that Christ hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sempiternall euer lasting vnchangeable or vnremoueable priesthod far otherwise then Aaron and the Leuitical priests had This being the Apostles reason and sense and word what foloweth hereof or what would M.W. inferre I see not what may be concluded but ether it is so true that we wil neuer denye it or it is so foolish that he should be ashamed to mention it if he say Christ is a priest for euer we affirme no lesse that his priesthod passeth not from him it is our beleefe that the force and vertue thereof endureth foreuer we liue and die therein and all the baptismes recōciliations sacrifice sacramentes al grace vertue sanctification which is in the church Catholike dependeth of this faith and floweth from the eternity of this one euerliuinge priest and priesthode But will he inferre hereof that therefore there ought to be no other inferior priestes and that this derogateth from his priesthode this lo is so chyldish that amongest meane learned diuines it deserueth rather laughter then answeare Christe is a priest for euer therefore there are no priestes whie then let vs argue Christ is a true man for euer therefore we are not or he hath a soule for euer therefore we haue none or he is a kinge for euer therefore let vs depose all princes and remoue princelie authoritie Christ is our doctor maister and teacher for euer and so farewel al maisters and doctors so the Eschequer shal saue that which the Q. Maiestie bestoweth on the Vniuersitie readers finallie because Christ liueth for euer therefore let vs rid our selues out of the way lest we derogate from Christ For as Christ in most excel lent sorte hath the one that is priesthod so hath he all the rest bodie soule kinglie power prophecie to be a maister doctor and teacher all agree to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that eternallie vnchangeablie and vnremoueablie But ô miserable people whose soules are committed to such teachers most vnfortunate church where such doctors possesse the principal chaires where the very learned mē who should be lightes to the rest are so blinded with heresie that they see not so much as ether common knowledge of meane diuinitie or the continual practise of ciuil policie or their verie Communiō booke thrusteth into their eyes and cares for how is it possible that a learned man hauing any sense of diuinitie should be moued with this new deuise hanging vpon one Greeke or Latine worde which so many hūdreds of learned fathers Greeke and Latine could neuer yet espie but though they knew both this particular controuersie and generallie all truth by many degrees more fullie then possiblie can any of these sectaries or secte-maisters yet were they so far from anie such collection that euermore in saynge and writing in teachinge and confutinge in lyfe and death they practised the contrarie And what reasonable man castinge his eyes vpon the Q. maiestie should not by and by descrie the vanitie of this sophistication for if she may conferre vpon some of her subiectes in euerie shier of her realme authoritie and gouernemēt to rule to imprison to chastise to correct to release to decide controuersies to arraygne in iudgement to condemne and execute euen vnto death al this with out empayringe or diminishinge her princelie authoritie nay to the much greater shew declaration thereof for so much as her subiectes doinge these offices vnder her hauing al their power depēding of her she absolutely rulinge dependinge of none by these so manye litle riuers as it were doe more excellētly set forth the largenes of the mayne springe how much more easelie may we conceaue this of Christ our vniuersal and absolute kinge and priest in the regiment of his Church that he without empairinge of his supreme euerlastinge and incommutable priesthode may communicate these sacred priestlie functions with his ministerial officers for the benefite of his subiectes the Christiā-Catholikes dispersed thorough out the world and so much the more as in euerie holie action wrought in the Church in euerie consecration in euerie sanctification in euerie reconciliation in euerie baptisme in euerie sacramente and sacrifice whatsoeuer is done to the benefite of mans soule Christ our high priest hath therein a more true and effectual operation concurring with his minister then hath any prince vnder the sunne in lyke case in regiment of his owne realme And if this can not sinke into their heads how is it that they consider not their verie Cōmuniō booke where the Parlamēt from whēce that booke hath his authoritie geueth power to the minister in some case to remitte sinnes then which nothing is more proper to Christ nothīg more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing more neerelie vnited to his diuine person And yet thus it is appointed there Here shal the sicke person make a speciall cōfession if he feele his consciēce troubled vvith any vveightie matter after vvhich confession the priest that is the minister shall absolue him after this sorte And so foloweth a verie forme of Absolutiō borowed from the vse of our Catholike Church Our Lord Iesus Christ vvho hath least povver to his Church to absolue al sinners vvhich trulie repente and beleeue in him of his great mercie forgeue thee thine offences And by his authoritie committed to me I absolue thee from all thie synnes in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holie Ghost Amen Wherefore if ether reason or sense or experience or humanitie or diuinitie preuaile with M. W. he can not vpō Christs sempiternall priesthode make any probable coniecture against the priesthode of the Church or say it derogateth from Christ Contrarywise if he wil stand ether to his owne writing or to the iudgement of his felow-zuinglians Martir Bale and Caluin or to the proofes and testification of the lutheranes his brethren for so he calleth them Illyricus wigandus c. or will admitt the vniforme consent of the fathers in the primitiue Church or the veritie of Christs promise he must needes acknowledge not onlie that in S. Augustines time but euen from the Apostles time priestes properlie so called were pastors rulers of the church and haue had their origine from Christ And therfore as before so here I tell him againe that in calling them Baalites Antichristians he calleth Christ Baal he calleth our Sauiour Antichrist And therefore if I thought my counsaile might preuaile with such prophane ministers geuē ouer I feare into a reprobate sense and vessels of damnation I would say as S. Peter said to Simon Magus Repente thee of this thy vvickednes and pray to God if perhaps this cogitation of thy harte may be remitted thee For in this blasphemous sentence most certaynly he hath troden the sonne of God vnder foote and esteemed the bloud of the Testament polluted vvherein he is sanctified and hath done contumely to
by the same authoritie Euery man sayng publishing preaching teaching affirming declaring disputing arguing or holding opinion against the first of these articles is adiudged a manifest heretike c. misbeleuers in the other are with great rigor corrected and reformed This was the state of religion left by king Henry after whose death in the time of his sonne vpon very â—ight occasion was quite disanulled al this that the father had by parlament Actes and statutes so carefully established For streight vpon his fathers funerals king Edward saith M. Fox being but a child of nine or ten yere by the instinct of his vncle the Lord protector and Cranmer by consent of parlament did first abolish these six articles and then set forth a second booke of Reformation and after that a third as the religion had dayly more encrease more perfite then the first vnder the title and authoritie of his name After which sort the Zuinglian religion being placed with much dissension and alteration held out for the time of that Prince and was of the next with like authoritie of ParlameÌ„t reiected abolished But being restored againe in the beginning of the Q. Maiesties reigne from that tyme hetherto how the body of the realme hath more and more degenerated from that Zuinglianisme to Puritanisme which as D. Whitg wel proueth is the very next degree to Anabaptisme what infinite numbers in euery shyre as their owne writers record are ioyned to tâ—e Familie of loue which is a mere abnegation of Christianitie what swarmes of Atheistes haue sprung vp with which as D. Whig telleth vs their English congregation is râ—plenished this I leaue to the knowledge remembrance experience and eye sight of the discrete reader If I should note the varietie and difference betwene our Protestantes and the Protestantes of other nations as of Germany Polonia Zuitzerland and France I should neuer make an end because most true it is there is no one article of faith ether touching the blessed Trinitie Christes incarnation and passion resurrection ascensioÌ„ touching the person of the holy Ghost or touching his office there is no one sacrament as the Eucharist Baptisme Forgeuenes of sinnes in penance confession of sinnes to a priest Holy orders there is no one rite or ceremonie ether touching gouernement or diâ—cipline of the church wherein they disagree not These few examples which I haue brought conteining matters of such weight That princes are heads of the church and are not that baptisme remitteth sinnes and remitteth not that priuate baptisme is lawful and vnlawful Confirmation allowed and disallowed Christs descending into hel graunted and denied that he is God of his father and yet is God of him self that al kinds of Religions may for their conscience sake take armes against their prince yet Catholikes may not in any case or for any cause make supposal of such a matter that women are barred by the law of God from exercising authority ouer men euen in matters ciuil and agâ—ine that women by the law of God haue supremacy ouer the cleargy bishops and archbishops eueÌ„ in matters most diuine spiritual that copes and such like ornamentes are to be vsed in church seruice and are to be abolished and burned as monumentes of Idolatrie that by like authoritie of parlaments diuers and contrary faithes are confirmed and ratified These few examples I say al appearing manifestly in the practise and behauiour of one litle Iland and in the compasse of a few yeres al notoriously to be seene in perusing a few english bookes and writers declare sufficiently how true that is which D. Whiteg affâ—rmeth of the Puritans and we find as true in all sortes of Protestants that commonly such as once diuide them selues from the Church fal from errour to errour vvithout stâ—y they declare sufficiently how true that is which I affirme â—â—at these meÌ„ haue no certaintie or stabiliâ—ie of faith therfore hard it is foâ— vs to know what to refâ—â— or dispute aâ—aâ—nst whereas we find such continuâ—l chaunge and varietie Yet al this notwithstanding albeit they haue one faith for Germany an other for Engâ—and and in England one for the South an other for the North one for the fathers reigne an other for the sonnes one for the brother an other for the sister and vnder the â—ame Prince one for the beginning of her reigne an other for the time ensuing one for the nobilitie an other for the commonaltie one for the publike church another for their priuate houses one in their CoÌ„munion booke an other in their seueral writinges although they haue Annuas and menstruas sides as S. Hilary and S. Basil said of the Arrians euery yere and somtimes euery moneth a new faith yet gladly could we deuoure the paine to finde out and learne such their yerely monethly faithes that by refelling them we might saue those christian sowles which through the same monethly dayly and hourely perish euerlastingly had we not a far greater dâ—fficultie in learning out what maner of argumentes are of force and allowable amongst them for refuâ—ing of the same Among Catholikes in al scholes and Vniuersities in al bookes writings argumentes drawen from the scriptures of God from the Traditions of the Apostles from the Authoritie of the Catholike Church of general Councels of the auncient Doctors fathers of the supreme Pastors of the Church geuing sentence definitiue in any controuersie these al and singular are of such weight and estimation that ech one coÌ„uinceth the aduersarie part and no Catholike dare euer resist or oppose him self if he heare the voice and sentence of any one of al these and besides these other argumentes in diuinitie we can not possâ—bly deuise any Vse any of al these in disputation with the Protestant he careth not for them nether wil be bound to them farther then it liketh his owne lust and fansie Approue the Inuocation helpe of Angels by the authoritie of Tobias the free wil of man by the booke of Ecclesiasticus they answere Litle care vve for the example of Raphael the Angel mentioned in Tobie nether acknovvledge vve those seueÌ„ Angels vvhereof he speaketh As litle accompt make I of the place of Ecclesiasticus nether vvil I beleeue the freedom of mans vvil though he affirme it a hundred times And as for the Traditions of the Apostles besides the written word it is their very profession to contemne them and who is there of them al that euer wrote any booke of câ—mmon places who hath not a large treatise particularly against them Alleage against theÌ„ general Councels they answere If this be a sufficient profe to say such a CouÌ„cel decreed so such a doctor said so there is almost nothing so true but I can impugne nothing so false but I can make true and vvel assured I am that by theâ—r meanes the principal groundes of our faith may be
which they receaued of Apostles VVe repose no such confidence in the fathers vvritings that vve take any certaine profe of our religion from them because vve place all our faith and religion not in humane but in diuine authoritie If therefore thou bring vs vvhat some one father hath thought or vvhat the fathers vniuersally al together haue deliuered the same except it be approued by testimonies of scriptures it auaileth nothing it gaineth nothing it conuinceth nothing For the fathers are such vvitnesses as they also haue neede of the scriptures to be their vvitnesses If deceaued by error they geue forth their testimonie disagreing from scriptures albeit they may be pardoned erring for vvant of vvisedome vve can not be pardoned if because they erred vve also vvil erre vvith them The fathers for the most part thought that Antichrist should be but one man but in that as in many other things they erred ether because they yelded to much to the common opinion concerning Antichrist ether because they vveighed not the scriptures so diligently as they ought c. In these his vvordes Christian reader thou maist see the very image principal part of Antichrist For preferring him self before the vniuersal primitiue Church of al the fathers then vvriting and expounding the scriptures teaching Antichrist to be one man According to the faith receaued of the Apostles he manifestly preferreth him self before the holy Ghost the ruler and dirâ—ctor of the Apostles and that Apostolical Church according to Christes most assured infallible promise vvhat is this els but to extolle him selfe aboue God Super omne quod dicitur Deus vvhich is one of the special markes of Antichrist And yet this Antichristian arrogancy in treading vnder his feete al fathers al churches al antiquitie is the very maine grouÌ„de of al the rest of his answeres As for example M.D. Sanders second demonstration is this The Church of Rome can not possibly be the Seate of Antichrist because it is that Seate vvhich hath most faithfully kept diligently enlarged the faith of Christ against al Antichristes This he proueth by S Ignatius S. Policarpus S. Ireneus Tertullian Origen SS Cyprian Athanasius Ambrose Hierom Optatus Austin Ciril Prosper Gregory c. by al good and learned vvriters that florished vvithin the first six hundred yeres That it coÌ„tinued the same faith and departed not from it in any point the last nyne hundred yeres he proueth by S. Isidorus by Theodorus by S. Beda Regino S. Lanfrancus Rupertus S. Bernard the general Councels of Laterane of Lions of Vienna of Constance of Florence the most sufficient authoritie that caÌ„ be alleaged in the vvorld Now vvhat is M.VV. ansvvere to this The fathers of the first six hundred yeres he graunteth to haue spoken truely for so much as al this vvhile that Church was very pure excellent and maintained inuiolably the faith deliuered by the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paule and briefly vvas of al other Churches most notable and florishing omnium ecclesiarum praestantissima florentissimaquè But touching the later nyne hundred yeres he maketh so great a difference as betvvene the hovvse of God and a den of theeues betvvene a liue man and a dead carcas Thus he speaketh Although the auncient Romane Church receaued Christ most of al and those that vvere in the societie of the Romane Church defended the Christian faith most valiantly yet these prayses appertaine nothing to the present Romane Church vvhich refuseth Christ him selfe furiously assaulteth the Christian faith I am vides Sandere tuae demeÌ„strationi securim esse inflictam quando a prima ecclesia Romana quae fuit optima et purissima tuam hanc distinguo c. Novv thou seest M. Sanders thy demonstration knocked on the head vvith a hatchet vvhereas from the first Romane church vvhich vvas best and purest I distinguish this thy Romane church vvhich a man may truly caâ— the synagoge of Satan Now this being in deede the very hatchet of his ansvvere as he calleth it and vvhereby he choppeth of the necke of D. Sanders demonstration and vvhich therefore it principally standeth him in hand to proue let the reader consider if he bring any probabilitie any argument storie father Councel authoritie any kind of reason other then his ovvne naked and peeuish asseueration Only he varieth as boyes in grammar scholes that his assertion by many pretie phrases as that Rome is degenerated into a bastard faith that our Popes are altogether vnlike to the auncient Popes that novv there is an other forme of faith in Rome an other religion that our Popes possesse the same place vvith those auncient but haue lost their faith many hundred yeres since that in the Romane church novv nothing remayneth of old Rome besides the name that of old soueraine vvas the authoritie of the Romane Sea amongst al people both for the goodlynes of the citie and puritie of religion and constancie of the men but novv none of these thinges remayneth c. Thus in euery page welnye he affirmeth sayth telleth vs againe againe that thus it is departed and thus it is degenerated and thus it hath altered the faith and is become the synagoge of Antichrist Against vvhich ridiculous and childish babling vvhen his aduersary obiecteth those Confessors Martirs Historiographers Sayntes that liued since S. Gregories time together vvith the general Councels the very flovver of Christianitie he vvith one railing blast turneth them al a side sayng he admitteth them not because they al more or lesse receaued the marke of the beast Aske him a reason why he so rayleth consider what authoritie he opposeth against these reason thou findest none authoritie thou findest none Only as kings and princes ratifie their edictes and Proclamations with their owne only name Teste meipso so this man confirmeth his answeres with the sole authoritie of Guilielmus VVhitakerus which being put in the fronte of euery answere is in deede the very pith and effect of al the answeres folowing And therefore whereas he saith If vve shal receaue for vvitnesses al those men 〈◊〉 to Antichrist vve shal neuer haue end of contending I say if it may be lawful for euery heretike thus to deare with such wodden or leaâ—en hatchers to cut of the synewes of such strong and forcible demonstrations thus so answeare reason with rayling and graue authoritie with Luciferlike arrogancy if the Trinâ—tariaÌ„s Lutherans Anabaptistes or ArriaÌ„s may haue like libertie to auoyde the whole army of Christes Catholike Church Arrianisme wil neuer be rooted out Lutheranisme wil neuer haue end the Anabaptistes and Trinitarians can not possibly be maystred the worst of these being able to say for him selfe at the least as much as doth the Zuinglian in defence of his Zuinglianisme And this is the verie forme fashion maner and substance of his
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
the author or hinderance to your Gospel though at the first for a while it astonished many as a thing bearing great countenance of learning vntil in tyme by learned men the visard was pulled from it yet seing you proclaime it agayne so couragiously I wil in few wordes touch the substance and meaning of it It conteyneth in effect 2. or 3. heretical articles which M. Iewel dilated and parted into a great number as it were some poore rag cut out into many shriddes partly of pride and brauery to win among the simple an opinion of learning partly of spite and malice against the Catholike church which he sought specially to disgrace and which by nothing could be disgraced more then if she held and mayntened 27. articles the highest misteries and greatest keyes of her religion as he termeth them without any authoritie example clause or sentence of ether scripture father Councel or writer that liued within the first 600. yeres of the primitiue church The insolent vanitie of which bragge to my seeming is much like to that which T. Quintius the Romane Consul noted in the Embassadors of King Antiochus who comming into Grece to perswade that people to take part with Antiochus against the Romanes they magnifyinge the force of Antiochus their maister aduaunced infinitly the great hoastes which he would bringe and terrified the simple Grecians with straunge names of men neuer heard of before he wil bringe sayd they into the field Dahas Mâ—dos and Eâ—imaeos and Cadusios and touching his nauie so great as no porte of Grece is able to receaue the one parte thereof is guided by Sidonians and Tyrians the other by Aradians and Sideâ—ians of Pamphilia nations that haue no peere in the world for skilfulnes in war by sea Here vnto T. Quintius replying this king quoth he by these his embassadors vaunteth of clowdes of horsemen and footemen and couereth the seas with his nauie but al the matter is verie like to a feast which once mine host at Chalcis made me of whom being enterteyned at a certen tyme when I marueyled at so great prouision and demaunded how so suddenly he came by such varietie and store of venison he not so glorious as these men smiling answered that al was but the art of his cooke and dyuers dressinge of the same thinge for otherwise touching the substance of the feast tota illa varietas et species ferinae carnis er at ex sue mansueto facta al that varietie and shevv of venison vvas made of a tame sovv so it is of these straÌ„ge and terrible names Dahae Medi Aradians and Sidonians for al these are but Syâ—ians touching any valour that is in them more fit to make slaues then souldiers The selfe same may be trewly verified of M. Iewels so many and so great articles for al that straunge varietie and multiplication of particulars is made but as it were ex mansueto sue of two or three heretical propositions thorough his skil in that kind of varying so drawen forth and minced that it mustereth in the eye of the ignorant as though it had great store of new matter for grauÌ„ting to him one and the same no general but a particular heresie that the Zuinglian opinion is true touching the Sacrament that there is no real presence which is his fift article thereof foloweth directlie the 6. that the body of Christ is not in a 1000 places the 8. that no diuine honor is due to it the 10. that bread and vvine remaine as vvel after consecration as before the first and 13. that there could not be any priuate or many priuate masses sayd whereas there was no masse at al. the 17. that Christ could not possiblie be offered in sacrifice whereas there was not any such sacrifice nor the substaÌ„ce thereof in rerum natura the 21. that Christian men could not cal that lord or God which was nothing but bread wine and so forth many other which a man of meane skil may see to be as plainlye included in that one as manie lesse numbers are included in a greater or many partes and qualities are necessarily consequent to a perfect bodie as on the coÌ„trarie side put the Catholike opinion to be true which he denieth in the tenth article then al or most of the same articles folow as clearly vz. Article 5 That the body of Christ is really substantially c. in the sacrameÌ„t Article 6 That Christes body is may be in a thousand places or moe at once Article 8 That diuine honor is due vnto it Article 22 That a man may cal it his Lord and God c. and likewise many of the rest So that in deed that glorious challenge is altogether such as if MarcioÌ„ in auncieÌ„t tyme or some of your brethren who in this point seeme as verie heretikes as he should haue prouoked the Catholikes to defend S. Lukes Gospel after this sorte If any learned man of my aduersaries or if al the learned men aliue be able to proue that S. Lukes Gospel is canonical scripture Or that the first chapter is canonical scripture Or that the second chapter is canonical scripture Or that the third chapter is canonical scripture Or that the storie of Marie Magdalene cap. 7. is canonical scripture Or the tale of Lazarus and the riche man cap. 16. Or that wicked doctrine touching the real presence in the 22. chapter c. I am content to yeld and subscribe For as here one article agreed on draweth the rest one denied denieth the rest so is it in the deuise of M. Iewel therefore as Marcion the more particulars he had vttered if he had run into as many ORS as there be chap. or stories or verses in S. Luke which wel he might haue done by M. Iewels example the farther he had run in that vayne the more notably he had layd open to the world his owne ambitious itching folie pride and arrogancy the verie selfe same is to be deemed of this conceyte of M. Iewel touching the far greater number of his articles Three he hath of weight and more principal then al the rest the primacie of the Sea Apostolike the real presence and the sacrifice vnto these 3. let vs applie his challenge and see now he is gone how wel you can supplie the office of his champion to maynteyne it O Gregorie saith he O Austine O Hierom O Chrisostome O Leo O Dionise O Anacletus O Xistus O Paule O Christo if vve be deceaued you have deceaued vs. you taught vs these heresies thus ye ordered the holy CoÌ„munion in your time the same vve receaued at your handes c. None of our aduersaries that staÌ„d against vs are able or euer shalbe able to proue against vs any one of al these pointes ether by scripture or by the example of the primitiue Churche or by the old Doctors or by the auncient general Councels and if any man aliue be
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
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
able to proue any of these articles by any one cleare or playne clause or sentence ether of scriptures or of the old Doctors or of any old general Councel or by any example of the primitiue Church vvithin 600. yeres after Christ I promise to geue ouer and subscribe vnto him Thus M. Iewel promised and do you promise as much what els and so longe as you haue a day to liue you wil stand in defence here of But how dare you say so whereas litle know you what al the doctors haue written and much lesse know you what books of theirs hereafter may be found and your selues if you remember not long sithence in your owne wasted libraries found out certaine straunge sermons in the Saxon tonge against some knowen and confessed partes of religion as you wold pretend And how cā you so confidently hazard your faith if you haue any vpon one sentence or clause of those men of whom sundrie times you professe that they wrote clauses sentences chapters and bookes in defence of as grosse errors as these Remēber your stomake against them in this same booke thus you write Al our faith and religion you meane I suppose so far as it is allowed by act of Parlamēt and practised within the Q. dominions for other ye defend not is grounded not vpon humane but vpon diuine autoritie Therefore if you bring against it vvhat some one father hath beleeued or vvhat the fathers al together haue deliuered except the same be proued by testimonies of scripture it vvaygheth nothing it proueth nothing it concludeth nothing for the fathers are such vvitnesses that they also haue neede of scriptures to be their vvitnesses if deceaued by error they haue said ought differing from the scriptures hovv soeuer they may be pardoned erring through vvant of vvit vve can not be pardoned if because they erred vve also vvil erre vvith them Being thus perswaded touching them all how dare you venture your faith vppon a clause or sentence of any one It is a peece of faith far more sure by al antiquitie and more surely grounded in the hart of any catholike that Christ is perfect God consubstantial and equal to his father then any of these paradoxes can be possiblie setled in your opinions and we honour the fathers much more then you do yet was there euer any Catholike so frantike mad that would promise to subscribe to Arianisme if out of any father greeke or latin within 600. yeares any one clause or sentence might be brought against the catholike beleefe wherefore this verie assertion is a most sure argument that you haue no kind of faith no faith I say at all nether diuine nor humane not diuine because you would neuer so lightlie esteeme it nor vpon so smal warrant hazard it not humane because it wel appeareth that nether you nether maister Iewel euer meant to stand to that which to the world in publike writing ye haue so solemly promised Wherefore albeit touching you affected as you are I accompt this labour as clearly lost as if I should water a fruitles tree tvvise dead and plucked vp by the rootes yet for the readers cōmoditie that he may perceaue how ignorant and foolish and proude and fantastical that vaunte of M. Iewels was and how like it is that you who know much lesse yet comonly who more bold then such can maynteine the quarel and wade thorough that myre wherein M. Iew. him self stucke fast I wil speake a few wordes of these his principal questions And because I couet so far as may be to cut of al occasion of cauilling I wil not run to any other doctors lest you take exceptiō against them then those who are named here of M. Iewel as his pretended maisters in these heresies and againe out of them I wil bring nothing but that only which I haue learned of your owne writers and read in your owne bookes and that againe in such sense without any alteration as your selues alleage them So that your heroical courage in answering shal first be exercised vpon these your owne brethren and what so euer blunted dartes you shal cast against me they shal not reach vnto me but thorough their sydes I wil passe ouer Christ and S. Paule vvho taught M. Ievvel these heresies as he saith which is not verie likely whether he meane in ieast or in earnest seing S. Paule willeth vs so to detest any kind of heretike that after one or two warninges we should let him alone and suffer him to perishe in his sinne knovving that he is damned in his ovvne iudgment our sauiour chargeth vs to hold them for no better then ethniks and publicanes who shal oppose them selues vnto his church and therefore i◠can not be that ether of those should teach you that for which before hand they threaten and assure you of damnation But Anacletus and Xistus old bisshops of the Romane church before that Sea grew to this vsurped primacie they perhaps taught you this herisie that the bishop of Rome hath no soueraintie ouer the rest of bishops and that such claime is altogether Antichristian If that be so then egregious lyers are your brethren the makers of the Centuries who tel vs the cleane contrarie Anacletus say they in the epistles vvhich beare his name in the general regiment of churches so ioyneth them together that to the Romane churche he attributeth primacie and excellencie of povver ouer al churches and ouer the vvhole flocke of the Christian people and that by the autoritie of Christ saing to Peter thou art Peter and vpon this rocke vvil I build my church c. the second sea after that he maketh the church of Alexandria by reason of S. marke scoler of S. Peter The third Antioche because S. Peter abode there before he came to Rome degrees of Bishops he maketh thus The bisshop of Rome is placed first as the supreme head of the church vvho though he erre yet vvil he not haue him to be iudged of others but to be tolerated the second place haue Patriarkes or primates the third Metropolitanes the fovrth Archbishops and aftervvard bishops he saith also that certaine cities receaued primates from the blessed apostles and from S. Clement epist 3.1 Tom. Conciliorum pa. 63. The same Anacletus appointing how controuersies in particular churches should be taken vp ended after the order of S. Paule 1. Cor. 5. willeth that greate matters should be referred to the higher bishops and primates but if greater difficulties arise or causes fal out among the bishops primates them selues let them be brought to the Sea Apostolike if such appealt be made for so the Apostles ordayned by the apoinment of our Sauiour that the greater and harder questiōs should alvvayes be brought to the Apostolike Sea vpon vvhich Christ builte his vniuersal church Mat. 16. And Xistus who succeded not long after Anacletus in his 2.
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
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
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
dealeth against the Iewes who could not be content that their leuitical priesthod and sacrifices of beastes should yeld to Chrâ—sts priesthod sacrifice of the Crosse for S. Paule discoursing of the infinite vertue power excelleÌ„cie of this aboue the former to haue vndertaken to handle the priesthod and sacrifice of the Church besides that it was very hard to explicate besides that the Hebrewes were very dul to conceaue both which reasons he geueth in the 5. chapter besides that the other matter was of it selfe large inough besides al this I say to haue vrged the Iewes with this secondary and dependeÌ„t sacrifice of the Church who as it beleeued not the first singular and soueraine sacrifice of the Crosse had bene as fond a part as if a man would teach a childe to ruÌ„ne before he can go or teach him to reade before he can speake or set on the roofe of the house before there be ether wal built or foundation laide At least wil M.VV. say you prefer the fathers before S. Paule and acknowledge them to write more properly and aptly of Christs priesthod then doth the Apostle This is a lye For we are not so wicked nether learne we to make any such odious coÌ„parisons betwene diuers instrumeÌ„ts of the holy Ghost For the consent of the vniuersal church and al fathers we gladly professe to be the voice of the holy Ghost And if al the fathers had bene ioyned in one in S. Paules case and hauing to do with such aduersaries at such time place and other circumstances they would not nether could haue written more aptly and properly then did S. Paule although afterwards they did more clearely and manifestly open that which S. Paule insinuated more closely and couertly and so would S. Paule haue done had he liued in their times So in like sort S. Peter in his sermon made to the Iewes touching Christs glory and resurrection calleth him A man approued of God by diuers vvonders and miracles He calleth him not God of God equal to his father Our Sauiour in his long exhortation made to his disciples before his passion speaking of his vnitie with his father expresseth not his coÌ„substantialitie with the father or diuinitie of the holy Ghost so clearely as did afterwardes S. Athanasius and the fathers in the Councel of Nice and Constantinople against the Arians and Macedonians nether for al that prefer we S. Athanasius and those Councels before S. Peter and our Sauiour nether say we that they spake more properly and aptly thereof then ether Christ or his principal Apostle or such like guegawes as this man ignorantly and maliciously obiecteth vnto vs. Christ spake most properly perfectly and absolutely according as his diuine wisedome knevv vvas most conuenient for that time and audience so did S. Peter so did S. Paule And yet this barreth not but the holy Ghost may so hath by the Church aftervvarde declared the same more euidently without any derogation to Christ or his Apostles Yet one scrupule more M. W. moueth At least this can not be denied but the Fathers talke much of the oblation of bread and wine which S. Paule omitteth and so we can not shift our hands but some ouersight we must impute to S. Paule and the holy Ghost Nothing lesse Or how soeuer by his profound subtilitie he thinketh to driue vs vnto this absurditie hereafter hitherto sure I am we haue vttered no word or sillable so vnchristiaÌ„ And therefore he belieth vs in sayng that we haue done the one or the other And the whole matter is answere sufficiently already Yet for more ful satisfaction I wil answere M. VV. by him selfe I aske him therefore whether Melchisedec did not sacrifice and by sacrificing foreshewed our Sauiours priesthod according to the arder of Melchisedec he can not deny for he hath graunted it in plaine termes in this very booke And yet S. Paule here maketh no expresse mention thereof Then by M. VV. iudgement S. Paule omitteth some principal part of Melchisedecs priesthod apperteyning to Christ and therefore if this be to find fault vvith S. Paule reprehend the holy Ghost then M.VV. findeth fault vvith S. Paule M. VV. reprehendeth the holy Ghost Againe let him recal to memorie his founder in diuinitie M. Iewel in that booke which M. VV. him selfe hath translated into latin Saith not he that Melchisedech by his bread and vvine signified the Sacrifice of the holy English communion M. VV. translateth it sacrificium sacrosanctae Communionis vvhere the vvhole people lifte vp their hands and harts vnto heauen and pray sacrifice together And where find you this sacrifice of the holy Communion in al S. Paules discourse ergo by the same reason M. Iewel also doth carp at S. Paule and reprehend the holy Ghost who omitte The sacrifice of your holy Communion prefigured by Melchisedech three thousand yeres at lest before ether Patriarch or Apostle or doctor or any good maÌ„ euer heard or thought or dreamed of it Againe Illyricus a LutheraÌ„ writeth vpon this very chapter somewhat more probably then ether M. VV. or M. Iewel that Melchisedech foreshewed his Communion after the Lutherish faith and that As Melchisedech by bread and vvine refreshed Abraham so Christ the true heauenly bread refresheth vs to life eternal His flesh is true nourishement and his bloud is true and healthful drinke Ioan. 6. Luc. 22. Thus he so that the Zuinglians can fetch out of Melchisedecs sacrifice by their owne priuate authoritie without warrant of any ether doctor or father the sacrifice of their Communion and the Lutherans can find that theirs was prefigured likewise and though S. Paule mention nether of them that is not material so long as you hold your self within coÌ„passe of the Communion booke Lutherish or Zuinglian only when we say the same of the Communion and sacrifice of the Church and proue it by the authoritie of Damascene of Theodoretus of S. Hierom S. Ambr. S. Epiphanius S. Austin S. Leo S. Cyprian S. Chrysostom Eusebius Emissenus Lactantius Arnobius by al antiquitie by al fathers by al Councels by the vniuersal coÌ„sent of ChristendoÌ„ since the Apostles time we poore soules set S. Paule to schole we prefer the fathers before him we find fault with him we reprehend the holy Ghost we coÌ„mit intolerable blasphemie I know not whether a maÌ„ may rather laugh at their peeuish pride who knowing nothing take vpon them to controle al fathers or wonder at their incredible partialitie which hath so be reaft them of common witte and iudgement that they can perceaue a mote in deede no mote in our eye and can not feele a beame in their owne or rather lament their Pharisaical hardnes of hart ignorance whereto heresie hath brought them so grosse that nether they know the veritie of Catholike religion nor wel vnderstand the state of their owne phantastical gospel One more blasphemie he
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
before it rise againe vvith such fruit and commoditie as vve see so is it in the resurrection of our flesh In al which arguments there is no one that conuniceth necessarily no not that which is the principal Christ is risen therefore vve shal rise because true it is wel might Christ rise though we neuer rise as he truely was crucified and descended into hel as we by Gods grace shal neuer But the veritie of this pointe being first planted in the harts of Christian men by Christs teaching and doctrine then afterwardes these reasons are good motiues to declare that the resurrection standeth wel with Gods prouideÌ„ce his iustice his mercy his other workes in creating or redeeming of the world The like is to be said of that wherewith M.W. maketh most sport I meane the real presence which if any man would directly proue by one of M.W. arguments as Christ vvas transfigured Ergo he geueth vs his body in bread vvine he maketh as blynd an argumeÌ„t as did a famous English preacher vvho in great sadnes would proue the English CoÌ„munion booke to be good because in our Creede we are bound to beleeue not the Masse but The communion of Saintes Or as did an other of like vocation then a preacher afterwardâ— a Doctor vvho felt him self much troubled in conscience and almost perswaded that the masse was found in many places of scripture because in many subscriptions of S. Paules epistles he found written Missa est Corintho Missa est Philippis Missa est Roma Missa est Athenis Missa est Nicopoli But no Catholike man was euer so mad as from Christs transfiguration to deduce such an Ergo and absolutely as vvel he might infer ergo he is in euery cheste in euery chamber in euery tree in euery mountaine in euery peece of bread in the vvorld But thus to â—angle is for Lucianes hickscorners it is not for Diuines Thus far only we applye such reasons First grounding our faith simply vpon our Sauiours wordes declared by the vniforme consent of three Euangelists S. Paule and interpreted by the vniversal consent of Christs Catholike church in al times and ages because we find certaine carnal and fleshly meÌ„ lead by reason and sense and humane conceite offended at this article vpon pretence of philosophical rules of natural qualities of mathematical dimeÌ„sions as we see by M.VV. we supposing that they be not plaine Atheists wherein perhaps sometimes we are much deceaued for D. Whitegift telleth vs that the English Church is novv full of such by declaration and comparison of other things which they professe to holde and beleeue shew them that this is not so vnpossible or so vncredible or so vnlikely as they preteÌ„d whereas some other points they retaine as far aboue reason as this And thus far forth we applye Christs transfiguration Christs walking vpon the waters his entring vnto his disciples the dores being shut c. to declare that his body is not bound to those general rules which nature and reason hath appointed to common bodies and on vvhich is founded the greatest part of the Zuinglian Diuinitie And therefore as in the first if a man would haue brought Christs or S. Paules reasons to M. VVhitakers ergo as thus God is omnipotent Ergo the dead shal rise God is the God of Abraham of Isaac and Iacob Ergo the dead shal rise Christ is risen againe Ergo the dead shal rise The Apostles were not miserable fooles Ergo the dead shal rise Their preaching was not in vaine Ergo the dead shal rise The husband man soweth corne and it dieth before it bringeth forth fruite Ergo the dead shal rise As I say any man framing these arguments of Christs and S. Paules wordes were he an Ethnike had plaied the ignorant foole if he bare the name of a Christian had plaid the part of a wicked caytife and an Atheist because true it is euery article of our faith is in this sort subiect to scorne and irrision so M. W. in this case folowing the like example must needes before God and man sustaine a hard iudgement And therefore if he shal be disposed hereafter to write more bookes I would wish him to leaue this apish tricke which he hath learned of M. Iewel who notwithstanding got smal honour thereby and surely if the matter were correspondent such kinde of iesting would better become some merie felow making sport vpon a stage with a furred hood a wooddeÌ„ dagger theÌ„ either a learned bishop such as M. Iewel tooke him selfe to be or a profound Reader of diuinitie as I thinke M.W. would gladly be accounted And whereas next he saith Quando has nouorum magistrorum c. vvhen vvise men shal heare these interpretations arguments of these nevv maisters if there be left in them any sense I vvil not say of the holy Ghost but of common iudgment they can not thinke a religion builded vpon these grounds to be firme assured and better then al other I answere first that he much deceaueth him selfe when he calleth these the interpretations of new maisters as he doth likewise after in his Antichristian booke where he saith Nouâ— Theologi Rhemenses c. The nevv Diuines of Rhemes teach that the bishops blessing taketh avvay venial sinnes where as we speake not so of our selues but vpon warrant of an old Diuine of Milan euen S. Ambrose whom there we cite And here excepting the places where we vrge the very text of the Euangelist euery one of the other is the interpretation of old and auncient fathers of S. Epiphanius S. Ambrose S. Hierom S. Austin S. Chrysostom S. Siluester c. And if these be new maisters I maruel who be old be like M. Iewel M. Horne M. Fulke M. Keltridge M. Charke and such vvorthie doctors of your old congregation vvhich novv grovveth vvel to fiftie yeres standing if I misrecken not my selfe For M. D. Haddon a fevv yeres sithence in his ansvver to Osorius made greate vaunt that then your gospel had continued aboue thirtie yeres abating from that count 6 yeres Annos plusquam triginta excepto sexennii turbulentissime tempore And therefore belike novv it is come to a goodly and a reuerend antiquitie But as auncient as it is many a good man liueth who knew when it was not begotten and may liue ful wel til it be againe dead and rotten Then vvhereas you affâ—rme our religion to be built vpon these grounds you folovv but the coÌ„mon vâ—yne of your felowes that is to belye vs sauing that you haue gotten perhaps a deeper habite therein thorough to much imitation of M. Iewel In this very kinde S. Austin complaineth that he was much iniuried by the heretikes of his time so doth Luther that he vvas vexed by the heretikes of his age vvhose authoritie I had rather vse to you then S. Austins because you seeme to honour him more esteeme him
for an old father reiecting S. Austin amongst the nevv maisters Thus saith Luther to Zuinglius and OecolaÌ„padius the rest of that sect thus he requesteth of them as we request of you being of the same order Obsecramus saith he obtestamur vos Sacramentarios c. VVe desire and beseech you Sacramentaries if hereafter you vvil needes rayle against the Lutherans or nevv papists as you cal vs yet abstaine from lying and fayne not nether vvrite of vs othervvise then vve publikely professe teach Nam ex his quae iam diximus patet nos non it a docere vt hactenus de nobis impudentissimè mentiti estis For by that vvhich hath bene spoken it is cleare that vve teach not so as hitherto you haue most impudently belyed vs. So Luther of the Zuinglians we leauing Luthers termes to him selfe request the like of our aduersaries If they tel vs of any fault coÌ„mitted in the haÌ„dling of Gods mysteries we are ready to acknowlegde and amend the same If we defend any point of doctrine erroneous in their iudgement let them refel it by Theological argument by Scriptures Fathers Councels or reasoÌ„ grounded vpon them and vve are in quiet and orderly sort ether to yeld to them or shew them their ouersight If they fal to scoffing scorning and making ridiculous boysh arguments of their owne then shew their profound wisedome in coÌ„futing the same and withal crye out vpon the Importunitie and Desperatnes of the papistes as we can not but tel them of their peeuishnes and laugh at such miserable shifts so we dare assure them that the wise wil neuer be moued to like wel of their ruinous gospel thorough such iesting trickes most vnfit for Diuines which are able to quayle and disgrace a good cause though it stoode vpon better grounds theÌ„ their gospel yet doth or I hope euer shal CHAP. XVII Of certaine blasphemies conteined in the Annotations As good orators according to the rules of their art reserue some chief and principal arguments vnto the end of purpose at parting to leaue a deepe impression in the minde of their auditors so doth M. VV. in this his inuectiue against vs. And increasing somewhat his accustomed style declaimeth terribly and laieth to our charge not errors or ouersights or meane corruptions as are our leauing the latin and folowing the greeke but horrible crimes euen blsaphemies blasphemies intolerable He presupposeth that wise men are somewhat moued by such reasons and perswasions as he hath vsed hetherto But it must needes be saith he that vvise men vvil be moued much more vvhen they consider the intolerable blasphemie of certaine places For answere whervnto we craue no pardon of him or the reader But if he proue his accusatioÌ„ let vs sustaine that iudgement as by the law of God and man to such Intolerable blasphemers is due Only of the reader we request indifferent audience and then we doubt not but this storme and tempest wil passe without any damage as quietly as the rest The first blasphemie is this The Apostle compareth together Christs priesthod and the priesthod of Melchisedech in the epistle to the Hebrues vvhere he maketh no mention at al of bread or vvine in which notvvithstanding they vvill Christ chiefly to haue bene like to Melchisedech Here these men vvrite flatly that of al those things vvhich are proposed by the Apostle it foloweth not that Christs priesthod is eternal and therefore that properly Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech because he instituted a sacrifice of his body to be continued for euer of his priests But this vvhich vvas principal the Apostle in that disputation omitted and brought those things vvhich proue not that vvhich he meant to proue But vvherein Christ vvas principally like vnto Melchisedech that must be learned not of the Apostle but of the Fathers vvho haue vvritten far more aptly and properly of Christs eternal priesthod then did the Apostle Of this he concludeth If they feare not to find some fault in the Apâ—stle and reprehend the holy ghost him selfe is it marueile if our doctrine displease them Thus M. VV. which if it be true if we thus disgrace the Apostle if we say he goeth about to proue a thing and proueth it not if we refuse to be taught of him and prefer the Fathers before him finally if we controle him so singular an instrument of the holy Ghost and reprehend the holy Ghost him selfe I can not blame M. W. if he crie out Intolerable blasphemie But if these things be so far of from al shevv of truth that there is no colour or pretence of so vnmeasurable lying vvhat should a man say but shame to the deuil and his ministers vvho novv are grovveÌ„ to such a passing impudencie that so they may haue licence to lye thâ—y care not hovv grosly and palpably they lye though they be takeÌ„ with the maner though it presently turne to their ovvne shame though the lyes which they inuent of others be most euidently and in truth only verified of them selues For vvho but they thus disgrace this Apostle and that in this epistle vvho but they find fault vvith the vvriter and reprehend the holy Ghost bearing vs in hand that this vvriting much differeth from other scriptures much from Christs preaching and the other Apostles therefore is to be reckened Prostipulis For stubble good for nothing els but for the fier for this vvould they signifie by that contemptible phrase And do not our english translators them selues in their Testaments leaue out S. Paules name in this epistle and plainly say It is not like that euer he was the author of it But let this passe vve vvil not vse this kinde of defence our vvords and sayings defend them selues sufficiently The vvords of vvhich he gathereth this Intolerable blasphemie stand thus Heb. 7. v. 17. A priest for euer Christ is not called a Priest for euer only for that his person is eternal or for that he sitteth on the right hand of God and perpetually praieth or maketh intercession for vs or for that the effect of his death is euerlasting for al this proueth not that in proper signification his Priesthod is perpetual but according to the iudgment of al the fathers grounded vpoÌ„ this deepe and diuine discourse of S. Paule and vpon the very nature definition and proprietie of Priesthod and the excellent act order of Melchisedec and the state of the nevv lavv he is a Priest for euer according to Melchisedecks order specially in respect of the sacrifice of his holy body and bloud instituted at his last supper and executed by his commission commaundement and perpetual concurrence vvith his priests in the formes of bread and vvine in vvhich things only the sayd high Priest Melchesedec did sacrifice For though S. Paule make no expresse mention hereof because of the depth of