because I couet to be short and these matters are now so cleare and manifest to men neuer so litle exercised in these questions that I do rather marueyle wonder at the dulnes and passing ether ignorance or shamlesnes of our aduersaries then greatly take care how to refute so sensible and knowen a falshode Yet one thing I may not pretermitte which the foresayd historiographers most euidently affirme and by plaine demonstration proue and wherein the primacie of the Romane Church shyneth as bright as the sunne at noone in a somers day that is the demeanure of the bishop of Rome in generall Councels in which the whole church being gathered together if at any time or place then and there this power is principally to be considered And haue we any thing there for our purpose Is it possible that within the first 500. yeres in the aunciēt general Councels ought should be found for proofe of this supreme authoritie vvhich is plainelie contrarie to the auncient Councels inuaded the church vnder Phocas many yeres after the tyme we speake of except the Apologie of the English Church and the Protestantes in their writinges lye to notoriously It is verie true saith Luther and the Pope him selfe knovveth it vvel inough and nothing is more manifest by al the decrees of the old Councels and al vvritings and stories of al holy fathers vvhich vvere before the first Pope by name Bonifacius 3. that the bishop of Romes authority vvas no greater then the authority of other bishops How the honor of that Apologie Luther may be saued I leaue it to M. W. but otherwyse then as of an incredible fowle lye I can not iudge of that assertiō except I would discredite these other writers who affirme the contrarie and proue the contrarie that out of most autentical recordes and that by this very Leo magnus in M. Iewels iudgement so greate an enemy of this supremacie For continuing there narration of the same Popes They summoned general Councels say these writers they vvere the Presidents in general Councels they confirmed general Councels and sometimes in part sometimes vvholie they disanulled general Councels and this is manifest in Leo his epistles and the general Councels thēselues keapt vnder him Epist 93. ca. 17. vve haue sent letters saith he to our brethren and felovv-bishops of Tarraco in Spayne of Carthage in Afrike of Portugal and Fraunce and haue sommoned them to meete at a general Councel and Leo sent Paschasinus bishop of Sicilia to be President in the Councell of Chalcedon vvhich is manifeste in the Acts of that Councel And the same Paschasinus the Popes vicar condemned Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria for this reason because he durst hold a Councel vvithout the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike and Cecropius bishop of Sebastopolis saith in the same place vve may not call the second Councel of Ephesus by the name of a Councel because it vvas nether gathered together by the Apostolike authoritie nether proceeded it orderly in actis Concilii Chalcedonensis See Leo epist 10. ad Flauianum and 12. ad Theodosium Thus Leo condemned the second Councel of Ephesus and required an other to be gathered epist 24.25.28.30.31.32 and vvhereas Anatolius bishop of Constantinople vvould haue set him self before the churches of Alexandria and Antioche Leo epist. 53. vvriteth vnto him most vehemently and shevveth that to be against the canons of the Nicene Councel and that he vvil not permit those churches to leese their old prerogatiues vvhich thing he auoucheth also in his epistle to Pulcheria and there againe he rebuketh the ambition or insolencie of that Anatolius and signifieth expresly that he doth abrogate and disanulle all the decrees of the bishops there gathered together so many as vvere contrarie to the rules of the Nicene Coūcel And the Coūcel of Chalcedō of 630. bishops assembled out of al the world thus vvriteth to Leo. vve beseech you that you vvil honour our iudgement vvith your approbation and as vve of zeale haue put our consent to these good decrees so let your Supremacie fulfill to vs your children that vvhich is conuenient Finally this principalitie of the Romane church Leo laboureth to persvvade in most of his epistles as in his epistles to Anastasius bishop of Thessalonica to the bishops of Germanie and Fraunce to Anatolius bishop of Constantinople in sundrie other vvhere very painfully he goeth about to proue that singular preeminence vvas geuen to Peter aboue the other Apostles and that thence rose the distinction of bishops and especially the primacie of the Romane church and that therefore he is bound to take the care of al churches Thus far they whereby we see that S. Leo thought this primacy due to the church of Rome not by decree of Emperours or Councels but by the expresse ordinance of Christ him selfe in the Gospel And in all this can M. W. fynde neuer a sentence clause or example for the Supremacie thinketh he that M. Iewels grāmatical diuinitie of comparing wordes and phrases tempered together with a huge heape of corruptiōs lyes wil serue in the iudgmēt of any reasonable man against such a troupe of sensible demonstrations gathered vrged to this purpose by his owne brethren whē as the greate generall Coūcels acknowledge such authoritie the greatest patriarchs of Constantinople Antioche Alexandria submit them selues to such authoritie the bishop of Rome a man of such excellencie for learning wisdom and godlines as Leo was exercyseth vpon them such authoritie prescribeth to them lawes Canons and decrees gouerneth in their prouinces and in al other in Africa in Mauritania in Aegipte in Syria in Asia in Grece in Spaine in Fraunce in Germanie in al parts of the Christian world Remembreth he not that Theodore Beza and the church of Geneua answere these places by calling him plaine Antichrist for vsing this authoritie Cōstat Leonem in epistolis Romanae Sedis Antichristianae arrogantiam planè spirasse It is manifest say they that Leo in his epistles doth clearly breath forth the arrogancie of that Antichristiā Romane Sea yet S. Leo in Geneua a verie Antichrist for his writing behauiour about the Supremacie for the self same matter in England is a pure Protestāte He taught M. Iewel that the authoritie of the bishop of Rome was no greater then the authority of any other bishop of thee ô Leo he learned this heresie if he vvere deceaued thou Leo deceauedst him Surely it was an ouersight that he forgat to put in the rolle S. Bernard the bishop of Rochester and Sir Thomas More For of them in this case he learned as much as of S. Leo or of S. Gregorie who notwithstanding is an other of his maisters But what a froward and ouerthwart scholer he was who here againe so blyndly mistooke his maister I thinke few of his schole-felowes are ignorant and it is so cleare that in truth it greueth me to spend tyme
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
answere to the next demonstration where to S. Austin and S. Hierome reaching Peters chayre and succession of Priests in that Sea to be the very rocke vvhich the proud gates of helâ— ouercome nor which thing they affirme vpon manifest warrant of Christes wordes he answereth vpon warrant of his owne vvord that that succession of priestes is not the rocke the gates of hel haue prevayled against that church so as the faith vvhich somtimes florished there novv appeareth no vvhere in it long since is departed into other places Whereas D. S. replâ—eth this to be false and and that church euer to haue reteyned the same true faith and neuer to haue brought in any heresie or made any chaunge of doctrine vvhich he proueth by al historiographers that euer liued in the church Eusebius Prosper Beda Regino Marianus Scotus Schafnaburgensis Zonaras Nicephorus Cedâ—enus Sigebertus Gotfridus Viterbiensis Trithemius and many others against them al this only censure he opposeth Historias vestras Sandere non moramur vve regard not M. Sanders your stories and yet him selfe for his ovvne side bâ—ingeth not so much as one story So that against scriptures reason councels fathers old and nevv historiographers al kynd of vvriters him selfe euer cometh in as an omnipotent and vniuersal Apostlâ— Doctor Father c. as though in his only vvord consisted more pith then vvas in al mens that euer liued since Christes time And now somwhat farther to descrie the incredible vanitie folie pride and selfe loue of the maÌ„ let the reader note the grosse and barbarous impossibilitie of that paradox vvhich by this his supreme authoritie he vvould defend He graunteth the Church of Rome to haue bene pure godly christian for six hundred yeres after Christ as before hath bene declared VVhen then grew it to be so impure wicked and Antichristian ten yeres after For thus he writeth Six hundred and ten yeres after Christ or there about Bonifacius the third gouerned the Romane church VVhat vvas he to ansvvere truly very Antichrist In which wordes ioyned together thus much he saith in effect That whereas within the space of ten or twelue yeres before the Romane church was religious and euangelical in such sense as they vnderstand it that is abhorred the Popes vniuersal iurisdiction as Antichristian and limited his power within the precinctes of his owne Patriarkship reuerenced euery prince as supreme head of the church within his owne dominion detested the sacrifice of the masse as iniurious to the death of Christ acknowledged no iustification but by only faith allowed mariage of priestes and religious persons as agreable to the libertie of the gospel held for sacramentes none other but Baptisme the Eucharist and Baptisme an only signe not remitting synnes and the Eucharist a sole figure from which the truth of Christes body was as far distant as heauen is from earth and so forth according to the rest of the articles of their reformed faith within the decourse of so few yeres al these thinges were turned vpside downe the contrary faith planted in steede thereof That is the Romane church of late so sound and perfite sodaynly became most corrupt and impure she approued the vniuersal authoritie of the Romane Bishop and appointed no boundes or limites to his iurisdiction which was mere Antichristian she tooke from Princes their Supremacie she brought in the sacrifice of the masse and highly aduaunced it against the death and sacrifice of Christ she acknowledged iustification to proceede not of only faith but of workes also she established the single life of priestes and votaries and condemned their mariages as sacrilegious and execrable for two sacramentes she admitted seuen to baptisme she attributed remission of sinnes and in the Eucharist she beleeued the real and substantial veritie of Christes presence so forth according to the articles of Catholike religion or papistrie as these men terme it Now whereas thus much is comprised in their paradox of making the succession of the Romane bishops Antichrist whereas such weight lieth in the matter which of it selfe to common intendement is so absurd vnreasonable and in deede vnpossible whereas we also bring forth Fathers Councels and Doctors auouching the contrary gather thou Christian reader whether vve haue not iust cause vtterly to discredite them in this so blunt sensles assertioÌ„ vntil we see their Chronicles their monumeÌ„ts their aÌ„tiquities some maner warraÌ„t besides their owne in a matter of such importance Whereas they allow vs no such and yet chalenge to be credited vpon their owne vvord assure they selfe reader their dealing in this behalfe is not only foolish vnlearned and ignorant but also inhumane furious and diabolical Notwithstanding whereas M.W. besides those former profes which to any indifferent man may seeme more then sufficient requireth of vs farther declaratioÌ„ that in these later ages the Romane church hath not departed from that faith which in her first time she professed to content him if any thing mâ—y content him and make more euident the inuincible equitie of the Catholike cause I wil proue the same by such â—istoriographers as him selfe I trust wil allow for vpright and nothing fauorable to our cause Those witnesses I meane to be first of al him selfe and then Iohn Calum Peter Martyr Martin Luther Flacius Illyricus with such other pillers founders of his owne congregation Out of him self this I gather That to haue bene the true and Christian faith which the Romane church maâ—ntained the first fiue hundred yeres at what time that church vvas must pure excellent preserued inuiolablâ— the faâ—th deliuered by S. Peter and S. Paule This proposition is commonly found almost in euery page of M.W. answere to the second DemoÌ„stration Out of the other Caluin Luther c. this I gather that the Romane church in her first primitiue puritie maintained and beleeued the Popes Supremacie the sacrifice at the masse the same to be auailable for the dead priesthode the real presence c. no lesse then we do now This thou shalt find witnessed by their seueral confessions and approued at large hereafter in places conuenient The conclusion hereof rising is this first that these are no pointes of false or AntichristiaÌ„ doctrine but such as Peter Paule taught the primitiue Romane church Next that the later Romane church hath not departed from the former but hath kept inuiolably the self same faith without chaunge or alteration And so the false supposal whereupon this booke standeth being by such euideÌ„ce refuted the rest of the building must needes come to ground Now I say farther that this point which M.W. taketh for a most certaine and cleare veritie that is the fal of the vniuersal church for after the fal of the Romane church they can shew none that stoode and it is their general both preaching and writing that she corrupted the whole world with her errors and her
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.
vvhich thing I finde him to do in many other places I wil not bestowe time in disprouing our english bibles which for the most part are nothing but corrupt gutters flowing from these forenamed corrupt and stinking lakes Yet if otherwise any man list to disproue them al and singular there is nothing more facile easie For whereas in our time since the gospel as they cal it began in our country we haue had three kinde of diuers bibles vnder kinge Henrie kinge Edwarde and the Q. Maiestie that now is king Henries bibles as corrupt were corrected by king Edwarde the duke of Somersets appointmeÌ„t as by comparing them is easie to see and the Protestants I thinke wil not dâ—â—y Eduardus sextuo saith D. Humfrey procerum consiâ—is et suasu episcoporum biblia emitti curauit castigatiora et purgatiora ac legi publicè et omnibus in templis baberi mandauit King Edvvard by the aduise of his noble men and mâ—tâ—on of his bishops caused the bibles to be set forth more corrected then vvere his fathers and more purged of faults and commaunded the same to be read publâ—kly and to be had in al churches Next that the bible set forth by the Quenes authoritie correct those of king Edward is shewed in many places of the Discouerie requireth for proofe no more but that the reader coÌ„fer one or other epistle of S. Paule for examples sake that to the Romanes in The nevv testameÌ„t of our Sauiour Iesu Christ faithfully translated out of the greeke and perused by the coÌ„maundement of the Kings M. his honorable councel by theÌ„ autorized printedâ—ly Râ—ch Iugge with the same epistle in The nevv testament of our lord Iesus Christ translated out of greeke by Theodore Beza and englished by L.T. and printed by Christofer Barker the yere 1580. Cum gratia et priâ—ilegio and now that al these are very falsely translated and the best conâ—aine wicked and horrible and ethnical errors this hath bene shewed before at large by manifest demonstration and the confession of our aduersaries them selues and so no waies are they to be opposed to our bibles And what can M.W. now say against vs or whom would he haue vs to folow Perhaps his last counsel is that at least we should our selues fall to translate and so accordinge to the original greeke fashion our selues a new testameÌ„t seing we can like none of theirs But nether may we thus do First because we beleeue our testament to be truer then the common greeke copies now extant wherein as he seeth we stand and that not without reason Secondarily because we are perswaded that had we true originals we could neuer make a translatioÌ„ in these partial times more sincere vpright indifferent and freer from reprehensioÌ„ then is this which we haue already Finally and for a conclusion let the Christian reader note this that whereas commonly euerie secte of our aduersaries in wordes general termes findeth fault with our translation few or none of them shew any error or fault in particular but lightly there is some one of their owne brethren which standeth with vs in defense of our testament against that reprehender which no doubt proceedeth of the manifest sinceritie which our traÌ„slator vsed and the inuincible force of truth which so breaketh forth in despite of her aduersaries Laurentius Valla first of al carped at out common edition but his rashnes is iustly reproued by Erasmus Bullingere Beza and sundrie others Erasmus next fel in to that veyne but how vnreasonably let Beza speake Quam immeritò saith he multis in locis reprehendit Erasmus veâ—erem interpreteni tanquam a graecis dissentientem Hovv vniustly in many places doth Erasmus reprehend the old interpreter as dissenting from the greeke Then came Luther for the Lutherans and Castalio and some other for the Zuinglians and euerie one had some tooth against our interpreter But both in particular Beza doth iustifie those pointes which they accounted erroneous as may be seene in verie many places of his notes and in general preferreth him before any interpreter that he euer sawe Vulgatam aedu ionem saith he maxima ex parte amplector caeteris omnibus antepono The vulgar edition I embrace for the greatest parte and prefer it before all other vvhatsoeuer There remaine only certaine faultes which Beza imagineth which in his notes sometime he reprehendeth but they for the greater number and such as be ought worth are so wel defended by Castalio and Carolus Molineus to let passe our owne writers that if M. W. would gather in to a heape al the faultes which are obiected against our testament and afterwardes take away those which are to be taken away by the iudgment of Beza of Caluin of Castalio of Molineus and such other Protestanâ—s who haue set forth their owne new translations against others of their brethren I weene the number remaining would be so smale that it would shame M. W. him self as obstinate as he seemeth to compare with that any of their English testaments which soeuer is most exquisite Wherefore to coÌ„clude this as before touching the hebrew so here touching the greeke and al other translatioÌ„ the reader may see a few reaâ—ons amongst infinite vvhy the holy Councel of Trent hauing in it multitude of excelleÌ„t godly learned men with whoÌ„ to compare any or al these diuided and scattered sinagoges of Lutherans Zuinglians Anabaptistes or such like were impietie and sinne before God and intollerable iniurie before man decreed as in the CanoÌ„s we reade touching the old auncient translation which decree standeth vpon many cleare and most euident reasons whether we compare it with the hebrew and greeke now extant or with any of these new heretical versioÌ„s be it of Luther of OecolaÌ„padius of Basile of Geneua of Caluin of Castalio of Beza of Molineus of the English after King Henries allowance or King Edwardes or that which the english congregation now best alloweth which of al other is the vvorst most contaminate and most dravveth to Paganisme and Atheisme as hath bene shevved And that vve esteeme more of our old translator then any of these not only reason experience conscience diuinitie and humanitie requâ—reth vs so to do not only our duety to the Church of God our honour to our holy and learned forefathers our faith in Christs promise assured confidence of the assistance of his holy Spirit requireth the same but also in this our opinion vve are vvarranted by the manifest approbation of our most capital enemies those that haue some learning more then the rest of Luther of Zuinglius Castalio Beza Molineus D. Humfrey others vvhoÌ„ M. VV. dare not controle as I suppose hovv vvel soeuer othervvise he thinke of him self And novv may I vvith more facilitie ansvvere his secoÌ„d reason and vvherein for some part I grounde the exact perfection
Christs diuinitie 303. confessed by Luther 304. cōfessed by Lyra. 306. Item in Ieremie 307. confessed and proued by Lyra. 308.309 in Isai against Christs passion 310.311 confessed by Luther 312.313 item in the psalmes 355. folowed by the Tigurine Translators 358. and Bucer 357. item in Daniel 313. General reasons why the hebrue text can not be so sincere as the heretikes pretend 317.318 c. Many bookes of the Prophetes and histories of the old Testament lost pa. 317.318 Great difference in the hebrue by mistaking one letter for an other pa. 322.323.325 That the hebrue bibles are faultie confessed by Castalio pa. 326.327 by D. Humfrey 327. by Conradus Pellicanus 327. It is a Iewish opinion to thinke them altogether faultles 327. They haue great diuersitie of reading 331.332 somewhat wanteth in them 332.333 Although S. Hierom appealed from the latin to the hebrue yet the like reason is not now pa. 333.334 He confesseth and proueth the hebrue to be faultie 334.335.336 An argument commonly made for the puritie of the hebrue pa. 338.339 answered 339 340. c. S. Iustine proueth the Iewes to haue corrupted their bible pa. 341.342.343.344 Hebrue knowledge much aduaunced by Catholikes pa. 352.440 The hebrue tonge much subiect to cauilling pa. 431.432.433 See Rabbines A man must haue a setled faith before he confer greeke and hebrue textes pa. 441.442 best Hebritians are not best Christians pa. 441. our first Apostles planted perfite christianitie without hebrue pa. 345. Heretikes generally geuen to scorning pa. 511. S. Hierom condemned as ignorant of al diuinitie pa. 371. I S. Iames epistle refused by Luther Lutherans Zuinglians pa. 8.9.10.11.12 et 17.22.23 Caluin mangleth it 288.289 M. Ievvels challenge pa. 133.138 The true image thereof 133. vsque ad 138. It is grounded vpon no reason or learning 138.139.140.141 It cōtaineth in effect only three articles the primacie of the Sea Apostolike the real presence and the sacrifice 133.136.137.138 See of them in their seueral places M. Ievvels passing vanitie in bragging and lying pa. 460. his maner of ansvvering D. Harding pref 75.76 Reuerence done to the name of Iesus pa. 513.514.515 The Ievves corrupt the text of scripture pa. 304. in despite of Christians 314.329 negligent in conseruing their scriptures 328.329 their malice against the Sea of Rome 329.330 Very probable that Christ reprehended them for corrupting the scripture 339. See Hebrue S. Iohn Baptist liued a monastical life pa. 492. K That the vvise men vvhich came to worship Christ were kings pa. 485. vsque ad 489. that they vvere three 489. 490. their names 490.491 L S. Lukes gospel called in question pa. 27.28.29.32 Luthers vvorkes altered and corrupted by the Lutherans pa. 5 6.13 by the Caluinists 7. He denieth S. Iames epistle p. 11. his immoderate bragging 42. his extreme hatred of the Sacramentaries 43.44.45.46 his iudgment of their religion 52.53.483 he refuseth their bibles 45. singularly honoured by the English church 18.191 preferred by M. W. before al doctors 47. most absurdly 48.50 He derideth the Zuinglians fond arguments 258. Luther a shameful corrupter of scripture 377.378 Lucians true histories praef pa. 4.5 M Heretical martyrs damned pa. 117. S. Matthevv vvrote his gospel in hebrue pa. 290. the protestants hold the greeke translatiō more autentical 291. The protestants reason against the Machabees is as forcible against S. Luke S. Paul 506.507.508 Melchisedech did sacrifice pa. 57. graūted by M. W. denied by al other protestants pa. 58.59.60 acknovvleged by the auncient fathers 60. vvhy not expressed by the Apostle 61.537 c. Melanchthon for the real presence pa. 190. Merite of vvorkes See in Heauen and vvorkes N Noueltie of vvords daungerous in Christian religion pa. 266.267 exemplified 268.269 it induceth contempt of faith 270. and leadeth to paganisme 276.277.278 O Only faith See Faith P Penance what it is by the Protestants doctrine 86.90.91 It reiecteth external workes of fasting discipline ibid. which are required by the scripture 87.88.89 90. by S. Cypian and the primitiue church 124.125 the Catholike doctrine touching the value of them 92. the Protestantes contradictory argument against them 91. 93.94 S. Peters being at Roome denyed most absurdly pa. 130.131.132 his primacie 498.510 Pilgrimage to holy places pa. 502. 503.512.513 Primacie of the Romane Sea proued euidently by those fathers whom M. Iewel nameth his maisters to the contrary pa. 143. by Anacletus and Xystus 143.144 by S. Leo 146 147. S. Leo gouerneth in al partes of Christēdom 147.148.149 his authoritie ouer the bishop of Constantinople 148. he summoneth general Councels 152. he is head of them 153. no lawful Councel without his approbation 152. This primacie is grounded vpon Christes words and the Apostles ordinance 143.144.153 S. Gregorie accompteth the Romane Church head of al other pa. 156.158 his authoritie ouer the bishop of Constantinople 156. ouer the bishops of Europe Asia and Africa 156.157 158.162.163 The Protestants common obiection taken out of S. Gregorie answered pa. 159.160.161.162 the name vniuersal in what sort and sense disliked by S. Gregorie pa. 160.161.163 Priestes properly so called were appointed by Christ pa. 64. S. Austin such a priest 64.65.66 So was S. Leo and S. Hierom. 69. The church of Christ was neuer ruled but by such priests 67.68.69 Such were the orderers of our Ecclesiastical state and builders of our churches in England 68. S. Paules discourse of Christs eternall priesthod Hebr. 7. maketh nothing against the priesthod of the church pag. 74. vsque ad 79. The name of Protestants praef pa. 88.90 It agreeth not properly to our English gospellers ibi In their faith there is no stay or certaintie praef pa. 7.24.37 Exemplified by the Supremacie of princes ibid 9.10 by baptisme 11.12 Confirmation 13. Christs descending into hel 14. Christs diuinitie 14.15 Rebellion against princes 15.16 Regimēt of women 18. great difference in their Communion bookes 11.12.13 the diuers chaunges of religion in England since the time of schisme 20.21.22 In the Protestants vvriting and disputing there is no ground pref pa. 8. exemplified by their refusal of scriptures ibid. pa. 26. Apostolical Traditions and general Councels ibi Auncient fathers 27. Apostles Doctors of their owne 28.29.30 Martirs and whole Churches of their owne 30.31.32 They reduce al to priuate fansie 35.36.37.38 They passe the auncient heretikes in denial of al things pa. 38.39 their manifold Popes 33.34 The forefathers of the Protestants church pa. 349. of whom they must looke for the true scripture 348.351 a true confession of a principal protestant 407. their churches voyd of al truth and knowledge 407.408 they perswade Atheisme by scripture 408.409 al their preaching and writing tendeth therevnto 410.411.428 their vaunting of the cleare light of the gospel sensibly refuted 408. The Protestants maner of ansvvering the Catholikes pag. 412. They deny al Doctors 413. They deny sundry partes of scripture 413.414 They pretend the greeke 415. They falsely translate the greeke 416. They refuse the ordinary sense of the greeke
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
epistle nameth him selfe the bishop of the vniuersal Apostolike church and vvilleth others to appeale to the Apostolike Sea as to the head These are the first and most auncient that M. Iewel findeth of whom he learned his heresie against the primacie of the Romane church and verie aunciēt they are in deede the one being the fourth the other the eight in order frō S. Peter But Christian reader was he not a good scholer that of these maisters could gather such doctrine of such flowers could sucke out such poyson or can we marueyle if they haue a feate to peruert any thing be it neuer so plainelie and trulye spoken who can crie out vpon such fathers speaking so roundly say O Xistus O Anacletus you taught vs these heresies you taught vs that the bishop of Rome for challenging primacie ouer the church is the precursor of Antichrist But you wil answere as M. Iewel teacheth you that these epistles be not the epistles of Anacletus or Xistus but counterfeit and set forth by some other in their names But what vncredible peruersitie and contradiction and impudencie is this or how can he so say for saw he euer any other bookes of theirs besides these epistles could he for him selfe or you for him pretēd any such knowledge most certaine it is you can not and therefore learning ought against the Romane Sea from Xistus and Anacletus he must needes learne it hence and so ether this maketh against the Romane Sea which thing by Illyricus and other your owne writers is at large refuted and who hauinge the forehead of a man can say otherwyse or M. Iewel in naming these two Popes at Paules crosse for his maisters in that heresie may be an example of a more dissolute man and more rechles in lying and abusing his audience then euer before or perhaps euer sithence occupied that place Let vs trie some other of his maisters S. Gregorie and S. Leo vpon whom first in like maner he exclameth and the protestants them selues those that be farthest gone in bold deniall of any thinge yet denie not but the bookes and epistles extant in their names were truly made and leaft vnto vs by them And did they trow you teach him these heresies let vs heare vvhat they say and that in no other vvordes and sense then those forenamed your owne doctors make them to speake and point you to the bookes epistles and chapters vvhere you shal find that vvhich they vvrite The bishops of Rome that liued in this fift age vvithin 500 yeres after Christ affirme that the Romane church is chiefe of al others so doth Leo in his sermon de anniuersario assumptionis et epistola 89. ad episcopos per prouinciam Viēnensem The bishops that gouerned the Romane church in that age required of other Archbishops that they should make relation to them if there fell any matter of controuersie so Leo vvriteth in his 46. epistle to Anatolius Archbishop of Constātinople If there be any thing that doth require consultation vvith speede let relation therof be made vnto me that after I haue examined the matter my diligence may apoint vvhat is to be done Againe epist 62. he requireth of Maximus Archbishop of Antioche that he acknovvledge the priuileges of the third Sea and oftē tymes vvrite to the Sea Apostolike hovv the churches there increase Also they tooke to thē this authoritie to reproue other bishops if they did ought amisse they prescribed vnto them vvhat they should do and apointed them orders in ceremonies so Leo epist 86. reprehēdeth Nicetas patriarch of Aquileia because he receaued to communiō the Pelagians before they had condemned their error He reprehendeth also the Africane bishops in the prouince of Mauritania Caesariensis for making bishops certaine persōs vnlavvfully epist 87. and he rebuketh the bishops of Germanie Fraunce for contemning the order of their felovvbishops epis 88. And vvheras Anatolius bishop of Constantinople seemed not to beleeue rightly of the incarnation of the sonne of God Leo chargeth him to put his faith in vvriting and send it to the bishop of Rome and therein to protest openly that he vvil excommunicate that man vvho so euer beleeueth or teacheth of the incarnation of Christ othervvise then is the professiō of the Catholikes and of the bishop of Rome epist 33. So Proterius Archbishop of Alexandria is reported to haue sent letters touching his faith to Leo. epist 68. And Leo epist 69. signifieth to the Emperour Marcianus that Proterius is a Catholike They also confirmed bishops in their bishopriks so Leo confirmed Maximus patriarch of Antioche in his bishoprike though he vvere made in the Councel of Ephesus of vvhich Councel al other acts vvere abrogated act 7. Concil Chalced. and that the same Leo confirmed to Proterius bishop of Alexandria the old rights of that Sea according to the Canons and aūcient priuileges it is noted epist 68. Leonis ad Iulianū et 69. ad Imperatorem Marcianum Leo in his 33. epistle to Theodosius requireth that he take order that the bishop of Constantinople send to him a vvriting vvherin he professe to embrace the true doctrine and to condemne al that dissent from the same Also they sent abrode legates vvho in far distant prouinces tooke notice of the errors of heretikes and corrected them so Leo sent his legates to Cōstantinople to vvithdravv Eutiches from his error as appeareth epist 11. ca. 6. ad Flauianum so he sent legates to the Emperour epist 34. to Ephesus that they taking vnto them the Archbishop of Constantinople should absolue those that had bene deceaued by Dioscorus and vvere novv content to do penance epist 44. 46. In like maner epist. 87. sending legates in to Africa he cōmaundeth that Donatus a Nouatian be receaued to communion if he send to Rome a vvritinge touching the condemnation of that error They required also of Archbishops that if of themselues they could not determine any thing they should send it to the Sea Apostolike vvithal they charged thē to receaue and obserue their decrees made against heretikes so Leo epist 84. cap. 7. prescribeth this order to the bishop of Thessalonica in Thracia that tvvo prouincial Councels be held euery yere if there fal out any hard matter and it be not decided by the iudgement of the bishop of Thessalonica that it be referred to the bishop of Rome and cap. 11. he vvilleth that the contentions risinge among the bishops be referred to him vvith a declaration of things done in such matters The same Leo cōmaundeth Nicetas patriarch of Aquileia that he cause al his bishops priestes clearks openly to cōdemne certaine heresies and their authors and to approue al synodal decrees vvhich the authoritie of the Apostolike Sea had confirmed for the rooting out of heresie that they testifie so much by their subscriptions epist 86. Many things Christian reader of good weight importāce I passe ouer
order begone that is first particularly I wil write downe the argument which he fathereth vpon vs then the reason as we gaue it out by conference whereof the indifferent reader shal be able to iudge ether of our ignorance or his impudencie Thus he procedeth VVise men must needes much more abhorre from your religion vvhen they shal finde you thus to gather of the scriptures Christ and Peter vvalked on the vvaters ergo the body of Christ may be shut vp in a litle bread Our wordes are these VVhen not only Christ but by his povver Peter also vvalketh vpon the vvaters it is euident that he caÌ„ dispose of his ovvne body aboue nature coÌ„trarâ—e to the natural conditions thereof as to goe through a doore Iohn 20. to be in the compasse of a litle bread Ephiphan in Aâ—nchorato Let M. VVhitaker shew the reason why the one folovveth not as vvel as the other vvhy he vvil more abridge Christs povver and bynd him to the rules of nature in the Sacrament then in that miraculous entring to his disciples or vvalking on the vvaters Aâ—beit if he had aduisedly considered the note he might haue perceaued the same to coÌ„sist not so much in our collection as in the authoritie of Epiphanius vvho maketh the case of Christs being in the Sacrament so cleare that he accounteth M. VV. and his felovves for their infidelitie in that behalfe reprobates from the face of God and sure of eternal damnation Excidit a gratia et salute in the place before quoted Peter vvalked on the waters Ergo the Pope of Rome hath authoritie ouer al the church This application as S. Bernard and Catholike men vse it is no more reprouable then that of our Sauiour As Moyses exalted the serpent in the desert so must the sonne of man be exalted Or that of S. Paule Abraham had tvvo sonnes Ismael and Isaac one of the bond vvoman according to the flesh and one of the free vvoman by promise And as then he that vvas borne according to the flesh persecuted him that vvas after the spirite so novv also But for a man to folovv M. VV. example and make Christ or S. Paule to argue after his paterne thus The serpent vvas exalted in the desert Ergo Christ must be hanged on the crosse or Abrahams tvvo sonnes could not vvel agree but Ismael vexed Isaac Ergo the Ievves must vexe and persecute the Christians this in old time vvould haue bene accounted diuinitie fit for Lucian and such like scorners hovvsoeuer it be novv vsed of these nevv gospellers in great sadnes Thus staÌ„deth our note Peter saith S. Bernard vvalking vpon the vvaters as Christ did declared him self the only vicar of Christ vvhich should be ruler not ouer one people but ouer al. For many vvaters are many peoples Bernard lib. 2. de considerat ca. 8. See the place hovv he deduceth from Peter the like authoritie and iurisdiction to his successor the bisshop of Rome The good Samaritane said to the host vvhatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate I vvil restore it to the. ergo there are vvorkes of supererogation This argument foloweth wel inough and it is S. Augustins conclusion not ours This is the annotation S. Augustine saith that the Apostle 1. Cor. 9. according to this place did supererogate that is did more then he needed or vvas bound to do vvhen he might haue required al duties for preaching the Gospel but vvould not li. de op Monach. c. 5. VVhereof it coÌ„meth that the vvorkes vvhich vve doe more then precept be called vvâ—rkes of Supererogation and vvhereby it is also euident against the Protestants that there be such vvorkes See Optatus li. 6. cont Parm. hovv aptly he applyeth this parable to S. Paules couÌ„sel of virginitie 1 Cor. 7. as to a vvorke of supererogation Christ vvas transfigured ergo he geueth vs his body in forme of bread and vvine This is M. VV. scoffing not our arguing we only deduce hence that Christ may so do as not being bound to philosophical rules or conditions of nature which is cleare and manifest not that for this cause he doth so which is foolish and impertinent See the first argument Our wordes are Marke in this TraÌ„sfiguration many maruelous points As that he made not only his ovvne body vvhich then vvas mortal but also the bodies of Moyses and Elias the one dead the other to die for the time as it vvere immortal thereby to represent the state and glorie of his body and his Saintes in heauen By vvhich maruelous transfiguring of his body you may the lesse maruel that he caÌ„ exhibite his body vnder the forme of bread and vvine or othervvise as he list Saintes in heauen are like vnto Angels because they vse not mariage ergo they can heare the praiers of al men euery vvhere succour vs. This consequent consisteth of two partes the one is the falsificatioÌ„ of Christs reasoÌ„ the other is like falsificatioÌ„ of our argument drawen theÌ„ce For nether Christ said Saintes are like vnto Angels because they vse not mariage but contrarywise they vse not mariage because they are like vnto Angels nether inferre we their abilitie of hearing or succouring vs for that false cause vvhich M. VV. assigneth but because they are aduaunced vnto the state and condition of angels as sayth our Sauiour whose office â—s to succour and ayde men as in the scripaure we find euery where and the very English Communion booke doth teach and allow The difference is as great as if wheÌ„ one argueth thus N. is a man therefore he hath a head an other should inuert it after this sort N. hath a head therefore he is a man The first is true as any may perceaue the second is false as whereby an asse or a goose is proued to be a man This is our note As Christ proueth here that in heauen they nether mary nor are maried because there they shal be as Angels by the very same reason is proued that Saints may heare our praiers and helpe vs be they neere or farre of because the Angels do so and in euery moment are present vvhere they lâ—st and neede not to be neere vs vvhen they heare or helpe vs. Ioseph vvrapped Christs body in sindoâ— ergo Christs body on the altar must be layd in pure linnen I know not what M. W. disliketh in this argument whether the real presence of the same body on the altar which vvas in the sepulcher or the linnen vsed at the altar as it was in the sepulcher or the relation from one to the other Because ech part is warranted in the Annotation by sufficient authoritie I thinke it needeles to adde any more vntil I better know the pointe whereat he is offended This is the note This honour and duty done to Christs body being dead vvas maruelous grateful and meritorious And this vvrapping of it in cleane sindon may signifie by S. Hierom
papistici reâ—ni The auncieÌ„t fathers called by Luther Iues idolaters bondmen of sinne the deuil for their doctrine of workes against only fayth CoÌ„tra Campian pa. 198 An euident contradiction Ibid. pag. 8. Note this interpretation S. Ciprians wordes touching workes of penance the merite therof in the places noted by M. W. Epist. 55. et sermon de lapsis the doctrine of the Christians in the Apostles tymes of the Cathol Church in our tyme is al one concerninge workes of penance A manifest and grosse contradiction pag 7. Straung and wonderfull diuinitie Libertinisme the end of iustification by only fayth Whit. in li. contra Sander pa. 297. pa. 9. in nostris ecclesiis S. Peters being at Rome denyed by M. W. moste absurdly against all antiquitie Sander Monarch lib. 6. ca. 10. these are in that chapter besides many more in other places What proofes will content our aduersaries if these will not See Bullinger in serie temporum et rerum as Luca in Act. tradit ca. 17 Whit. cont Sad. pa. 203. Horace niuem esse atramentuÌ„ Lactantius lib. 5. ca. 3. Of M Iewels challeÌ„g M. Iewel in his sermon at Paules crosse the yere 1560. when firste he put forth his challeÌ„g â—iui â—eca 4. lib. 5. The true paterne and image of M. Iewels challenge Supra cap 2. Of this see after chapiter 10. M Iewell in his sermon as before Printed by Iohn Day Cont Sand pa. 21. a Yet M. Carterwrighte holdeth the contrarie and hath proued it in many books Patres etiam simul vniuersi Iudas v. 18. Tit. 3.10 Mat. 18.17 The primacie of the Rom. church confirmed manifestly by those fathers whom M. Iew. calleth his maisters to the contrarie Magdebur Centur. 2. c. 7. col 139. This order was approued in the Councel of Nice cap â— So say the rathers in Conc. Sinâ—essano Ibid. see the same in the Councel of Cart. Mileu in S. Aug. epis 90.91.92.93 Cent. â— vbi supra An obiectioÌ„ answered The primacy of the Romane Sea ouer all churches of ChistendoÌ„ within the firste 500 yeres confessed proued by the more famous and learned protestants Cent. 5. ca. 7 col 774 Ibi. col 776 Leos authoritie ouer the bishop of Constantinople Ibi. col 778. Ibi. co 779. Harde questions rising in far distaÌ„t prouinces referred to the Sea of Rome Supremacie of the Rom. Sea in general CouÌ„cels as before confessed proued Iewel in his defence of the Apolo par 2. cap. 4. 1. Luth. Tom. 7. lib. contta Papatum pag. 455. The facyng of a lye Anno Domini 605. Vbi sup col 781.782 No lawful CouÌ„cel with out approbation of the Romane Sea Summitas tua filiis Vbi sup ca. 10. col 1262 Confes Geneu cap. 7. ¶ 12. Leo so magnified by M. Iewel is a verie Antichrist to Beza and the church of Geneua Centuria 6.6.7 col 425. The church of Constantinople subiect to the Sea of Rome before Phocas or Bonifacius 3. Vide ibi ca. 7. pag. 425.426.427.428.429.430 c. vntil the pag. 439. Caluin Institut lib. 4. ca. 7. ¶ 12.13 Luth. Tom. 7. aduersus Papatum fol. 455. Balaeus de script BritaÌ„ cent 1. p. 45. VNIVERSALIS Replie against D. Harding pa. 226. M. Iewels other protestants coÌ„mon obiection takeÌ„ out of S. Gregorie against the supremacie answered truly by one of their owne sect Andreas Fricius de ecclesia lib. 2. cap. 10. pag. 570. Vniuersall bishop how in what sense denyed by S. Gregorie Saepe eiusmodi senteÌ„tiae iteraÌ„tur a Gregorio Though S. Greg. disliked the name Vniuersall yet he approued the Supremacie as agreable to the expresse worde of god If charge of the vniuersal church make the Pope Antichrist then our Sauiour made S. Peter Antichrist S. Gregorie a prieste vvithout all reason made a minister by M. Iewel Bibliand in praefat epistolaruÌ„ Zuinglii Oecolampadii Melanct. li. 4 Chronic. in Henric. 4. fol. 186.187 Centu. 6. ca. 10. col 678.679.682 ibi ca. 13. col 817.819 P. Paulus Vergeri coÌ„tra Grego 1. Bale cent 1. pag. 66.72 centur 8. pa. 678. Marke this confession Our first Apostles were Papistes M. Horne againste M. Feknam pa. 58. Luth. Tom. 7. defensio verborum coenae fol. 405. S. Austine intolerably abused and corrupted by the Sacramentaries Ibid. fo 391. Nullus Nemo No one father was of M. Iewels opinion touching the Sacrament Concordes constaÌ„tes vno ore supra cap. 3. S. Chrisostomes 6. bookes de sacerdotio lib. 3. chap. 4. chap. 8 9. Tower disputation Aug. de vtilitate credeÌ„di cap. 1. pag. 9. How knoweth M.W. that S. Peter wil say so How dangerous it is to restrayne the text of scripture to the particular sense of some one man or Sect a Mat. 11. v. 27. cap 28 vers 18. b Cor. 15. v. 26. c Eph. 1. v. 20 Illyric in Act. cap. 3. ver 21. Scripture of purpose falsly translated against the real presence Discoue pag. 257. Discou pag. 257. Recipitur continetur Mat. 13. v. 25 Euery heretike translateth the scripture in fauour of his heresie Pa. 11. The zuinglians most vsual plausible argumeÌ„t against the real presence CoÌ„tinetur Many thinges to be noted in M. W. argumeÌ„t Greate vauntinge vpon smale occasion wicked Sophistrie 〈◊〉 Conteyned Corruption of scripture Hiero. in Gal. cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 8. v. 14. Luc. 9. v. 48. Mat. 10. v. 40 2. Timoth. 3. The proceding of the new gospel See M. Fox martyrologe in Fryth and Barnes c. Fox Act. monumen edit ann 1563. p. 500. The real presence approued by M. Foxes Martyrs Many thâ—â—â—ges in hâ— scripture vncrediblâ— as Christs presence in the blessed Sacrament Ioan. 20. vers 19. Daniel 3. v. 47. 48. Ibid. v. 50. Iewel art 10 ¶ 9. in fine M. W. argumeÌ„t against the Sacrament the very roote of Paganisme infidelity Caluin contra SeruetuÌ„ pag. 105. Calu. Inst Lib. 2. cap. 13. ¶ 3.4 Petrus spoÌ„te sua vinclis labeÌ„tibus eq carcere processit clauso Pauli natali 4. B. Felicis See the new testament in S. Ihon. 20. v. 19. Luc. 4. v. 29. 4. Reg. 6. v. 17. NotuÌ„ non agnouere surentes Felicemque rogaÌ„t Felixvbi cernitur noÌ„ cernitur ipse nec ipse uir est cuÌ„ sit prope loÌ„ge est ignotuâ— notusque suis fitciuibus ideÌ„ discernete fide vultum credeÌ„tibus Paulin. natal 5. B. Felicis Epiphan lib. 1. Here. 30. Socrat. l. 7. ca. 32. Chrisost in Math. hom 83. M.W. argument reiected by the auncient fathers M. W. argument abhorred and condemned by the more learned protestants Cent. 4. ca. 4. col 241. Ibi. in prefat pag. 9. Pet. Martyr in dialog de corpore Christi in loco fol. 107 Lib. 3. epist Zuinglii Oecolamp fol. 132. Ibi. fol. 140. Fulmina erunt Westphal in Apol. contra Caluin c. 19. pa. 194. anno 1558. Plurimos scripturae locos corrumpunt The Sacramentaries corrupt the scriptures The ground of