that fantastical and impious vanitie though he could not perceaue the same in him selfe thus vvriteth against thē The vvorld is novv come to that passe that not they only vvho vvrite their ovvne discourses refuse the familiar accustomed wordes of scripture as obscure vnsauery out of vse but also those that trāslate the scripture out of greeke in to latin challenge vnto them selues the like libertie So as vvhiles euerie man vvil rather freely folovv his ovvne iudgemēt then religiously behaue him selfe as the holy Ghosts interpreter many things they do not conuert but peruert For vvhich licentiousnes and boldnes except remedy be prouided in tyme ether I am notablie deceaued or vvithin fevv yeres in steede of Christians vve shal become Ciceronians that is Gentiles and by litle and litle shal leese the possession of the thinges them selues In these vvordes Beza teacheth yovv that this vvanton noueltie of placing secretes for sacraments and messengers for angels and ambassadours for Apostles and vvashing for Baptisme and thankesgeuing for Eucharist and so forth vvil come to this end that in fine yovv vvil vvith the vvordes take avvay the thinges signified Sacraments Baptisme Eucharist Angels Apostles and al Apostolical doctrine and so in steede of Christians make vs againe Pagans Whereof besides his vvarning the vvorld hath to much experience already And if our deare countrymen would iudge of thinges to come by trial and euent of thinges past they must in their owne memorie finde and feele this to be true which Beza here telleth them For looke what old words you haue vpon newfanglednes as it might seeme altered and taken out of the Bible by the working of Satan those verie thinges you haue remoued from the hartes of men and cast out of the churches which you haue inuaded With the name priest went away the office of priest with the altar that which was the proper seruice of God done at the altar with taking away the word penance you haue withdrawen the people from al doyng of penance and in altering the word church you haue cut them cleane from the church more estraunged them from the communion of it then some barbarous and faithles nations that neuer heard of Christ And so likewise for thinges to come when they see you pricke at the name of angels and begin to leaue out that and for Christ to geue them the anointed and for Apostles Ambassadours and for hel a graue let them assure them selues that your purpose is to extinguish in them al faith and memorie of Angels Christ Apostles Heauen Hel and to bring thē in to the same lamentable state wherein their aūcesters were when by blessed S. Gregory then Pope and S. Austin our Apostle they were first conuerted Wherefore seing reason both humaine and diuine proueth that to be true which I haue said touching their notorious rashnes in corrupting the scriptures seing not only reason but also plaine experience confirmeth the same seing farther the thing is so cleere by reason and experience and al learning that the verie heretikes confesse it whereas their owne brethren by plaine argumēts proue their ttanslatiōs to be most vvicked as vvhich labour to peruert the sentence of the holy Ghost to detort the scriptures from the right sense to preferre darknes before light falshode before truth to deceaue the simple to induce the mortalitie of the sovvle to make men thinke that the sovvle of Christ vvas inclosed in the graue and so buried vvith his body to plant detestable errors to ouerthrovv Gods eternal predestination to take avvay the beleefe of hel and cōsequently of heauen of the extreme iudgment and of God him selfe to make vs of Christians Ciceronians that is Ethnikes and Infidels with alteration of wordes to take from vs al our faith whereas this is euident and confessed and yet for al this M.VV. cometh and saith al this is nothing these be no faultes if the Papistes can find fault vvith no other thing but such toyes and trifles I loued our translations vvel before but novv shal I loue them much better haec et istiusmodi nugae nostra crimina sunt these the like trifles be our faultes I can not otherwise iudg of him but that he is a very Atheist a plaine Sadducee without any feeling and regard of faith and consciēce as it may very wel be thought of the profession of the sect of Libertines Academikes who of late are so far enlarged to whom are ioyned very many of the finest and most elegant Sacramentaries of whom he may reade in Beza who thinke al these questions of Christ his office of his cōsubstancialitie vvith the father of the Trinitie of predestination of freevvill of God of Angels of the Supper of baptisme of the being of mens sovvles after this lyfe who thinke I say al these thinges to be but trifles thinges indifferent and not necessarie to iustification vvhich is obteyned by fayth For these good Gospellers haue a faith and a iustifiyng faith whereby they apprehend eternal life without father sonne and holy Ghost without Christ and his passion or any of these other matters which are rather suttle pointes of the papists historical faith then of the lyuelie iustifying faith wherewith these Euangelical brethren in al securitie are warranted of the certayne fauour of God in this life and assured glory in the next CHAP. XII M. VV. reasons against the latin bible are ansvvered and the same bible is proued to be in sundrie places more pure and sincere then the hebrue novv extant HERE M. VV. draweth to that which is his principal scope in this preface that is to deface the late Translation of the new Testament set forth in this Colledge For although he spend more wordes against M. Martins Discouerie yet he sheweth far more stomake against this whereof before I come to speake order requireth that I examine his disputation against the decree of the Tridentine Councel which for veritie and sinceritie iustifieth approueth as autentical the old common latin edition Against which decree M.VV. thinketh him self to haue good aduantage and much honor he speaketh of the fountaines the greeke and hebrew originals and much he disgraceth our latin translation translator for differing so much ftom those originals First of al before I come to his arguments I request the reader to carye in mind three thinges touching this controuersie vvhereby he shal the more vprightly skilfully iudge betvvene vs and our aduersaries One is that M. VV. discourse in this common place of praising the fountaines maketh against
him self and his brethren more then against vs. For vvhereas they pretend to translate after the greeke and hebrue as vve do not and yet in sundrie places svvarue from the greeke hebrue this his long idle talke conuinceth vs of no faulte but it condemneth him and his brethren of greate and inexcusable corruption vvho pretending reuerence to the greeke and hebrevv yet at their pleasure depart frō both And this is that vvhereof M. Mar. reproueth them in a great part of his Discouerie Example vvhereof see thou in his preface Num. 16.17.18.23.43.44.45.46.47.48.49.50 51. and after in euerie chapter of the booke vvelnie and so much M. Mar. protested to them in the beginning in plaine termes sayng And if they folovv sincerely their greeke and hebrevv text vvhich they professe to folovv and vvhich they esteeme the only autentical text so far vve accuse them not of heretical corruption but if it shal be euidently proued that they shrinke from that also and translate an other thing and that vvilfully and of intention to countenance their false religion and vvicked opinions making the scriptures speake as they list then vve trust c. And of this first riseth a second note which I wish likewise to be remembred that their deflecting from the greeke is alwaies in matter of controuersie and so discrieth their malicious wilfulnes If there be any in the latin it is no such thing but in matters for any cōtrouersie mere indifferent and so quiteth the translatour of malice and euil meaning and iustifieth his vpright and plaine sinceritie And hereof ensueth the third touching our simple and plaine dealing in folowing the latin that we decline not from the greeke or hebrue because it more harmeth our cause then the latin as the aduersaries gladly pretend and M. W. verie confidently auoucheth but only in respect of the truth it self And thus much also was he told in the preface of the new testament to wit that as for other causes vve prefer the latin so in this respect of making for vs or against vs vve allovv the greeke as much as the latin yea in sundrie places more then the latin being assured that they haue not one and that vve haue many aduantages in the greeke more then in the latin And this is there manifested by sundrie and verie euident examples touching traditions priesthode iustification by workes the real presence fasting freewil the mystical sacrifice and against their only faith and assurance of saluation wherein the greeke is more pregnant for vs then the latin Contrarywise let M. VV. frame against the Catholike religion or any part thereof one argument out of the scriptures which we refuse to stand vnto vpon this pretence because it is in the greeke and not in the latin and I am content to excuse him here of a lye Otherwise he can neuer saue him self from a lye and a lye in sight to obiect that vnto vs which nether he nor any of his can proue and we before hand haue in precise termes warned him of it and professed and proued the contrarie And therefore although in truth reader whatsoeuer he saith a great deale more is answered verie sufficiently and abundantly alreadie in the preface of the Testament as thow wilt confesse if it shal please thee with diligence to pervse it and I accompt it a peece of our miserie in this time to be matched with such blunt aduersaries whose maner of writing is now to cloy vs with crābe recocta cole vvorts tvvise yea tē times sodden nether thē selues can bring any new stuffe nor scoure more brightlie or otherwise mend vp their old nor refel our answeres confutations made to them but dissembling any such matter as though it had neuer bene treated of before vse to runne idelly and ministerlike vpon a cōmon place as M. VV. doth here which is more against them selues then against vs yet because it is my lotte to deale with him now the first time and therefore am loth to pretermit any thing wherein him self seemeth to put any force I wil take his argumētes as new and suppose that he neuer read the preface of the Testament against which he writeth and therefore will likewise hereafter borow some part of my answere thence Two argumentes he maketh against our latin translation and consequently against vs for folowing the same in our English The first is that the fountaines vz the greeke and hebrew are more pure thē the latin which he proueth by certaine sentences of S. Hierō S. Austin and S. Ambrose The other is one particular fault wherein as he sayth the vulgar translation is vniuersallie false the greeke contrarie is true Before his arguments he premitteth certaine interrogatories wherein he seemeth to auouch if I vnderstand him that only to be the word of god which is written in the lāguage wherein first the holy Ghost by the Prophets and Apostles vttered it That I misreporte him not I will set downe his wordes Thus he opposeth vs. Quid interpretandum suscepistis nonne scripturas Quaenam vero sunt scripturae quis nescit dei verbum scriptum illud esse c. VVhat tooke you in hand to interprete not the scriptures and vvhat are the scriptures vvho is ignorant but that is the vvritten vvord of god vvhich the lord committed to his church in bookes and letters and those oracles of god vvere they vttered by the holy Ghost in latin or can they better or more diuinely be declared in any tonge then that vvhich the holy Ghost vvould vse where vnto I answere that if his questions haue such meaning sense as the wordes beare and may stand ful wel with his skil and knowledge then are they not so much fantastical as phrenetical For accounteth he nothing the vvritten vvord of god but that vvhich is in hebrevv and greeke and vvas vvritten by the prophetes and Apostles in that language Then vvhat meaneth he and the rest of his Euāgelical confraternitie so perpetuallie to brag that they haue geuen vs nothing but the pure vvord of the lord vvho haue geuen vs nothing but their ovvne contaminated translations in English French Flēmish Dutch and such vulgar languages Is this the word of God M. W vttered the holy Ghost his oracles euer in Flēmish or English why inscribe yow your English testamente The testamente of our Lord Iesus Christ if nothing but the greeke or hebrue be the written word and testament of god But let this passe for an example of his singular foolishnes speaking he knoweth not what See we herein an other example of his notable impietie Our Sauiour Christ the Euangelistes and Apostles when they cited places of the old testament not according to the fountaines hebrue but according to the Septuaginta cited they not scripture In omnem terram saith the apostle Paule exiuit sonus eorum Their sound is gone forth in to al the vvorld whereas in the hebrew
he can not for the contrarie part that the greeke is more cōmodious and fauorable to vs then to them see thou Christian reader the preface of the new testament and thou shalt find it iustified by sundrie manifest examples and touching the hebrue somewhat shal be spoken hereafter Thirdly wherein is the state of this questiō he telleth vs that the foūtaines are most pure and holesome the latin edition most corrupt and infected By the fountaines he meaneth the vulgar hebrue and greeke as they are now commonly printed which they pretend to folow By the latin edition that which is vsed in the Church of Rome and hath bene these thousand yeres and is approued by the general Councel of Trent To the end thou mayst the better iudge of that which shal be spokē thus much must I warne thee of before touching the historical knowledge of this cōtrouersie that whereas in S. Aug. S. Hieroms tyme there was maruelous varietie of new Testamentes in latin whereof rose some confusion and trouble in the Church that godly and learned man Damasus then Pope of Rome and ruler of the Church tooke order with S. Hierom that he should correct one before vsed which otherwise was least faultie which afterwardes should be commended to the Church by that supreme authoritie Thus much S. Hierom signifieth in diuers places especiallie in his preface before the new Testament dedicated to the same Pope Nouum opus saith he me facere cogis ex veteri c. You cōstraine me to make a nevv vvorke of an old that I after so many copies of the scriptures dispersed thorough the vvorld should sit as a certaine iudge and determine vvhich of them agree vvith the true greeke And afterwardes shewing the difficultie of such a worke how daungerous it was and subiect to the reprehensions of many he comforteth him self principally with this That thou speaking to Damasus vvhich art the high priest doest commaūd it so to be done Tu qui summus es sacerdos fieri iubes This vvorke vvhen S. Hierom had accomplished and deliuered vp yet nether vvas his iudgment so absolutely and vniuersally in euery part folovved that vvithout farther search and trial it was by by approued But at length after due examination and some alteration of lesser pointes as we find by S. Hierom him self being approued by the Pope allowed by the Church it grew to a more general vsage and to be most frequented in publike writinges commentaries scholes and al places of Christian excercise This is that which we cal the common latin edition which albeit it haue some places translated obscurely some vnaptly some copies corrupted by false writing or printing c. yet comparing it with the greeke now extant we say it is far more pure and vncorrupt and nothing so subiect to cauilling wrangling by great diuersitie of different copies The like we say of the old testament a great part where of was translated by S. Hierom by order of the same Pope most of al corrected and brought in to ecclesiastical vse sauing the psalmes which could not be done so easely because thoroughout Christēdom the principal part of the Seruice in al churches consisted of them and therefore could not wel be altered without much trouble and scandal as we gather by S. Austin and which therefore we retaine stil as they were vsed in the primitiue church long before S. Hieroms time according to the version of the 70. Touching both these Testaments translated and corrected thus we say First that against them M. W. in his long discourse of allegations speaketh neuer a word and so speaketh neuer a word to the purpose Secondarely that they are purer thē are the fountaines which we now haue whereof this man speaketh so much and for ought may appeare vnderstandeth but litle Next that how so-euer some smale faultes may be found in them absolutely they haue no error touching ether doctrine or maners Last of al that to refuse them and appeale from them to the greeke and hebrue as the heretikes do is the high way to denial of all faith to Apostasie from Christ his religion and so to plaine Atheisme These foure pointes I wil brieflie touch in order The first is that M. VV. in al his long talke about the fountaines speaketh neuer a word to the purpose against vs but rather much al against him self For if the fountaines were so pure in the times of S. Hierom and S. Ambrose and the church then troubled vvith the great diuersitie of their latin bibles reformed one to the puritie of the fountaines and originals and vve novv find those fountaines and originals differing frō that reformed bible vvhy shal vve not conclude that the fountaines haue in the meane season bene corrupted not so saith M. W. but contraryvvise rather the latin bibles haue bene corrupted VVhat reason leadeth him thus to speake vvhat probabilitie moueth him to imagine that so many hundred yeres hebrue bookes could continue vvithout error being vvritten out by a fevv and they for the most part Iewes ignorant enemies of Christ and his Church destitute of the spirite of God men geuen ouer in to a reprobate sense rather then the latin publikely read expounded by thowsandes in euerie prouince of the Christian vvorld garded by infinite good men by Sainctes for life and full of the holy Ghost liuing in that church vvherein properly vvas fulfilled the prophecie of Esaie made by God to Christ his sonne to his Catholike Church in him This is my couenant vvith them saith our lord my spirit vvhich is in thee and the vvordes vvhich I haue put in thy mouth shal not depart from thy mouth and from the mouth of thy seede from the mouth of thy seedes seede saith our Lord from this tyme forth for euermore Wherein God promiseth the Church that she shal be a faithful and perpetual obseruer of his vvord and testament Which vvarrant you neuer find made in like sorte to the synagoge But this notwithstanding you perhaps prefer this synagoge before the Church and Iewes before the Christians that is in effect Moyses before Christ and therefore are content to speake and thinke more honorably of them vvith vvhom you ioyne more nylie and to vvhom you beare a better affection yet hovv soeuer your minde be therein S. Hierom cōmending the hebrue fountaines in his time maketh nothing in the world for you in these daies except he say that in al ages to come the hebrue should remaine stil pure and incontaminate and the latin should againe be corrupted and the Church though warned by the trouble which she susteined in his time about that matter yet afterwardes should cōtemne so pretious a thing as the written word of God is and runne in to a far greater inconuenience then before through extreme negligence nether haue the latin bible true which once was reformed and made agreable to the
sanctus in omnibus operibus suis Which verse in hebrew should haue begun with that letter which of al the alphabete only misseth So as most certaine it is that the hebrew is faultie And thus to end this matter of the hebrew fountaines originals I wil gather that which I haue said in to a fevv conclusions vvithal ansvvere M.VV. allegations The first is that this opinion of the Protestants detracting so much from the latin bibles and yelding so much to the hebrevv is Iudaical iniurious to the Church to the holy Ghost and state of the nevv testameÌ„t as vvhereby they professe to thinke more religioÌ„ care of Gods word to haue bene resident in the Iewish synagoge theÌ„ in al the Kingdomes Princes Pastors Prouinces of Christianitie for these thovvsaÌ„d yeres The second that albeit S. Hierom in his tyme so soone after the great persecutions the Church being troubled vvith that most busye terrible and potent heresie of the Arrians against the diuinitie of Christ and the holy Ghost vvhen as yet the Canon it selfe comprehending the sacred bookes of scriptures by general authoritie vvas not confirmed and receaued vvheÌ„ as saith S. Austin there vvas inâ—umerable varietie of latin traÌ„slations Qui ex hebraeâ— lingua scripturas in graecam verterunt numerari possunt latini autem interpretes nullo modo and they infinitely differing among them selues as in the same place he noteth when for these causes there vvas not nor vvel could be any one vniforme translation approued although at this tyme S. Hierom might iustly appeale from them al to the hebrew as in coÌ„parison being most pure incorrupt yet nether then were the hebrew copies simpliciter faultles as hath bene shevved by playne examples and demonstrations by the very ProtestaÌ„te bibles and by confession of the best learnedst among them and S. Hâ—erom though M. W. seeme to ground him self most vpoÌ„ him acknovvledgeth so much For examining tvvo places of Deuteronomie vrged by the Apostle S. Paule in his epistles both differing in that point vvhich he most presseth froÌ„ the hebrew bibles extant in S. Hieroms daies he resolueth in fine that the hebrew vvas corrupted othervvise then the Apostle read it The one place is Scriptum est Maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno It is vvritten Cursed is euerie one that hangeth on tree in vvhich short place compared vvith the original in Deuteronomie there is somevvhat to much and somevvhat to litle To much because here is omnis euery one and in ligno on tree which are not now found in the Hebrew though both in the Greeke of the Septuaginta To litle because there is in the hebrew Elohim which wanteth in S. Paule maledictus Deo or Dei cursed of God is euerie one so hanged S. Hierom answereth thus My iudgement herein is this ether that the old bookes of the Hebrevves had othervvise then they haue novv or that the Apostle put the sense of the scripture not the vvordes or vvhich I rather suppose after the passion of Christ both in the Hebrevv and in our bookes the name of God vvas added by some maÌ„ that he might make vs more infamous vvho beleeue in Christ accursed of God The other place is this Scriptum est Maledictus omnis qui noÌ„ permanserit in omnibus quae scripta sunâ— in libro legis vt faciat ea Cursed is euerie one that abideth not in al thinges vvhich are vvritten in the booke of the lavv to do them Where the Apostles argument hanging principally vpon the two wordes omnis and in omnibus euerie one and in al thinges both which are in the Septuaginta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nether in the hebrew he thus answereth the matter I am vncertayne vvhether the Septuaginta added omnis homo and in omnibus or vvhether it vvere so in the old hebrevv and aftervvard put out by the Ievves Thus tâ— suppose I am moued for this reason because the vvordes omnis and in omnibus al and in al as necessary to proue that they be al accuâ—sed vvho are of the vvorkes of the lavv the Apostle skilful in the hebrevv tonge and mâ—st cunning in the lavv vvould neuer haue so sett dovvne had it not bene so in the hebrevv VVherefore I perusing the hebrevv volumes of the Samaritanes found there vvritten the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much to say as omnis siue omnibus al or in al and so that to agree vvith the Septuaginta In vayne therefore haue the Ievves razed that out lest they should seeme to be accursed vvhereas the more auncient examples of an other nation testifie that it vvas vvritten so Thus S. Hierom. Thirdly this I gather that since S. Hieroms time much more haue the hebrew bookes bene corrupted and that not in smale indâ—fferent matters which might better be borne but in very hye pointes touching the diuinitie and humanitie of our Sauiour touching his passion and the redemption of the world And therefore when S. Hierom speaking of the puritie of the bibles before his birth is applied to iustifie the copies written so many ages after his death and so consequently to iustifie al their new English FleÌ„mish and Germane interpretations made according to some hebrew copies as they pretend this is as iust as Germanes lippes according to our english prouerbe whose hartes mindes religions we see to differre infinitely This is to answere of chalke when the question is proposed of cheese Next this we see that the condition of the hebrew tonge is such that errors are very soone coÌ„mitted therein by reasoÌ„ of smale points of distinctioÌ„s of letters so nighly resembling one an other Wherevnto ioyne we the malice of the Rabbines their hatred of the Christians and Christian religion whom Luther confesseth to be as very crucifiers of the word of Christ especially such places as most appertaine to him as they were of Christ him selfe and that they employe their studie herevnto And if we consider withal how in time of the law thorough their default they lost whole bookes volumes of their diuine Prophetes we shal fynde smal reason to moue vs to beleeue that since Christ they should become so holy and deuout watchful circumspect as M.VV. by commending their fountaines and originals would make them Finally al this hath bene declared not only by plaine reasons factes examples demonstrations but also by plaine confession of those whom our aduersaries principally reuerence and honour and in this matter were most skilful by Munster by Pellicane by Sebastianus Castalio by Luther and such others And hereof may the reader easely learne an answer to that questioÌ„ which many frame as a matter of intricate difficultie wheÌ„ these corruptions should come in to the hebrew bibles whether before Christs time or betwene that and S. Hieroms or from S. Hieroms time to vs. Not the first say they because
of our latin translation affirme that howsoeuer some smale fault may be found in it absolutely it hath no error ether touching doctrine or touching maners For vvhy should I not so gather when as I see the aduersarie being so eager yet with al his search and studie findeth one only fault in it whiche I wil set downe in his owne wordes because I wil not diminish the force of his argument Very absurdly haue you done saith he vvhen in translating the testament in to English you had rather folâ—vv the latin translation then the greeke original and that so obstinatly that although al the greeke examples reade othervvise then is in your vulgar editioÌ„ yet you prefer that before them al. I vvil geue you one example In 1. Cor. 15. v. 54. Paule saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This parcel in your translation is omitted for vvhat reason because it is not in the latin vulgar edition as they cal it But it is in the greeke exemplars in the most auncient edition Siriake and vvhat if Hierom read it not yet Chrysostome and Ambrose him self read it vvhich men vvhereas they liued vvith Hierom hereof it folovveth assuredly ether that HieroÌ„ dealt not faithfully here or that his version vvas corrupted aftervvards vnto which thus I answere First that this omissâ—on if it be any could not proceede of malice or set purpose for so much as there is no losse or hinderance to any part of doctrine by reading as we reade for the self same thing is most clearely set downe in the verie next lines before for thus stande the wordes This corruptible must doe on incorruption and this mortal immortalitie And vvhen this corruptible hath done on incorruption and this mortal hath done on immortalitie where thou seest the words which I haue put downe inclosed within the parenthesis to be contained most expressely in the sentence going before which is in al our testaments so that there is no harme or dauÌ„ger ether to faith doctrine or maners if it be omitted Secondarely if we prefer our latin edition before the greeke and thinke that peece repeated not to be of the text what reason we haue so to do hath bene shewed in part and Beza by his example iustifieth our doing For so him self doth more theÌ„ once vpon S. Luke he thus writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Omnia quae vidi exemplaria ita scriptum habent Al the greeke examples vvhich I haue seene reade so But the old interpreter readeth othervvise et rectius vt opinor and better as I suppose Againe in the same gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haec verba deerant in omnibus vetustis codâ—cibus quae tamen prorsus videntur requiri These vvordes vvanted in al the old greeke bookes vvhich for al that seeme necessarie And therefore he supplieth his text vvith them out of our translatioÌ„ and so do the english translators who seldome depart froÌ„ him but like good scholers turne in to english his latin Thirdly that it was of old in some greeke copies as we reade is plaine by S. Hier. who translated thus And why should M. W. suspect any vnfaithfulnes in him seing he put the self same wordes and sense in the next line immediatly going before and that it was not corrupted since appeareth by the common reading of most men in al later ages And how vnlearnedly argueth he against S. Hierom from the authoritie of S. Ambrose and S. Chrysosâ—oÌ„ reading otherwise Must therefore S. Hierom be vnfaithful or the Church after him because S. Chrysostom or S. Ambrose haue those few vvordes more then he vvhy may he not far more reasonably more like a logician and like an honest man to inuent an other part and make a better diuision that ether S. Hierom dealt not faithfully or els his greeke copies had not that peece repeated vvhich I thinke to be most true certaine Againe vvhy should he rather correct S. Hierom by S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose then contraryvvise thâ—m by S. Hierom vvhereas by common intendement and probabilitie S. Hierom framing a publike translation for the Church by supreme authoritie had more varietie of copies and examined the same more narrowly then doth ordinarily any other vvho expoundeth the scripture ether by vvay of homelies to the people as doth S. Chrysostome or by vvay of commentarie as doth S. Ambrose And truely writeth Beza that whosoeuer by such authoritie of one or other father would go about to alter the ordinary traÌ„slation except he vse an other maner of iudgment wisdome and diligence then we see vsed by our aduersaries he wil rather corrupt the scripture then correct it And his reason is very good pregnant Neque enim saith he scriptores illos seu graecos seu latinos existimandum est quoties locum aliquem citarint toties vel libros inspexisse vel singula verba numerasse For it is not to be supposed that those vvriters ether greeke or latin vvhen they had to cite a place alvvaies ether vevved the booke or numbred the vvords For this had bene a matter of infinite labour not necessarie c. To which infinite labour notwithstanding and vewing the booke numbring the words S. Hier. in his translatioÌ„ was of necessitie bouÌ„d as was nether S. Ambâ—n or S. Chrisost And yet S. Chrysostome maketh litle for you if you compare wel his owne discourse and text together Nay he maketh cleane against you and approueth our reading For though he haue those wordes in the second place yet he hath them not in the first and repeateth them not but only once readeth them in his text according to our latin And therunto agreeth his commeÌ„tarie therfore quâ—te ouerthroweth â—l that you vvould build vpon his credite Thus they stande in him For this corruptible must do on incorruption And vvhen this corruptible shal do on incorruptioÌ„ this mortal immortalitie theÌ„ shal be fulfilled c. And whereas you adde that S. Ambrose readeth as you do you must pardon me if I beleeue mine owne eyes better then your reporte Certâ—inely S. Ambrose in his commentarie vppon that place readeth as we do So readeth S. Austin de ciuitate Dei cited by S. Bede in his commentarie vpon the same chapter though S. Austin reade also as M. VV. would haue it according to the greeke And with S. Bede and after S. Bede so reade the rest of the Catholike interpreters and doctors Haymo Anselmus c. Farthermore in this verie place as I thinke most appeareth the sinceritie of our latin translatioÌ„ For as we keepe our text according as S. Hierom and the Church then deliuered it so notwithstanding because the words obâ—octed by M. W. are in the auncient greeke example whereof the church hath due regarde the same particle is added commonly in the margent of euerie latin testameÌ„t which the Church vseth as may be seene in diuers prints of
of the perfite sacrifice they layed the stones thereof in the mount of the temple in a conuenient place vntil there came some Prophete vvho should declare Gods oracle vvhat vvas to be done vvith them or rather the example of Moyses vnto vvhom notvvithstanding God had in precise vvords geuen commaundement that if any mā of purpose brake the lavv he should suffer death therefore yet the man vvho gathered vvood vpon the sabboth day he vvould not put to death vntil he had particularly receaued ansvvere from God so to do And after many other places of scripture brought for this purpose as Act. 5. v. 38. et 39. Rom. 14. v. 1. et 4. Mat. 7. v. 1.2 thus he concludeth Expectemus iusti iudicis sententiam c. Let vs attend the sentence of the iust iudge and employ our diligence not to condeme other men but to prouidē that our selues do nothing vvhy vve should be condemned Let vs obey the iust iudge and suffer the cockle vntil the time of haruest lest vvhyle vve vvil seeme to be vviser then our maister perhaps vve plucke vp the good corne For the later end of the vvorld is not come as yet nether are vve angels vnto vvhom that office is committed Vnto this Atheisme indifferent approbation of al maner faiths religions very many learned smooth Prootestants are alredy growen and whether those Atheists whereof M. D. Whitgift saith the english congregation is ful appertaine to this order yea or no thē selues best know But it not possible that this dayly and infinite multiplcation of contentions sectes and schismes new and diuers translations of testaments and bibles should haue any other end For to speake the truth and passe ouer al the rest what certainetie of faith or religion can a man haue when as he is taught to neglect at his pleasure al antiquitie al ages past al Synodes and Councels of fathers and doctors old and new and suspend his religion vpon the only testamēt translated after the new guyse interpreted after euerie mans particular new fansie where he findeth far more varietie then there are colours in the raynebovv And if M. VVhitaker speaking so much of his pure greeke and hebrevv originals or latin or english translations should be required to ansvvere directly vvhich greeke which hebrew he vnderstādeth especially vvhich translation latin english Scottish French or Dutch he meaneth vvhen he so magnifieth them against our vulgar testamēt I weene it would put him to more trouble then he is aware of But to disaduantage my self of this maner of discourse and keepe my self more precisely to the argument which I haue begone I say that to geue liberty of appealing frō one certaine latin text appointed by the general Coūcel to diuerse greeke hebrew latin vulgar as the heretikes do is the very introductiō to apostasie for this reason because puttinge the case of religion to stand in those termes to vvhich novv the heretiks haue brought it it cutteth avvay al persvvasion al grounde al proofe of Christian faith For how can you deale vvith any heretike to bringe him to the vvay of saluation To be so short as I may and in one example to geue the reader occasion to recal to memorie hundreds vvhich he may easily do suppose I had to deale vvith one of the sect famous and vvel knovven in Germanie by the name of Antinomi Enemies of the lavv I rather name them of Germanie then of England although England hath store of them because M.W. shal consider of it more quietly They being in other things commō Protestants beleeuing that man in matters of life eternal hath not free vvil that he vvorketh not his ovvne saluation and that good workes are of no value in that respect ioyne vnto that common opinion this one consequent Ipsi statuunt sayth Sleydan of them quaecunque tandem fit hominis vita quantumuis impura iustificari tamen eum si modo promissionibus euāgelii credit This they put as a sure principle that hovvsoeuer a man liue liue he neuer so filthely yet he is iustified if he beleeue the promises of the gospel And this is the very conclusion of the Protestants cōmon and general doctrine of iustification by only faithe Suppose novv I haue to draw suche a one from his wicked opinion and vvould moue him to be ether syncere in faith or honest in life vvhat vvay could I take vvith him First I should perhaps require him to regard the most graue authoritie of Christes Catholike Church vttered to him in S. Bernard S. Gregorie S. Austin S. Hierom and auncient synods of learned bishops the summe of whose teaching is comprised briefely in these wordes of the late Councel of Trent If any say that the vvicked man is iustified by only faith vnderstanding it so that no other thing is required that should cooperate for obtaining the grace of iustification c. Anathema be he But this is nothing for against a thousand Austins a thousand Cyprians and as many generall Councels consisting of men such a Protestant is many waies armed by M. W. and his brethren And therefore this wil not serue Wel mount we then at one steppe ouer the heads of al fathers Councels and Churches euen to the Apostolical age and scriptures them selues there wee proue that men must cooperate and do good workes by the authoritie of S. Iames. But S. Iames is flat against S. Paule he abuseth scripture he disputeth ridiculously he sauoreth nothing of an Apostolical spirit he quite ouerthroweth that which S. Pau. had wel built therefore he is no more worth then S. Austin so not to be obiected At least S. Paule him self is of good authoritie who in many places especially of his epistle to the hebrews is as vehement in this as is S. Iames vseth much like arguments That is true and therefore without question that epistle was neuer writen by S. Paule so say Beza and Caluin touching the denial of the author and touching the whole epistle thus say others Sed quū his rationibus quibus vtitur author epistolae Iacobi et epistolae ad Hebraeos neque vtatur Christus neque caeteri apostoli et hae epistolae apocryphae sunt vt suo loco dictum est pro stipulis iure ista habētur But vvhere as nether Christ nor any of his apostles vse suche reasons as doth the author of Iames his epistle the author of the epistle to the hebrevves againe vvhereas these epistles be forged apocryphal as hath bene sayd in place conuenient these reasons are not to be esteemed vvorth a stravv sayth Illyricus with his colleages one of the best learned men of this age by M. Iewels verdicte Proceede we on let vs find out some text without this exception and vvhat better then that of S. Peter VVherefor◠brethren labour the more that
these two translations howsoeuer it seeme to thee Christian reader the difference is as great as is betwene our doctrine theirs And first they make a wilful fault and corrupt the text by making a fuller pointe then ether the greeke or latin beareth And Beza doth somewhat more desperately who maketh a downe ful point thereby more diuiding and distracting the later parcel from the former as though it contained not a reason of that which went before as it doth but were some new matter wherein he is controled of fowle dealing by his owne translation set out the yere 1556 and by the very greeke prints of Geneua Zurick Basile other Germane cities who point it as doth our latin and english But the reason of his and their turning Quoniā in to Nam Because in to For descrieth yet more their obdurate harts against Christ and his worde For where as Christ by S. Lukes reporte saith in effect thus because she loued much therefore manie sinnes are forgeuē her they by this peruersion and mispointing make a cleane different and almost contrarie sense thus because she had many sinnes forgeuen her therefore she loueth much this loue folowing was a token of the remission which she by only faith had obtained before so turning the cause in to the effect the antecedent into the consequent and hereby vtterly spilling the doctrine which Christ by his words and reason geueth and the Church of his words reason gathereth That this is the true groūd reasō why they so Luciferlike alter the speech of Christ Beza plainly cōfesseth Thus he writeth Nam dilexit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For she loued The vulgar translation and Erasmus turne it Because she loued but I had rather interprete it as I do that men may best vnderstand in these vvords to be shevved not the cause of remission of sinnes but rather that vvhich ensued after such remission that by the consequent is gathered the antecedent And therefore they vvhich abuse this place to ouerthrovv free Iustification by only fayth are very impudent and childish wherein he speaketh very truly the words and sense being so as he hath framed them But if he had not plaid the part rather of a diuel then of an heretike to alter in pointing worde and sense the speach of our Sauiour and so taught him his lesson what he should say it had not bene impudencie for vs thus to argue but it had bene more then brutish ignorance in him to haue denied that charitie is required as wel for obtaining remission of sinnes as is faith which both in this place our Sauiour most diuinely conioyneth saying of charitie Many sinnes are forgeuen her because she hath loued much and adding straight way Thy faith hath made thee safe goe in peace And so of this text gathered al the auncient fathers who were for al that nether impudent nor childish So S. Chrysostom As first by vvater and the spirit so aftervvard by teares and confession vve are made cleane And he proueth it by this place So S. Gregorie expounding the same place Many sinnes are forgeuen her because she loued much as if it had bene said expresly He burneth out perfectly the rust of sinne vvhosoeuer burneth vehemently vvith the fier of loue For so much more is the rust of sinne scoured avvay by how much more the harte of a sinner is inflammed vvith the great fier of charitie And S. Ambrose vpon the same words Good are teares vvhich are able to vvash avvay our sinnes Good are teares In quibus nō solū redemptio peccatorum sed etiam refectio est iustorum vvherein is not only the redemption of sinners but also the refreshing of iust men And S. Austin debating this storie in a longe homelie saith This sinful vvoman the more she ovved the more she loued the forgeuer of her debtes our lord him selfe affirming so Many sinnes are forgeuen her because she loued much And vvhy loued she much but because she ovved much Quare fecit illa omnia nisi vt dimitterentur sibi peccata VVhy did she al those offices of vveping vvashing c. but to obtaine remission of her sinnes I omitte other fathers al agreing in the selfe same veritie al making her loue to be a cause going before nor only an effect or sequele comming after the remission of sinnes And this was the gathering of the auncient fathers S. Chrysostom S. Gregorie S. Ambrose S. Austin c. who were euer reuerenced for holy and learned fathers by the children of Christs Catholike Church vntil this Chams broode and prophane generation inuaded their roomes who now condemne them for impudent and childish But let me with thy leaue and patience Christian reader prosecute in one worde more their wonderful tossing and turning and inuerting this shorte sentence of our Sauiour And in this one allegation which I wil now produce thou shalt see the very image of Atheisme of contempt of God and man of impossibilitie to do any good by scriptures so longe as this licence of framing new translations is allowed Thou seest what sturre Beza hath kept and to serue his turne what fowle and detestable corruption he hath vsed But to make vp the matter and reconcile Christs words a litle better to this new solifidian gospel commeth in Wolfgangus Musculus with a deeper fetch after this maner First because S. Lukes words be very plaine and he can not so probably wrangle vpon thē in greeke he in his owne fansie imagineth what Christ ether did or should haue spoken in hebrew Next that fansie he putteth to be true and forthwith according to the same he correcteth S. Luke and so concludeth that al matcheth right with their Lucianical only faith For nowe by this time with his good helpe not one worde in effect stādeth as Christ spake it at least by S. Lukes reporte Thus he discourseth Ecce inquiunt manifestò datur dilectioni remissio peccatorum Ergo non sola fides iustificat c. Behold say the Papists remission of sinnes is attributed to loue ergo faith alone iustifieth not but vve ansvvere that loue in this vvoman vvas not the cause of remission of sinnes but a token declaration thereof Remissiō of her sinnes she obtained by faith in Christ Therefore vvhereas Christ saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The vvorde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as vvitnesseth Suidas is a Dorical vvorde signifieth not in the imperatiue Remittantur Remitted be they but in the preterperfect tense Remissa sūt Haue bene remitted Next the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth here not the cause but the probatiō of that vvhich is put before Thirdly the vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath loued is an hebrew phrase by vvhich the preterperfecttense is put for the present For the hebrevves speake thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is because she hath loued much in
steede of because she doth loue much And plaine it is that Christ spake not greeke or latin but hebrevv Therefore vvhereas Christ said Many sinnes haue bene forgeuen her he proueth it by that which folovveth because she loueth much as if he had said That she loueth me much it is no maruel she hath good occasion so to do For many sinnes haue bene forgeuen her So vve say that he hath obtained that vvhich he desired because he is mery laugheth he is verie hūgrie because he eateth much c. I wil not bestow time in examining this answere who told him that Christ vsed the preterperfect-tense for the present whereas S. Luke so flatly affirmeth the contrarie or that S. Luke in this phrase so strāgely affected the Dorical lāguage with the rest of his bold assertion but wanting al reason of reasonable coniecture to support them this only I wish thee to consider whether thou didst euer see a litle sentence so racked and torne as this is For cōparing this sentēce as it is novv fashioned by them with the same sentence as it was first pronounced by our Sauiour not one word of any momēt remaineth in such sort as Christ vttered them Christ said Many sinnes are forgeuen her because she hath loued much now with their correction thus it is Many sinnes haue bene forgeuen her For she loueth much Where first they rent in sonder make that two which Christ ioyned and spake as one Then they wrest one of Christs words bringe it to a Dorical phrase of speach And by and by backe againe they make the next which signifieth a thing past in greeke to signifie a thing present by the hebrewe maner of speach which hath no present tenses the cleane contrarie whereof is auouched in the other Dorical word going immediatly before Afterwards they enforce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to signifie a cause antecedent but a signe or effect consequent And finally in al and euery of these tricks S. Lukes authoritie is vnder foote and lieth dead For nether Beza nor Musculus in this tossing and turning euer consider what S. Luke wrote what sense the Apostolical Church gaue and the holy Ghost in the same hath alwaies continued what the very letter of the greeke requireth as now it standeth but how it may possibly be wrested if a man wil folow the spirit of contention if he will fetch the pointing of the sentence from Geneua the meaning of one word from Dorica in one corner of the world of an other frō Hierusalem of a third from Swytzerlād the entier summe of al from the deepe pit of hell For excepte the deuil him self stoode by thē suggested to them such construction I thinke the nature of man hauing some regarde of honestie of learning of modestie of Christ his Euāgelists could neuer breake forth into so much monstruous absurditie Of al which this I conclude that allowing men this libertie vnto which now by this libertine-gospel they are driuen I say there is no possibilitie to conteine men in faith or to reduce men to faith or to proue any parcel of Christiā faith For setting aside church Doctors Custome Councels and resting in the only Scriptures priuate exposition of the same this one example geueth vs a paterne to care nothing for al scriptures For it is a maruelous flat text which a man of meane learning by one of these shiftes may not auoide ether by refusing it as not Canonical because it is reiected novv of Protestants in these daies or hath bene doubted of by Catholikes in old time vvhich cutteth of a number of bookes or by obiecting some one or other greeke example in vvhich the vvords vvant vvhich is easie to finde heretiks of diuers sects hauing novv the printing of most greeke testamēts and euery one being content to fauour his proper gospel and heresie or by producing some false translation and sticking to that vvith store of vvhich euerie prouince is pestered or by hunting out diuers significations of the greeke vvord and taking that vvhich maketh most for his aduantage or if that serue not then by corrupting one word by conferring an other with the greeke of this or that dialect a third with the Iewes or Chaldees or Suitzers maner of speaking and so patching vp a sense partly Christian partly Germane partly Ethnical and partly Iudaicall and finally which is al in al reseruing euer to him selfe supreme iudgement of al senses interpretations scriptures and languages As in this verie place whereof I speake Zuinglius folowing nether the words of the Euāgelist nor sense of the Church nor Cōmentarie of the auncient fathers nor inuention of Beza nor any of those manyfold shiftes of Musculus willeth vs rather for dilexit to put credidit for charitie faith and then geueth vs the meaning of Christs words thus Quoniā dilexit multum Ego puto dilectionem hic pro fide accipi quòd tantum mihi fidit tantum peccatorū ei remittitur Nam poste a dicit sides tua te saluam sec it Because she loued much I suppose that loue is here put for faith because she hath so great affiāce in me so many sinnes are forgeuē her for he saith afterwards thy faith hath saued thee that is hath deliuered and absolued the from thy sinnes which one distinction answereth al the places that in this controuersie vve bring out of the scriptures to refel their only faith By these fevv heretical sleights M. Whitaker knovveth his brethren haue many other as bad as these vsed in one particular controuersie any man may gesse hovv likely it is to tye an heretike hauing some vvitt and learning and sight in tonges vvith any text that gainsaith his opinion Hovv true vve finde by experience that vvhich Tertullian so many ages agoe spake of the heretikes of his time and prophecied as it may seeme of the heretikes of our time Ista haeresis non recipit quasdam scripturas c. These Zuinglian Lutheran Puritan Anabaptist Trinitarian c. heretikes admitt not some bookes of scriptures and those vvhich they doe admit by adding to taking from they peruerte to serue their purpose And if they receaue some bookes yet they receaue thē not intierly or if they receaue thē entierly after some sort neuerthelesse they marre them by deuising diuers interpretatiōs In this case vvhat vvil you do that thinke your selfe most skilful in the scriptures vvhē as that which you defend the aduersarie denieth that vvhich you deny the aduersarie defendeth Et tu quidem nihil perdes nisi vocem de contentione nihil consequeris nisi bilem de blasphematione And thou truely shalt leese nothing but thy vvordes in so contentious a brauling thou shalt gaine nothinge but greefe and anger in seinge an heretike so to blasphene And novv if I should shevv the like in the hebrevv and by examples manifest the same I should trouble my selfe
much and the reader much more Because I must be driuen to talke of titles and pointes and rules of the Rabbines and readings of the Massoreth and such other obscure matter troublesome for me to laie together and vvrite out and not intelligible for a common reader I vvil therefore put dovvne only certaine propositions exemplifying theÌ„ in one or tvvo vvordes vvhereby the learned shal vnderstand how true that is which I affirme and the vnlearned shal be able to conceaue somwhat I say therefore that of the hebrew far lesse hold can be taken in binding a contentious heretike then of any other language The reason is first because their tonge hauing in it no great store of words euery word almost is vsed in verie diuers significations farre more then is found in latin or greeke or many vulgar languages and therefore if you presse him with one translation or sense he forthwith hath sundry and diuers senses to flee vnto Hence coÌ„meth that diuersitie in the Psal 54. Extendit deus manum suam in retribuendo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the 70. God hath stretched forth his hand to revvard or recompence as the church readeth which place the catholikes both of late and auncient times vse to proue the reward and recompence of good workes The english bibles turne it thus He hath laide his hands vpon such as be at peace vvith him the more common Protestant translation as it appeareth by Marlorate Misit manus suas in paces suas He hath laid his haÌ„ds vpon his peaces This diuersitie riseth of the same hebrew word but hauing diuers senses An other reason is because their substantiues being in maner al deriued of verbes often times one substantiue may haue diuers deriuations from diuers verbes which bringeth as great varietie as is possible So the church readeth ps 59. Dedisti metuentibus te significationeÌ„ vt fugiant a facie arcus Thou hast geuen to those that feare thee a signe that they flee from the face of the bovve according to the 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so vvas the hebrew in S. Hieroms time as vve see by his translation The Protestants Luther Bucer Caluin as vve see by Marlorate vvil haue it Dedisti metuentibus te vexillum ad vexillaÌ„dum propter veritatem Thou hast geuen to them that feare thee a flagge to flagge for truth the english of one yere thou hast geuen a token for such as feare thee that they may triuÌ„phe because of thy truth of an other Thou hast geueÌ„ a baÌ„ner to them that feare thee that it may be displaied because of thy truth This differeÌ„ce in one part coÌ„meth of the 2. radical hebrew verbes the old church the 70. S. HieroÌ„ folowing one the new congregation of the ProtestaÌ„ts rather liking the other The difference in the other part bovv and truth no doubt came thence that the old hebrew bookes had that vvorde vvritten vvith one kinde of T the later vvith an other Againe touching the literal seÌ„se of the hebrew words what masters shal we follow The old Rabbines Dauid Kimhi Aben Ezra and such other Thus to say Beza Munster Caluin Castalio the Protestants commonly induce vs. But Master D. Humfrey holdeth the contrary and not without reason if we had a good pilote to rule the sterne and containe vs in mediocritie VVe ought not to credit saith he in my iudgment the Rabbines touching the very exposition deriuation of the hebrevv vvords Christ pronouÌ„ceth of them that they are blinde guides of the blinde Therefore this is not the vvay to interprete rightly nether may vve folovv them except vve vvil preferre darknes before light errors before truth doubtful things before assured daungerous before safe and vvicked and blasphemous before Godly and Catholike By which rule al your new hebrew translations are called in to question yea are pronounced to be darkesome erroneous doubtful daungerous wicked blasphemous For your best and greatest translators whom did they folow in the sense of the hebrew wordes but their common dictionaries And out of whoÌ„ are they drawen looke vpon the title of Munsters Dictionarium Hebraeum vltimò ab autore Sebastiano Munstero recognitum et ex Rabbinis praesertim ex radicibus Dauid Kimhi auctuÌ„ et locuplet a tum This hebrevv dictionarie is novv last renevved by SebastiaÌ„ Munster and encreased and enriched out of the Rabbines especially out of Dauid Kimhi And Munster in his translations which is accompted most exact to the hebrew protesteth that he regarded therein no Christian fathers but only the Iudaical Rabbines Nobis saith he in animo fuit talem parare aeditionem scripturae quae per omnia hebraismo esset coÌ„formis ideo solos hebraeos coÌ„suluimus scriptores And here perhaps I might propose vnto you an Insoluble an argument that you wil neuer aunswere sauing the honour of your maisters doctors Your maister Beza correcteth the new testameÌ„t generally and draweth the greeke citations in the same and al doubtful wordes to the sense of the hebrew and the Rabbines Doctor Humfrey on the coÌ„trary side wil haue the hebrew words of the old testament drawen to signifie as the Apostles cite them according to the 70. in the new testament and condemneth your translators for doing otherwise and namely whereas in the 2. of the Actes your English bibles after Beza translate Shâ—ol Graue he acknowledging that in hebrevv and according to the Rabbines It may so signifie many things besides as pitt the state of the dead and damned death a ditch the east or birth and hell this last saith he must vve folovv by authoritie of the holy Ghost Act 2. interpreting a place of the psalme 15. Where you see one wil haue the hebrew word in the psalme translated Hel because so it is in the greeke Act. 2. the other will haue the greeke Act. 2. traÌ„slated Graue because so may be the signification of the hebrevv ps 15. et sic in caeteris vvhere by the way you may note that your pure and vndefiled bibles are not altogether so iudged by this vvriter a man of such credit and name in your coÌ„gregation yea that he iudgeth them corrupt in so great a matter as a principal article of our faith commeth vnto And yet al this vvhich hetherto I haue spoken is nothing touching the true controuersie vvhich is about the hebrevv originals that is whether vve must take them as novv vve haue them geuen vs vvith the ordinarie pointes and vovvels put to by the Ievves and Rabbines or vvhether vve must take the consonantes only and put to the points or vowels by our owne discretion If the first then al those horrible absurdities must stande which before I haue noted against Christs Diuinitie Humanitie Passion Incarnation If the second then must the Protestants fal to translate a freshe for al their bibles hitherto are litle worth
but must signifie as much as ReueÌ„ge in English for els they traÌ„slated falsely So in Ecclesiasticus that writer speking of a father that dieth leaueth behind him a good wise sonne among many other benefites which he hath thereby he reckneth this that he hath leaft one who wil Defende Reuenge him against his enemies in greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our latin Reliquit defensorem in the English bibles He leaste behind him an avenger The same writer speaking of the reuenge wrought vpon Baals Priestes for their Idolatrie 3 Reg. 18. calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our latin Iuditia defensionis the English bibles Iudgment of vengeance Many lyke wordes there are in the new testament wherein if a man examine vs according to the vulgar signification of the word as we learned it when we were children we can not alwaies auoyde blâ—me But if we respect the true vse of the latin word in the auncient Church he whosoeuer blameth vs therein much more shameth him self So in S. Iames Naueâ— minanour we translate not Men threaten shippes as some graÌ„marian would perhaps imagine we ought but shippes are caried or driven Abraham confortatus est fide not Abraham was comforted in faith but VVas strengthned in faith Christus exprobrauit ciuitatibus in quibus facte essent plurimae virtutes eius c. quia si in Tyro et Sidone factae essent virtutes quae factae sunt in vobis we English not Christ vpbrayded the cities wherein were done most of his vertues c. but vvherein vvere done most of his miracles and because if in Tyre and SidoÌ„ had bene vvrought the miracles vvhich haue bene vvrought in you I passe ouer very many examples of the like qualitie and nature in al which we geue not that English which the latin word seemeth at first to require and yet for al that nether do we as some man like M. W. may imagine forsake our latin and folowe the greeke but by conference of latin with greeke and one place with an other and by the fathers of the Church and continual practise of the same we know assuredly that our enterpreter verbatim word for word meant to expresse the greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Iames by his latin Minarâ— that is Te be driuen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paule by CoÌ„fortari that is To be strengthned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Matâ—hew by Virtutes Miracles And in this place it is most euident that our eÌ„terpreter so tooke the word Defendere and that not only because we see his vse in other places but euen by considering the peeces of this very sentence Haue peace vvith al men Non vosmet ipsos defendentes charissmi sed date locum irae scriptum est enim Mihi vindictaÌ„ et ego retribuam dicit dominus Where very plaine it is by the antecedâ—nâ—s by the consequents by the whole drift of the place by that which he inferreth that he meant to take Defendere in the former part as signifying the same with vindicare in the later where vnto if we ioyne the vse of the same author in other places the auncient speach of the Church and fathers and the very new heretical bibles we shal much more easily perâ—eue that both he meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reueng by Defendere when he first translated the greeke into that latin that we truely gaue his meaning when we turned Defendere by Reuenge out of latin in to English And so this first is no Prodigious error nor Prophane noueltie nor Heretical contempt nor Outragious or desperate boldnes nor of our parte any fault at al but on M. W. part it is a grosse error and a blind error and foule ignorance and great malice and litle vvitte to amplifie so outragiously a thing of so smal value if it vvere an error and a thing of no value being no error at al. The other perhaps that remaineth is huge monstruous inough to make recompence for both VVhat is that forsooth vvhereas Our old editioÌ„ readeth Populus qui ambulauit in tenebris The people vvhich hath vvalked in darkenes vve according to the greeke more truly haue translated The people that sitteth in darkenes Populus qui sedet in tenebris so that herein at least vve haue outragiously abused the people and desperately gone about to deceaue theÌ„ by making them reade more truly Sitting in darknes vvhereas they should haue read vvalking in darkenes And hovv can vve ansvvere this novv in truth very hardly For it is so bald a toy as I know not vvhich vvay vvel to begin vvith it But to say somevvhat let me aske him for vvhat purpose should vve here forsake our latin and choose the greeke what article vvhat conclusioÌ„ vvhat argument ether for our selues or against the heretikes get vve by this alteration Certainly he had neede to be very subtile that could gather any Next if I answered that he belyeth vs some man might thinke it rudely spoken but it is most true For to let passe that his reading is quite beside the booke for nether S. Hierom nor any old edition that I could yet finde hath Ambulauit and manyfest it is that vve translate not Sedet Sitteth as any man may iudge that caÌ„ reade English our vulgar copies had Sedebat Sate as we translated that is the most common reading as may be sene if any liste to peruse the common printes of Andwarp or Louayne c. of the yeres 1563 1564 1565 1569 1570 1574 1577 1580 set forth by Brickeman Tiletane Grauius Plantine sundrie others Thirdly I adde that here more euidently then in the last the Christian reader may learne with what peruerse and malitious and vnconscionable aduersaries we haue to deale The words are cyted out of the Prophete Esay thus Vt adimpleretur quod dictum est per Isaiam prophetam c. Populus qui sedebat in tenebris The word which S. Matthew or whosoeuer was author of this greeke turned Sedebat is in Isai Ambulabat as also it is in the hebrew testament extant in S. Matthews name of our vulgar testaments many reade according to the hebrew Ambulabat more according to the greeke Sedebat In the sense there can not be imagined any difference without manifest reproofe of the Euangelist For cleare it is that he citeth not the text according to the 70 who reade otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but translated it of him self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to leaue the authoritie of the EuaÌ„gelist plaine it is that ether word is of so smale force in this place that it skilleth not one iote whether you take the hebrew or greeke Ambulabat or Sedebat yea the greatest Protestants folow according to the letter nether the one nor the other nether hebrew nor greeke but put other wordes which they esteeme in sense to be equiualent Beza
tradition vvithout scripture the names of Pharaos vvicked sorcerers Iannes and Mambres vvhy thinketh he not this much more likely that the Church vvould keepe in remembrance the names of these such excellent men vvho vvith so great daunger came so farre to adore our Sauiour in his infancie and are called Primitiae gentium in vvhom the Church of the gētiles first begāne But hovvso euer the exacte truth be in this case it is a very smale point of desperatnes for vs to vvrite that their names are said to haue bene such most false it is that we set this forth as a most certaine article of the Romane religion and whatsoeuer ether in general or in special shal be obiected hereafter in the meane season the annotation grounded vpon good reason gathered out of the scriptures the psalmes of Dauid Esai Esther Tobias besides other authoritie sacred and prophane S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome Theophilact Cicero and Plinie in any iudgment I trow is able to coūteruaile the bare worde of so seely a man as M. VV. shevveth him self Touching S. Iohn thus we say Mat. 3. v. 1. Desert Of this vvord desert in greeke Eremus commeth the name Eremitages Eremites that liue a religious austere life in deserts and solitarie places by the example of S. Iohn Baptist vvhom the holy doctors therefore cal the prince and as it vvere the author of such profession S. Chrysost hom 1. in Marcum et hom de Io. Baptista Hierō ad Eustach de eustod virg Isid l. 2. c. 15. de diui off Bernardus de excel Io. Baptistae vvherevvith the protestāts are so offended that they say S. Chrysost spake rashly vntruly And no marueil for vvhereas the Euangelist himselfe in this place maketh him a perfecte paterne of penance and Eremitical life for desert or vvildernes for his rough and rude apparel for abstaining from al delicate meates according to our Sauiours testimonie also of him Mat. 11.8 Luc. 7.33 they are not ashamed to peruert al vvith this straunge commentarie that it vvas a desert ful of townes villages his garment vvas chālet his meate such as the countrie gaue and the people there vsed to make him thereby but a common man lyke to the rest in his maner of lyfe cleane against scriptures fathers and reason Here Christian reader to proue that S. Iohn was a monke thou hast as before reason plainly deduced out of the scriptures thou hast the auncient fathers deducing the same with vs S. Hierom S. Chrysostom S. Isidorus S. Bernard Against these scriptures and aūcient Doctors thou hearest the bare word of this new Doctor who had he euer bene a good scholer would neuer so boldly without face or forehead haue abused thy patience as to oppose his only word against these reasons Doctors and scriptures Touching the stone which is reserued at Ancona and the comming of Elias before the day of iudgment thus we say Of the first Reade a maruelous narratiō in S. Augustine of one stone that hitting the Martyr on the elbovv reboūded backe to a faithful mā that stood neere vvho keeping carying it vvith him vvas by reuelatiō vvarned to leaue it at Ancona in Italie vvherevpō a Church or Memorie of S. Steuen vvas there erected and many miracles done after the said martyrs body vvas found out and not before Aug. tomo 10. Ser. 38. de diuersis in aedit Paris Now of al these miracles Church built in memory of Martyrs Reuelations Stone reserued M. W. digesteth wel the rest only he seemeth to wonder that a stone could be kept so long As though that were so wonderful a case or there were not both in scripture as Aarons rod and the Manna and out of the scripture as al Churches through Christendome are witnes many things preserued as long time far more vnlike to continue then stones which may wel endure fifteene hundred yeres fiue times told if they be kept as wel as that at Ancona And whatsoeuer fault he find in the storie let him scoffe at S. Austin who so seriously rehearseth it not at vs who refer only the reader to S. Austin and speake neuer a worde of our selues And the like I answere for the second of which these are our wordes Christ distinguisheth here plainly betvvene Elias in person vvho is yet to come before the iudgement and betvvene Elias in name to vvit Iohn the Baptist vvho is come already in the spirit and vertue of Elias So that it is not Iohn Baptist only nor principally of vvhō Malachie prophecieth as our Aduersaries say but Elias also him self in person which annotatiō conteineth nothing els touching this point but the very wordes of our Sauiour and the prophete Malachie That Elias shal come which wordes when our Sauiour spake S. Iohn Baptiste who was Elias by some resēblāce figure and office was past and dead This truth els where we approue by the authoritie of S. Aust Tract 4. in Ioan. li. 1. de pec mer. ca. 3. and the rest of the latin Doctors as S. Hierom ad Pammach epist 61. ca. 11. et in psal 20. S. Ambr. in psal 45. S. Hilar. can 20. in Matth. Prosper lib. vlt. de promiss ca. 13. S. Greg. lib. 14. Moral ca. 11. et homil 12. in Ezech. Beda in 9. Marci The Greeke fathers also as S. Chrysost hom 58. in Matt. et hom 4. in 2. Thess et hom 21. in Genes et hom 22. in epist ad Hebr. Theophilact and Oecumen in 17. Matth. S. Daemas lib. 4. de Orthodoxa fide ca. 27. Finally by the vniuersal consent of al Christians where of S. Austin is witnes in these wordes Heliam Thesbitem vltimo tēpore venturum ante iudicium celeberrimū est in sermonibus cordibusque fidelium That Elias the Thesbite shal come before the day of iudgement it is a most notorious thing in the mouthe and hartes of faithful men And now the Prophet foretelling so our Sauiour affirming so the auncient fathers both Greeke Latin teaching so faithful and christian men alwaies beleeuing so this is the questiō which I wil not dispute but leaue it at large and M. W. may do wel to put it to his thesis of Antichrist for they are both iust of like probabilitie and handle it at the next comencemēt vz whether we must rather credite him vpon his bare word telling vs one thing or the vniuersal consent of Christendome the primitiue Church rising vpon the expresse wordes of the prophete and our Sauiour him self teaching vs the contrarie And these touching matters historical be the horrible faultes of our Annotations for which he accuseth vs of Desperatnes and them of such absurditie that neuer any thing more contaminate and corrupt vvas set abrode in the sight of the vvorld Our errors in making arguments are far more at least in number and shew how soeuer they proue in substance and truth I wil folow the
that the body of our Lord is to be vvrapped not in gold pretious stones and silke but in pure linnen And so in the vvhole Church it is obserued by S. Siluesters constitutioÌ„ that the Corporal vvherevpon our Lordes body lieth on the altar must be pure and plaine linnen The vvomeÌ„ came to behold the sepulcher Ergo novv vve must goe in pilgrimage to the holy sepulcher If M.VV. enforce the word must as it seemeth we confesse the argument foloweth not and the argument so is of his owne deuising not of ours For we bind not nor enforce any man by this example but they that list may tary at home and take their ease Mary waying that dutie of visiting such holy places in it self without constrayning or binding any to it of necessitie then presupposing this to be wel done by these holy womeÌ„ the reason foloweth wel theÌ„ce to approue the like deuotion of Christian people now And this deduction is iustified by S. Hierom and the vniuersal consent of Christendome in his time The wordes of the note are The deuoute vvomen came to visite our Sauiours Sepulcher and for their deuotion first deserued to knovv the Resurrection and to see him risen The honour of vvhich Sepulcher and of the pilgrimage therevnto in the primitiue Church S. Hierom declareth in these vvordes The Iewes sometime honoured SaÌ„cta SanctoruÌ„ because there vvere the Cherubs the Propitiatorie and the Arke of the Testament Manna Aarons rodde the golden altar Doth not the Sepulcher of our lord seeme to thee more honorable vvhich as often as vve enter into so often do vve see our Sauiour lye in the sindon and stayng there a vvhile vve see the Angel againe sitte at his feete and at his head the napkin vvrapped together The glorie of vvhose Sepulcher vve knovv vvas long prophecied before Ioseph hevved it out by Esay sayng And his rest shal be honour to vvit because the place of our Lordes burial should be honoured of al men Aâ—d at this present notvvithstanding the Turkes dominion yet doe the religious Christian Catholike meâ—n by Gods mâ—ghtie prouidence keepe the holy Sepulcher vvhich is vvâ—thin a goodly Church and Christians come out of al the vvorld in Pilgrimage to it Christ appeared to the tvvo disciples in an other forme ergo he is in the sacrament in forme of bread This is of like qualitie vvith the fourth needeth no farther ansvvere The vvords are Christ though he haue but one corporal shape natural to his person yet by his omn potencie he may be in vvhatsoeuer forme and appeare in the likenesse of any other man or creature as he list Therefore eâ—et no man thinke it strange that he may be vnder the forme of bread in the B Sacrament Christ to the man domb and deafe sayd Ephpheta ergo exorcisme is to be vsed the same vvordes to be recited in baptisme This ergo is as wise as many of the rest for abâ—olutely no more necessarie it is to vse Ephpheta in baptisme because Christ so spake then it is to vse Eli Eli LaÌ„mazabachthani which Christ spake as wel as the other Argument we make none but only we note out of S. Ambrose that the auncient and primitiue Church which best knew which wordes actions of Christ were imitable which were not that Church retained this word other ceremonies vsed by our Sauiour As also the same Church vniuersally vsed Exorcisme as witnesseth S. Austin which he calleth Traditionem veâ—ustâ—ssâ—â—â—am antiquâ—ssimam undatissimam in Ecclesia toto orbe diffusa A tradition most olde and auncient and most grounded in the Church dispersed through the vvhole vvorld Our vvords are The Church doth most godly imitate vse thâ—se very vvordes and ceremonies of our Sauiour in the Exorcismes before baptismes to the healing of their soules that are to be baptised as Christ heare healed tho bodily infirmitie and the disease of the soule together Ambr lib. 1. de Sacram. ca. 1. Luke the Euangelist vsed a familiar preface ergo the author of the second booke of the Machabees might desire pardon and excuse his slendernes and yet his vvritings be Canonical This argument foloweth wel M.VV. wil make many worse before he make one better if he take and waâ—gh the word and reason as they are deliuered in the Annotation For it doth derogate as much froÌ„ the maiestie of the holy Ghost to vse humane helpes in searching out the truth as to craue pardon for the stile and maner of writing And if you wil applie this note to that argumeÌ„t made against the Machabees and so much vaunted of by your deerest brother in Christ M. VV. Charke in the Towre you shal finde the case to be like and both S. Luke and the Machabees touching your censure to staÌ„d vpon one grounde Thus vrgeth he there The vvriters of scripture aske not any pardon ether for the matter or for the maner Againe VVhatsoeuer is the vvord of the holy Ghost nether doth aske nor doth neede pardon in any respect Againe The holy Ghost neuer asketh pardon of man for any thing he doth for that vvere to bring God vnder man make the spirit of God subiect to the allovvance or disallovvance of sinful flesh And may not al this as wel be applied against S. Luke The holy Ghost is not ignorant so as he needeth to runne to sinful flesh thence to learne what Christ did The holy Ghost can of him self teach his Euangelistes and craueth not help of mortal maÌ„ c. And therfore S. Luke writeth not of the holy Ghost when he professeth him self to write by humane ayde diligence Much more these reasons take froÌ„ vs many entier epistles of S. Paule For what shal we iudge of the epistle to the Romanes Audacius autem scripsi vobis fratres ex parte I haue vvritten to you brethren more boldly in some part what is this but an excuse a very crauing of pardon So to the Corinthians And I vvas vvith you in infirmitie feare and much trembling Is the holy Ghost in infirmitie in fearer doth the holy Ghost tremble After he desireth them To beare vvith some litle of his folye That I speake I speake not according to God but as it vvere in foolishnes because many glorye according to the flesh I also vvil glorye Factus sum insipiens vos me coegistis I am become foolish you haue coÌ„pelled me Such places many we fynde in S. Paules epistles which if some man like M.W. and M Charke should applye to the holy Ghost and aske whether the holy Ghost could do this or that could glorye could bragge could speake not according to God could be foolish the partie so arguing should proue him self litle better then a foole yet the argument is a pithy and wise as this against the Machabees And I much muse whether it is not more against the honor oâ— the
holy Ghost to craue the praiers of sinful flesh which implieth sume feare of falling humane imbecillâ—â—ie then to excuse the maner of the stiâ—e and writing and in that respect Craue pardon of sinful flesh which is a thing of farre lesse preiudice And yet this doth the Spirite of God almost in euery epistle of S. Paule to the Romanes to the Corinthians to the Ephesians to the Colossians to the Thessalonians c. Thus standeth the note Hereby vve see that though the Holy Ghost ruled the penne of holy vvriters that they might not erre yet did they vse humane meanes to search out and find the truth of the things they vvrote of Euen so doe Councels and the President of them Gods vicar discusse and examine al causes by humane meanes the assistance of the Holy Ghost concurring and directing them into al truth according to Christes promise 10.16.13 as in the very first Councel of the Apostles them selues at HierusaleÌ„ is manifest Act. 15 7. and 28. Againe here vve haue a familiar preface of the Author as to his frende or to euery godly Reader signified by Theophilus concerning the cause and purpose and maner of his vvriting and yet the very same is confessed scripture vvith the vvhole booke folovving Maruel not then if the author of the second booke of the Machabees vse the like humane speaches both at the beginning and in the later end nether do thou therefore reiect the booke for no Scripture as our heretikes doe or not thinke him a sacred vvriter The Angel vvissheth wel to meÌ„ of good vvil that is those vvhom God embraceth vvith his grace and mercy ergo men haue free vvill By this example a man may see what difference is betwene the old Gospel and the new If the wordes were â—easte as in the old time they were read and vnderstoode the consequent of this reason would haue held and so S. Augustine gathered whom we alleage But taking the word and sense as M. W. deliuereth it nether S. Augustine nor any other sober man did or would euer haue inferred such a consequent Our words are The birth of Christ geueth not peace of minde or saluation but to such as be of good vvill because he vvorketh not our good against our vvilles but our vvilles concurring August quaest ad Simplic li. 1. q. 2. tom 4. Christ vvent into Peters shippe ergo the vvhole church is Peters shippe This is of like qualitie with the second before noted It is only an allegory aptly and truly declared the substance whereof is vsual among the auncient fathers who cal many times the Catholike church by the name of Peters shipp And touching this special place S. Gregorie maketh no question but Christ so signified by this fact when he made choyse to enter into that shippe Thus he writeth Iesus a scended into Peters ship c. sitting there he preached to the multitudes Per nauem Petri quid aliud quam commissa Petro ecclesia designatur By Peters shippe vvhat els is signified but the church vvhich vvas commited to Peter To like purpose vpoÌ„ the same place writeth S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Bede The wordes of our annotation are these It is purposely expressed that there vvere tvvo shippes that one of them vvas Peters and that Christ vvent into that one and sate downe in it and that sitting he taught out of that shippe no doubt to signifie the church resembled by Peters ship and that in it is the chayre of Christ and only true preaching Barnabas laid dovvne the price of his land at the Apostles feete ergo vve must kisse the Popes feete If the Apostle S. Peter had not before told vs that heretiks in the later daies especially should be Illusores mockers and the Prophete Dauid named their general profession a Chayre or schoole of scorners CathedraÌ„ irrisorum we might by our owne experience haue learned thus much of the Protestant writers of our time who by this feate among the popular haue brought into contempt the grauest partes of Christian religion and haue much shaken the obedience due both to spiritual and ciuil magistrates By this chiefely the Lutherans refel the article of Christes Ascension and being in heauen as we see in BreÌ„tius By this the Zuinglians refute Christs desceÌ„ding into hel as we see in maister Carlile and disproue the real presence whereof their common preachings and writings are witnes By this as a very plausible meane the Germane ministers stirred the people against their Emperour Charles the fift as vve reade in Sleidan And hovv like M. W. is vnto them for his smale talent by most of these his merie conclusions it appeareth In this present hovv far his vnreasonable collection differeth from our reasonable admonition the discrete reader may easely iudge Our vvordes are Barnabas as the reâ— did not only giue his goods as in vulgar almes but in al humble and reuerent maner as things dedicated to God he layed theÌ„ dovvne at the Apostles holy seete as S. Luke alvvaies expresseth and gaue them not into their hands The Sunamite sel dovvne and embraced Elisaeus feete Many that asked benefites of Christ as the vvoman sick of the bloudy fluxe fel dovvne at his feete and Marie kissed his feete Such are signes of due reuerence done both to Christ and to other sacred persons ether Prophetes Apostles Popes or other representing his person in earth See in S. Hierom of Epipanius Bishop in Cypres hovv the people of Hierusalem of al sortes flocked together vnto him offering their children to take his blessing kissing his feete plucking the hemmâ—s of his garment so that he could not moue for the throng Ep 61 cap. 4. cont error Io. Hierosol The Eunuch of the Quene of AEthiopia came to Hierusalem to vvorship ergo pilgrimages to holy places are acceptable to God why this reason should not be allowable I can not gesse The Eunuch came a long iourney froÌ„ Aethiopia to Hierusalem there to worshippe God and is commended for so doing therefore if we goe in like maner to Rome or HierusaleÌ„ for like cause we are not to be blamed where is the dissâ—militude whence riseth the inequalitie what part is there not answerable that man to vs his fact to ours his intention to ours the beginning continuance and ende proportionable to ours euery part and parcel of his doing fully reseÌ„bled in ours If M.W. haue any hid imagination which we can not reach vnto let him imparte it we wil frame him a reasonable answere The marginal note vpon the wordes of S. Luke is this Note that this Aethiopian came to Hierusalem to adore that is on pilgrimage VVhereby vve may learne that it is an acceptable act of religion to go from home to places of greater deuotion and sanctification To Christ is geuen a name aboue al names that in the name of Iesus al knees should bovv
vvay though in part against our vvilles especially vvhen vve are prouoked by aduersaries so insolent and ful of brauerie in vvordes and the same most feeble impotent vnable to performe any thing in deedes and therefore lying verie open to receaue a blovv of any scholer be he neuer so meane and indifferent And albeit no heretical opinion can lightly be defended vvithout many foule shiftes and inconueniences yet M.VV. hath brought him self vvithin harder straightes thē any other by reason of most straunge paradoxes which he hath taken vpon him to maintayne for vvhat man bearing the name of a Christian vvere he othervvise as excellent as euer vvas Cicero or Demosthenes can possibly without increase of infinite absurdities defend Luther against the Apostle S. Iames Beza against the Euangelist S. Luke Illyricus against S. Cyprian and al fathers of the primitiue Church And which in truth is more false wicked more vnreasonable and vnpossible then the rest M Iewels Challenge made at Paules crosse against al men liuing which long since is knowē for a mere shameles proud lying vaunt to Catholike and Protestant Lutheran and Zuinglian learned and vnlearned lippis tonsoribus and in effect notified for such by publike proclamation of the prince and Realme And therefore if he finde in this treatise some wordes more sharpe rough thē he is vsed to heare let him attribute that not to hatred of his person whom I neuer saw and for whose good and amendmēt in Christ God is my witnes I would refuse no paynes how soone I may fall into his handes our Lord knoweth but to hatred of his heresie and his immoderate heate ostentatiō vttered to colour and saue such things as can neuer stand but with open iniurie of Christ disgrace of his Apostles and ruine of Christian religion Our aduersaries Christian reader are now proceeded beyond their ordinarie beyond that which at first they pretended They pleade not now for scripture against fathers for the liuelie word of the Lord against mans traditions which a few yeres sithence was their common songe they are gone far beyond that note and oppose them selues not against S. Hierom S. Austin S. Gregorie but against the self same scripture the self fame liuelie word which they seemed so to honor against S. Iames S. Paule S. Luke against the Apostles and Euangelistes against the verie Gospel of our Sauiour And what can be their next steppe but to cal Christ him self in question to doubt whether he be the true Messias and redeemer of the world And if any of their brethren do moue that doubt as infinite there be that do yea that denie it vtterly what way in the world remayneth for profe thereof al other authoritie besides the written word as the old Fathers Coūcels Tradition Church being by these men quite abandoned and novv the vvritten vvord it self being reiected as far and vvhat Christian talking of these matters and seing these horrible mischeefes not intended in thought surmises cogitations and secret vvhisperings but practised and put in vre by vvriting defenses publike bookes open disputations manifest violences and most vniust murtherings of those which withstand it who I say though he were as pacient as Iob and as voyd of galle as the doue but would be moued Scriptū est saith the Apostle credidi propter quod locutus sum et nos credimus propter quod et loquimur It is vvritten I haue beleeued and therefore I speake vve also beleeue constantly therefore we speake boldy And as saith S. Hierom Quod simpliciter creditur simpliciter confitendum est And if Spiridion that reuerend and auncient Bishop in a great assemblie of Bishops were wel allowed for that he sharply rebuked in publike audience an other in learning his superior in vocation his equall who in citing a text of the gospell altered of finenes and curiositie one only word and the same of no great moment grabatum into lectulum what rigor and vehemencie of speach deserue not they who in Sacramentes chief pointes of faith in the Sacrifice in Baptisme in Priestes in Bishops in Church in Apostles in Angels in Christ him self haue made most prophane innouations and reduced all to the first ethnical termes But of this hitherto The rest which remaineth is only touching Luther Caluin whom M. W. singularly commendeth wherevnto he addeth certain ordinarie wordes of course concerning him self and his felowes how heroically they haue alwaies gotten the victorie ouer vs our forefathers Of these matters somwhat hath bene spoken before and therefore here I wil not say much Luther and Caluin if they were such notable good men they finde it now the better they were the better it is for them if otherwise M.W. commendation standeth them in smale steede Neuertheles certain it is both can not be so excellent as he would make thē being continually in opinion faith in word and worke in the whole trade of their lyfe and maners so opposite so contrary such deadly enemyes as their bookes testifie the world knoweth And M.W. doth verie vnwysely so oft and so painfully to range abrode in praise of that man who is so far abhorring from him and his secte that if Luther be right they are surely out of the way if Luther be a restorer of the gospel they are enemies and destroyers of the gospel if Luther be in heauen they continuing as they do are certain of hel For so Luther euery where pronounceth of them As for the other I meane that vulgar bragging and boasting it proueth not much It is a common itching humour of most kind of heretikes Omnium haereticorum quasiregularis est ista teme ritas saith S. Austin And S. Peter long before gaue it as a general marke of them that they shal be superba vanitatis loquentes speaking provvde arrogant vaine thinges Howbeit it seemeth in our dayes more proper in some special sort to M. VV. sect then to any other as iudgeth that excellent man of whom we last spake Martin Luther who reporteth of them and that by experience that they wil say any thing boast of any thing confidently affirme any thing bur proue nothing by any sound reason or argument nisi gloriatione inani de certissima veritate saue only by friuolous craking of the most cleare truth And if once they fal in to that veyne then is there no ende In suis libris gloriandi finem et modum nullum faciunt But against al such kind of talkatiue vanitie he geueth a very general and resolute lesson vvhich if I professe to take from him and commend the same to others M. w. can not be offended because he extolleh the man for so peerles a maister And this it is Nemo eorum obtestationibus et iactationibus quicquam cred at saith he Nam eos mentiri et dupliciter mentiri certissimum est Let
pag. 598.603.604.605 See D. Hum. iudgement after in the 14. chap. Carlile in his booke that Christ went not downe to hel fol. 144. The English translations draw men to thinke that Christs soule perished Ibid. fo 117. O singular puritie of the English Bibles Against the immortalitie of the soule Ibid. fo 120. So translateth the Bible of the yere 1579. The English translations leade men to detestable errors Ibid fo 116. Bezaes true iudgment what harme is like to ensue by abusing ecclesiastical words Beza in Act. c. 10. ver 46. edit anno 1556. He or the printer hath altered some part of these words in the later editioÌ„ an 1565. Chaunge of words induceth chauÌ„ge of fayth The summe of such foule and ethnical corruptions as by reason are proued and by confession of the aduersaries are grauÌ„ted to be in the â—nglish translatioÌ„s The sect of Libertines far spread Beza de haereticis a ciuili magistratu punieÌ„dis pa 41. Right Gospellers These shew vs what is the true meaning of only faith iustifying Concil Trident sessio 4. 3. thinges to be noted in this question M.W. discourse most against him self Discou in prefat nu 39. The greeke and hebrew more aduantageable to the Catholike cause then the latin Pag. 15. In prefa noui testamen M.W. reasons for preferring the hebrew and greeke before the latin Pag. 15. If the latin testament be not the word of god whose word are their vulgar translations An assertioÌ„ both foolish and impious The Apostles and Euangelists cited scripture not according to the hebrew Rom. 10. v. 18. Linea coruÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anno 1575. Act. 13. v. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. in gentibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iac. 4. v. 6. Prouerb ca. 3. ver 34. Caluin in Iacob ca. 4. Caluin maÌ„gleth S. Iames epistle 1. Pet. ca. 2.3 5. Beza in Ioh. c. 19. v. 37. Ireneus l. 3. cap. 25. Hier. prefat in Tobiam Iudith li. Regum S. Mat. wrote the Gospel in Hebrew a Apud Euseb l 3. c. 33 Irene li. 3. ca. 1. Euseb lib. 2. ca. 18. b li. 5. c. 19. c l. 6. c. 19. d in argumeÌ„t in Mat c. in catal e Mt. gospel in hebrew set forth by Munster and Quinquarboreus Pag. 15. It had bene valiantly done of M. W. by one example to haue made this conquest ouer vs. S. Hierom author of our commoÌ„ edition of the new testament and that by the Popes appointement In catal in fine praef in nouum testamentum The old testament Aug. de doctrina Christian li. 2. ca. 13. epi. 10 ad Hieron 4. things haÌ„deled in this questioÌ„ That M. W. speaketh neuer a word to the purpose More probable that the hebrew is corrupt theÌ„ the latin The church warranted that she should euer keepe the word of God Esaie 59. Ioan. 14. 16. Praise of the Romaine Church for holding fast the true doctrine once deliuered Caluin inst l. 4. c. 6. ¶ 26. a Vnto this reason drawen from humane wisedome set the ChristiaÌ„ reader adde Christes prayer Luc. 22. v. 32 I haue prayed c. that thy fayth faile not Doctrinae semel traditae suit aliis omnibus tenacior The Greeke church not comparable to the Romane Math. â—5 Pag. 20. That the hebrew bibles are in some places corrupted Esa 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luth. tom 4. enarration Esa cap. 9. The Iewes corrupters and crucifieis of such places of scripture as appertaine to Christ a Scriptura eius 4. Reg. 19. Luth. in Esa ca. 53. v. 11. fol. 282. Lyra. proba diuinitatis humanitatis Christi contra Iudaeos in fine glos noui testamenti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TranslatioÌ„s truer then the original text Ierem. 23. v. 5.6 Hier. in Ier. ca. 23. v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyra vbi supra The Iewes corrupt the letter of the scripture Al bibles corrupt in this place Esa 53. v. 8. Hierom. in Esa ca. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bib. 1577. 1579. Bib. 1562. The English translations adde to the text Luther to 4. in Esa c. 53. The Iewes corrupt the scripture in despite of Christians â— maners of corruption Rom. 9. v. 5. Sixtus Senensis in bibliotheca sancta lib. 8. pag. 646. General reasons why the hebrue text can not be so sincere as the aduersarie would pretend Deut. 52. v. 9 Exod. 19. v. 6 Act. 14. v· 15. a Num. 21. v. 14. b Iosue 10. ver 13. 2. Reg. 1. v. 18. c 2. Paral. 20 v. 34. d ibid. 12. ver 15. e 1. Reg. 10. vers 25. f 2. Paral. 9. vers 29. The Iewes haue lost many whole volumes of their Prophetes much more may they leese or alter points letters and syllables Most vnreasonable absurditie and contradiction Whit. pag. 9. Whit. pa. 15. Similitude of letters Hieron in Osee c. 2. Psal 109. v. 3 Marlorate in Psal 110. Of the yere 1579. Of the yere 1577. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hebr. 1. v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 58. v. 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Genes 3. v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 2. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pretie aÌ„sweeres interpretations Luther in Esa ca. 64. Illyric in 1. Cor. ca. 2. v. 9 Martyr in 1. Cor. ca. 2 fo 46. S. Paule missed in reading Hebrue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza in 1. Cor. ca 2. v. 9. The Protestantes attribute more to the Iewish scribes then to S. Paule the Apostle Act. 22. Castalio defens suae traÌ„slatio pag. 227. M.W. opinion touching the Hebrew vncorrupt is luysh Humfre lib. 1. de rat interpre pag. 178. Lib. 2. pag. 219. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pellican to 4. in psal 85. vers 9. The Iewes at al tymes negligeÌ„t in conseruing the scriptures Idem ibideÌ„ in psal 108. vers 11. In vulgo legend is legis suae translationibus The Protestants Iewes resemble one the other in many pointes both of fayth and maners Munster in Gen. ca. 27. Where is now becom the canon of Carthage Counsel 4. cap. 47. so much vrged by M. Iewel that nothing should be read or sung in the church beside Canonical scripture Bad time worse reasoÌ„ Great varietie in the Hebrew bibles Munster in praefat bib â—omi primi ps 144. ps 33. The Hebrew bibles vnperfit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The protestants opinioÌ„ iniurious to the holy Ghost Although S. Hierom appealed from the latin to the Hebrew yet the like reason is not for vs now August de doctr Christiana lib 2. ca. 11. S. Hierom thought the hebrew bibles to be in some places corrupt and faultie Gal. â— v. 1â— Deuter. 21. v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hiero. in â—al c. 3. Gal. â— v. 10. Deutron 27. v. 26. Hier. in Gal. cap. 3. The Iewes conuicted by S.
obiecteth and so maketh an end His wordes are The like boldenes they vtter in that most goodly place of S. Paule vvhere thus he vvriteth to the Romanes Stipendia peccati mors donum autem Dei vita aeterna The stipend of sinne death but life eternal is the gift of God Here the Sorbonists of Rhemes haue noted that the sequele of speach required that as he sayd the stipend of sinne is death so on the contrarie part he should haue sayd the stipend of iustice is life eternal And this to be true they plainely affirme vvhereas it is manifest that S. Paule spake in this sorte that he might leaue no place to merites and he vseth such a vvorde as vtterly excludeth al respect of stipend for that vvhich is a free gift can in no case be a stipend and repa◠to merites To answere this as al the rest there needeth nothing els but to compare our wordes with his Thus we say Rom. 6. vers 23. The sequele of speach required that as he said death or damnation is the stipend of sinne so life euerlasting is the stipend of iustice and so it is and in the same sense he spake in the last chapter That as sinne reigneth to death so grace reigneth by iustice to life euerlasting But here he chaūged the sentence somevvhat calling life euerlasting Grace rather then Revvard because the merites by vvhich vve attaine vnto life be al of Gods gift and grace Augustin epis 105. ad Sixtum Because the sense and summe of the annotatiō is takē out of S. Austin I wil set downe his owne wordes although they be somevvhat long because they may help the reader both to vnderstād the truth of this point vvithal discouer M.W. notorious ignorāce Thus vvriteth S. Austin in the place quoted Eternal life vvhich in fine vve shal obteyne for euer is repayed to merites going before yet because those merites vnto vvhich it is repayed are not gotten of vs by our ovvne abilitie but vvrought in vs by grace therefore life eternall is called grace for no other reason but because it is geuen gratis not because it is not geuen to merites but because those merites are geuen to vvhich life is geuen That eternal life is called Grace vve find in S. Paule Rom. 6. The stipend of sinne is death life eternal is the grace of God See hovv vvarely he put these vvordes For vvhen he had sayd The stipend of sinne is death vvho vvould not haue thought he should haue sayd most aptly and conueniently The stipend of iustice is life eternall And true it is For as to the merite of sinne death is rēdered as the stipēd so to the merite of iustice Life eternal is rendered as the stipend Vnde merces appellatur plurimis sanctarū scripturarum locis Quod est autem merces operanti hoc est militanti stipendium Sed Apostolus aduersus elationem c. And so it is termed merces vvages in very many places of scriptures For that vvhich is called Stipendium Stipend to a souldiar that is called merces vvages to a labourer But the Apostle vsed that vvord against the pride of men c. Thus far S. Austin of vvhose vvordes our note is only a short sūme abbridgment and so vvhatsoeuer sport M. VV. maketh to him self of the Sorbonists of Rhemes it nothing toucheth vs but good S. Austin the Sorbonist of Hippo. And yet not to rest there S. Austin quitteth him selfe vvel inough frō that drye iest vvhen he affirmeth the same to be taught Plurimis sanctarum scripturarum locis In very many places of holy scriptures For if they be Sorbonists that say Vita aelerna est stipendium iustitiae or vvhich is the selfe same Vita aeterna est merces bonorum operum then not only S. Austin is a Sorbonist vvhich to say perhaps you streine not greatly for in this place so you cal vs in word S. Austin in deede but long before him the Prophetes were egregious Sorbonists in whom both in sense and word this proposition is cōmonly founde Salomon was a Sorbonist Dauid a Sorbonist Esay a Sorbonist Ieremie a Sorbonist S. Peter a Sorbonist S. Iohn a Sorbonist S. Paule a notable Sorbonist who hath it more oft then the rest that I name not our Sauiour for honors sake who notwithstanding in the gospel many times teacheth his Christians this Sorbonical conclusiō But as for M.W. if he continue in this simplicitie or rather stupiditie that he suppose eternal life not to be the stipēd of iustice or good workes because it is the grace or gift of God I wil geue him a quittance for euer deseruing the name of a Sorbonist For I thinke there is scant any boy frequenting the Sorbone schole that is so dul and ignorant as to doubte but that heauen is the gift and grace of God though he trust to atteine it by his good workes I meane that knoweth not how to reconcile these two propositions together heauen is the stipend of good workes and heauen is the gift of God which in deede to euery lad wel catechised is no harder then it is to beleeue that the father is God the sonne God and the holy Ghost God yet there is but one God Christ is God and yet Christ is man our Lady was a mother and yet a Virgin our bodies are corruptible and yet shal liue for euer and almost any other article of our religion But hereof I haue spoken more at large before to which place I refer the the reader And this is the last intolerable blasphemie vvhich M. W. hath found in the Annotations common to vs vvith Christ him self and euery prophet Apostle Euangelist Father and good man that since Christs time liued in the vnitie of his Church THE CONCLVSION AND thus haue I examined and I trust answered sufficiently whatsoeuer faultes M. W. hath found ether in the Testament of late set forth by vs or the Annotations adioyned or M. Martins booke of the Discouerie vvherein I haue bestowed somwhat longer time then ether so smale a trifle required or my self at the beginning intended partly for the more cleare defense of truth and fuller instruction of the reader partly also because in the diligent perusing of his discourse his manifold errors and ouersightes multiplied far beyond my expectatiō And withal I vvould not haue him or his brethren so far deceaue them selues as to suppose they may set forth against this Colledge freely hand ouer head what they list without controle or gainsaing For howsoeuer we be loth to spend our time in such contentious disputes and gladly vvould imploy it otherwise to our better commoditie yet the zeale of God and honour of his Church regard of truth and loue of our countrimen vvhom vve see so pitifully seduced and due obedience to Superiors vvil and must enforce vs to take some paines that