the blood of the new testament and this blood is the new testament in my blood If it may be lawfull for you to alter and expound the words at your pleasure then can you help your selfes wel enough but your exposition must be squared according to the wordes not the words framed to your exposition Againe pag. 240. you say where Beza correcteth Saint Luke in the latter part of the sentence I raile at the first so that betweene Beza and me S. Luke hath neuer a word right wisely considered doubties The words are right your exposition is fond and wicked The cupp you make to be the blood of Christ whoe as yet was not crucified nor his blood shed If your doctrine be true Christes blood was shed alreadie and that reallie els it could not be in the cup reallie The papists teache that Christs blood was reallie in the cup before his passion But if Christs blood was shed sitting at the table whoe was he M.R. that shed it whoe made the wound whoe opened his side who thrust his weapon in his heart whoe pearced his hands and feete This must you tell if you maintaine that his blood was then reallie shed and powred forth into the cuppe But by the cuppe M.R. is ment the wine in the cuppe which is the newe testament that is a sacrament of the newe testament in Christs blood shed for vs on the crosse This is a true and plaine sense agreeable to all analogie of faith standing with the words themselues followed of the auncient fathers When at length will you make an end of this railing it is to vnseemelie to lothsome pag. 241. to odious Indeed M.R. it must needes appeare a great absurditie to all learned godly Christians whoe know rightlie esteeme the price of our redemption that to be shed for our sinnes which was in the cup. Christs blood was shed for our sinnes which neuer came in the cup but remained in his bodie vntil the time of his death And if Christs blood was in the cuppe when he gaue the cuppe to his Apostles then must it follow necessarilie that his bodie then was without blood it being shedde already and contained in the cup. In the cuppe was onelie wine a sacrament of his blood which he gaue in the same to his Apostles to drincke whereof he drancke him selfe and so the scriptures expressely call it wine If this were the thing that was shedde for your sinnes then was true and naturall wine the price of your redemption then are you saued by wine then haue you no part in Christs blood But the true Church beleeueth her sinnes to be washed away not by that which was really contained in the cuppe but by the true blood of Christ which issued out of his body nailed on the crosse and wounded with a speare Your absurditie therefore needeth not to be further discouered it is so openlie blasphemous against the blood of Iesus Christ which was shed once not in the cup but on the crosse for our redemption If you vrge S. Lukes words as they stand in grammaticall construction I answere that as the cup is called Christs blood Christs testament that is by a figure the sacrament of his blood and testament so is it also said to be shed for vs by a figure sacramentallie But all men of skill and iudgement maie soone see that in these wordes there is some change of grammaticall disposition vsuall in the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists Your discourse about Tautologies in the scriptures is altogether vaine and friuolous To S. Basils testimonie you aunswere much in words and nothing in matter pag. 244. For what cause haue you thus to reproch Beza for his translation of these words seing you cannot denie but S. Basil hath reported that text of S. Luke euen as Beza hath translated the same and you confesse that Saint Basil hath truelie deliuered the sense thereof so all that you haue said or can say spitefullie against Beza must appertaine to Saint Basil no lesse Basil in Ethic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whome yet you will not seeme to touch But the thing truelie and indifferentlie considered Beza is no more to be accused then S. Basil you tell vs of heretikes a long tale which is no better then waste paper Vse it your selfe or bestowe it at your pleasure Of such badde stuffe base account is to be made Whereas I spake a fewe words concerning figuratiue speaches pag. 251. which the aduersaries cannot abide to heare of in the sacrament I haue as it were opened at vnawares a flood-gate to M. Rainolds flowing vtterance Quâ data porta ruit The streame is so strong and runneth so violentlie carying all manner of baggage with it that vaine it were to resist it Let it therefore passe downe and doe what mischiefe it can great harme I trust it shall not doe Thus much you must confesse that in the sacrament figures are found and yet when we oppose against your monster of reall presence a most true and euident answere that the wordes were figuratiuelie spoken and must figuratiuelie be expounded you rage aboue all measure But quiet your selfe Master Rainolds and somewhat staie your intemperate affection neuer shall you prooue while papistrie hath a man liuing to speake in defense of it either by scripture or auncient writer that these words must figuratiuelie be vnderstoode This is my blood this cuppe is the new Testament in my blood more then these This cup is shed for you Leaue your babling Figuratiue speaches in the verie words of the supper by the Aduersaries confession and speake to purpose prooue this if you can Wherefore finding in the Euangelistes wordes such manifest figures what reason haue you to condemne vs for vsing the same being a moste common and familiar kinde of speach Because it standeth not with your reall presence Let your reall presence hardlie shift for it selfe we are not bound for cause and respect thereof to wrest the scriptures to forge monstrous interpretations to change the sacrament into a reall sacrifice of Christ which heathenish kinde of doctrine neuer anie but Antichrist and his ministers maintained The scriptures the olde fathers the auncient Church of Christ taught and beleeued otherwise as hath bene shewed and prooued inuinciblie to your faces Your pages following filled with rouing testimonies I pretermitt your contumelies being no lawfull arguments require no answere CHAP. 11. Concerning the translation of the English Bibles MAster Martins boke of Discouerie is aunswered long since from head to foote in euerie part pag. 262. you haue the answere amongst you saie to it what you can with truth and learning To bragge of your fellowes booke which being throughlie and soundlie disprooued you cannot with all your skill maintaine is a childish vanitie to acknowledge no Replie which you cannot but knowe or to make light account of it whereunto you cannot truelie reioine is wilfulnes and
speake and thy selfe considering the matter aduisedlie wilt saie as much For in making an olde rotten translation as I may boldlie call it being compared with the originall word of scripture although otherwise I giue to it that reuerence that the antiquity therof deserueth full of wants faultes errors ouersightes imperfections and corruptions of all sortes as in this booke hereafter god willing thou shalt perceaue to be the authenticall word of God and denying the originall faithfull text which Moses the Prophets the Apostles the Euangelists did write to be the worde of God what do they els but plainlie as it were with one dash of a penne cancel the wholl sciptures Herein maiest thou see what conscience these men make of scripture that do cast awaie the verie authenticall text and bookes of holie scripture preferring before them a homelie latine translation which besides it is such as I haue said no man can tell from whence or from whome it came And this forsooth is their scripture coined and canonized of late in the councell of Trente and neuer before and other scripture haue they none Hitherto Master Rainolds treatise hath bene generall of the English Protestants pag. 41. c. now he craueth leaue of the reader to descend and applie the same to his aduersarie whose booke he is to examine and first he noteth the fashion of Heretikes alwaies to haue bene to inuade the chiefe pastours of the Church What heretikes haue vsed commonlie to doe appertaineth nothing vnto vs we could no otherwise doe but when we espied the wolfe deuouring the flocke and Antichrist sitting in the temple of God giue warning thereof to all crie out against him and call him by his proper name the verie Antichrist of whom Saint Paul to the Thessalonians and the scriptures in other places doe mean This hath bene the iudgement of al reformed Churches from the beginning and wil be to the ending of the world And although Sanders hath taken great paines in this behalfe to prooue their Pope to be no Antichrist for then all were vtterlie lost yet how little he hath by his demonstrations preuailed the godlie reader maie easilie iudge by the answere set forth which Master Rainolds because he cannot orderlie and thorowlie disprooue carpeth at some partes thereof in the residue of this his preface But being appointed as he saith to answere the booke it had bene more for his commendation and credite of the cause to haue perticularlie refuted my wholl replie then thus to pike certaine parcels at his owne choise and to pretermit all the rest Yet let vs see what he can saie whereby it shall appeere how litle he had to saie In the first demonstration of all Pag. 44. c. D. Saunders endeuoureth to proue that the great Antichrist must be one singular man for proofe whereof he allegeth sundrie reasons which are seuerallie answered and lastlie as the chiefest that all the fathers haue spoken of Antichrist as of one man Doctor Saunders and parcel of my answere are here by Master Rainolds repeated but the principall ground thereof is omitted Whereas it is by Saunders affirmed that all the fathers haue spoken of Antichrist as of one onelie man although this be vntrue and can neuer by Saunders or anie Papist be prooued and although further it is one thing to speake of Antichrist as of one man and plainlie to saie that Antichrist is one man yet supposing this were true that Saunders meaneth notwithstanding his demonstration holdeth not being taken from the authoritie of men from whome no demonstration in diuinitie can be drawen This is the summe of this answere which Master Rainolds accuseth of Antichristian arrogancie seing the fathers write according to the apostolicall faith and tradition as he saith But how may it appeere Master Rainolds that the Apostles taught or deliuered such a faith vnto the Churches concerning Antichrist if this faith be contained in their writings tell vs in what booke in what place in what wordes If in secret tradition we admit no profe as you know from such vncertaine and blinde traditions And if you your selues oftentimes doe dissent from the fathers giue vs also the same libertie of dissenting from them vpon as good ground and iust causes as you haue anie The fathers speake diuerse times not according to the tradition faith Apostolicall but according to the common receiued opinion them selues in plain termes confessing that they speake but coniecturally if there was not in that age so full and cleare knowledge of Antichrist as at this daie no maruell maie it seeme to wise men for so much as nowe Antichrist is not onelie borne and bredde but growne to a strong man and perfectlie discerned and acknowledged by all marks essentiall to be Antichrist They forsawe him we see him they knew he should come we know he is come they feared him we haue felt him they geassed at him we can point him out with our finger finallie they might be deceiued but wee cannot vnles we will stop our eares and close our eies and suffer our selues willinglie to be abused pag. 46. c. In the second demonstration Doctor Saunders commendeth the Church of Rome by testimonies of writers auncient and later thereby to make vs beleeue that seing it hath bene so highlie praised it cannot therefore possiblie be the seate of Antichrist Here I gaue Doctor Saunders a distinction betwene the elder Romane Church and the yonger The auncient Church of Rome indeede was worthelie extolled and magnified of the fathers for constant keeping of the faith although euen then in that Church the egge was laide whereof shortlie after Antichrist was hatched the distinction M. R. raileth at with all his mighte but cannot disprooue with all his learning it being euident in al histories that after the daies of those godly fathers the Bishop of Rome was made head of the vniuersal Church wherein he was publikely proclaimed to be the Antichrist that should come afterward continually both religion learning and good life died by litle and litle in that Church as hath bene testified and complained of by infinite writers So the difference betweene that Church in former latter time is no lesse euident then betweene a mans youth and doting age if you consider all partes and properties of a true Church And yet saith Master Rainolds if it be lawfull thus to answere then shall no heresie euer be repressed forgetting fowlie that heresie must be refuted and repressed by scripture which neuer changeth but abideth for euer though Churches varie both from others and from themselues In the third demonstration Pag. 50. c. wherein Saunders affirmeth the succession of priests in the Romane Church to be the rocke against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile I denie the outwarde chaire or succession of bishops to be the immoueable inuincible Rocke wheron the Church is builded which is the sonne of God himselfe the onelie foundation
and refresheth a man in his age I wil not vrge Father Ierome for his vnreuerent wordes but sure I am he hath deserued more reproofe for the same then Luther hath done for any thing euer vttered by him against S. Iames Epistle By these examples you may learne not to be so rash in your iudgement and hasty in your conclusions as you shew your felfe to be in the very beginning that because Luther denied Saint Iames epistle to be Canonical following the ensample of others hence doe gather not onely that he but we also although herein disagreeing from him and denying no one booke of Canonicall scripture neyther of the old nor new testament doe raze the foundation of faith and leaue no ground for Christians to stand vpon We leue such ground and thereupon do build our faith as ye shall neuer be hable to shake with all the force ye haue Verely your Pope and ye all that hang vpon him cannot well stand on this ground because it is too narrowe and slippery for you and therefore ye seeke larger roome in the Fathers Councells Traditions whereof you speak The grounds of Popish faith These are in deed fit groundes for your Church to be founded vpon the corruptions of Fathers the decrees of men superstitious inuentions forged traditions whereunto if you did not more leane and somewhat staye your selfes then to the bookes of holy scriptures your Church your Pope your Cardinals your monkes your friars your selues should surely lie in dust shortly But now to come to Luther whome still you chardge and me also about Saint Iames epistle I could vse as many words against you if the cause required as you haue against me handle the matter by poynts as you doe but what end or vse should there be of such kinde of writing or what profitt could arise thereby to the Church of Christ Had you clerely gayned al that for which you contend yet had you not prooued any thing at all against our Church or fayth nor yet against me but onely that Luthers writings haue beene changed and altered which because you haue so paynfully euicted I praie you take it vnto you and vse it moste to your aduantage Howbeit for all your needles and vnthriftie labour spent herein yet doth Campian still remayne chardged with that vntrueth whereof you would so fayne acquit him which you may sone perceiue if you call to remembrance what Campian in his booke obiected to Luther concerning this epistle of Saint Iames namely that he called it contentious swelling Campian Rat. 1. drye strawen and thought it not worthy an Apostolike spirite All this doth Campian auouch Luther to haue written of Saint Iames epistle Now yf Luther haue in deede thus written then haue I vniustly accused Campian of vntrueth yf otherwise then hath Campian slaundered Luther fowly To know the trueth herein I vsed all conuenient diligence in examining all the copies both Dutche and Latine that I could get and when I found in them noe such wordes but rather the cleane contrary I was perswaded as I had good cause that all this was but a forged matter and therefore sayd it was vntrue Afterwards it fell out that I light vppon an old Dutch Testament of Luthers translation with his prefaces wherein I found something like in one poynt to that which Campian had obiected the which when I had read I dissembled not but confessed it in my answere to Gregory Martin And in that preface Luther in deede writeth that Saint Iames epistle is not so worthy as are the epistles of Saint Peter and Paul but in respect of them is a strawen epistle His censure I mislike and so himselfe I thinke afterwards seeing those words in latter editions are left out Yet I trust euery indifferent reader will graunt that there is ods betweene this that Luther writeth indede and that which Campian saith he writ For it is one thing to speake simply and another thing to speake in comparison Campian sayth Luther calleth Sainte Iames Epistle strawne Luther sayth That it is in comparison of Saint Peters and Saint Pauls epistles strawne If you can by all your wisdome prooue these to be all one and will farther busie your selfe about trifles I am content to giue you the reading but I will not vouchsafe to answere any more such strawen or rather wodden replies And sure Master Rainoldes if you can write nothing to purpose and yet will needs be writing something it were better for you to sit downe and picke strawes then so to trouble your selfe and others wherein you shall purchase nothing els but commendation of a strawne writer and your booke shal be iudged more worthy to be burnt then to be answered But seeing you haue taken in hand to prosecute this matter so largelie M. Rainolds helpeth not where greatest neede is of his helpe why doe you faile in that thing wherein most of all we need your hand and helpe For this that you bring concerning strawne hath already beene confessed somuch as is true your parte had beene now farther to haue shewed that Luther likewse called the same epistle contentious swollen drie not worthie an Apostolicall spirit as he is accused by Campian in the same place But for proofe hereof you can bring forth nothing and therefore you confesse that Campian layd more to Luthers charge concerning this Epistle then was true so that if in one poore word you haue a little auouched the credite of your Iesuite for whome you fight yet in three or foure other you haue condemned him which you slylie passe ouer notwithstanding as though Campian had neuer spoken so or you had nothing to do therwith Indeed I graunt it maketh smale matter what Campian hath lyed of Luther but you that take vppon you to defend him may not thinke you haue performed your duty if of much that he hath said you be able to iustify his saying in one litle point in three points haue failed Wherefore either cease to quarell still about this one word or shew your proofes for the rest also or acknowledge your lewd and miserable wrangling as in deed you must howsoeuer the matter standeth concerning Luther in this behalfe For what if Luther had plainly and constantly affirmed of Saint Iames Epistle as much as Campian hath obiected though vntrulie Is this a cause sufficient why you should make all these outcryes generally against all Protestants why then may not we by like reason complayne of all Papists for that which Cardinall Caietane hath written both of other bookes of holie scripture and namelie of this same Epistle whereof we speake was not Caietane a piller of your Church a peere of the court of Roome the Popes Legate in Germanie against Luther Doth not this famous Cardinall of Roome set downe in playne wordes that the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrewes doth gather insufficient arguments to prooue Christ to be the sonne of God that the second and
Christ the truth You cannot pul in sunder these two offices but if you wil needs be priests that properly according to this order of Melchis then seeing that order of priesthood hath a kingdome inseparablie annexed to it it must necessarilie followe that you are also kinges and that properlie which were a verie proper thing indeede and greatlie to be accounted of Popish priests if they be according to Melchisedechs order must not be priests onelie but also kings If you deuide these offices in sunder it is blasphemy making a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech whoeis not also a king If you take both iointlie to your selues then will euerie hedge Priest be a gentleman a lord a King As this is most absurd monstrous so is that also that you should be priests according to Melchisedechs order For then further ought you to be eternall without beginning or ending of daies without father or mother as Melchisedech is described vnto vs in the scriptures and as Christ is in trueth and onely Christ So taking vpon you this priesthood of Melchisedech you commit horrible sacriledge and treason against the person of Christ our sauiour who will in time tread such vermine vnder his feete that creeping on the earth do presumptuously chalenge to themselues his speciall prerogatiues and royalties S. Augustine calling the ministers of the Gospell Priests speaketh improperlie Pag. 65. August de eiuit dei Lib. 20 cap. 10. as hath bene answered For although he saieth that all Christians are vnproperly called Preists and others in the Church are so called properly yet he meaneth not that there are anie such preists in the Church as Melchisedech or Aaron or Christ was but onelie that they are so termed by an vsuall and peculiar name which is not in custome of speach giuen generallie to all Christians This to haue bene S. Augustines meaning and the iudgement of the Church heretofore we may learne of Peter Lumbard How the fathers cal the ministers of the Gospell Priests Sent. lib. 4. Dist 12. â— to let the auncient writers passe For Peter first asketh this question whether that which the Preist doth may properly be called a sacrifice oblation His answere he maketh thus To this may be said briefly that which is offered and consecrated of the Priest is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is the remembrance and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation that was made vppon the altar of the crosse Yf then there remaine in the Church no sacrifice in proper and natural sense of the word as your owne doctour and Master of sentences confesseth there can not be remaining any Priests that maie so be called properlie For such as the kinde of sacrifice is such is also the kinde of priesthood if the sacrifice be not a sacrifice properly the priesthood cannot be a Priesthood properly but onely by a figuratiue and vnproper maner of speach That Augustine was a priest him-selfe Pag. 66. August Cofes Lib. 9. cap. 11.12.13 you labour to prooue out of his booke of Confessions in which place though he speak of an altar and sacrifice yet he meaneth not such altares and sacrifices as you haue erected and offered in all places This sacrifice that he speaketh of is the sacrament of Christes death the altar is the Lords table the remembrance of his mother in offering this sacrifice on the altar is giuing of thankes to God for her in celebrating the Lords supper Although I denie not but the superstition of praying for the dead was then crept into the Church so that if you will needes vrge that Monica desired to haue praiers made for her I will not greatly stand with you herein But that anie real sacrifice of Christ as you meane was offered for quick or dead in those daies that I denie and you can not prooue it by this or anâ— other testimonie of S. Augustine Where I saie that Christ hath committed his Church to be ruled by Pastors and Doctors for euer and not to Priestes pag. 67. you demaund whether this appointment had effect or no giue me warning to beware as though some danger were at hand what I answere But we shall easilie I trust driue awaie this craking Annibal from the gates of our Citie who commeth only to make a shew and hath no force to hurt Ephi 4.11 Ministers of the Gospell are ueuer called priests in the new Testament That Christ ordained Pastors and Doctors to rule his Church the scripture is plaine so that you may not forshame deny it now if these were priests trulie and properlie then should they haue bene so called and by this name commended vnto vs in the scriptures But wheras their office is declared diuerslie in great varietie of names yâ—t is this name neuer once giuen vnto them in no Gospell in no epistle in no booke of the new testament And maie we thinke that if the ministers of Christ in the new Testament were by Gods institution verie Priestes as these men beare vs in hand and had commission to offer so excellent a sacrifice as no Priest euer the like saue Christ himselfe may we thinke I saie or is it likelie that this name should neuer haue bene found in all the new Testament in this sense where are so manifold titles giuen vnto them as of Elders Ouerseers Rulers Shepheards Watchmen Ministers Stewards Seruants and such like Of all which names none pleaseth their humor but Priests they wil be called accounted as though Gods spirite which appointeth offices in the Church could not haue giuen fit names vnto them but would rather giue them anie name then that which is their proper name Anie man then that hath but halfe an eie maie soone see that the holie ghost in auoiding this name so carefullie hath giuen our Popish Priests a cleane wipe and both left them out of the dore and shut the dore against them though they striue neuer so much to creepe in yet are they to be driuen awaie by lawfull authoritie and kept forth as they that haue nothing at all to do in Gods howse But here M. Rainolds hath gotten a doughtie argument which I thinke because he knew not how to bring it in fitly in some other place hath halde it in here out of place He bids me shew where this Church for many hundred yeares was gogouerned thus which is as common an argument with them to vse his owne words as Dunstable hiewaie For this reason is euen their common pack-horse to beare the wholl burthen when all other faile where was your Church where were your ministers before Luther Whereunto that you may perceiue how farre we disagree from the Donatistes of whome you speake I answere that our Church was neuer so straited but that it might be found in all countreis christened and our ministers had the chiefest roomes till Antichrist by litle and litle had driuen them out and then afterwards
these men that modestie of minde that was in Augustine He was readie to be taught of all they will neuer learne but alwaies teach that they know not Thus hath Viues wtitten of you Master R. and such absurd and sensles fellowes as you that against reason and truth will defend your translations although differing neuer so much from the originall tongues because you are too stout and want modestie And for the Iewes thus much may be answered that howsoeuer they mislike and hate our religion yet the text of holy scripture they haue euermore and yet still doe keepe most religiouslie and carefullie Which may appeare for that there be Ioan. Isaac Contra Lindan lib. 2. pa. 77. as Ioannes Isaac a learned Iewe writeth aboue two hundred arguments against the Iewish opinions more euident and expresse in the Hebrew text of the old testament then they be in the latine translation And so likewise saith Andradius Andrad lib. 4. Defens Trident that they which holylie and religiouslie handle the Hebrew text finde therein farre more not able testimonies of Christ then in the Latine and Greeke copies which also Saint Ierome long since hath witnessed Hier. epist 74. ad Marcell saying that when he of purpose compared the Hebrew text with a Greeke translation to see whether the Iewes had not chaunged some thing in the Hebrew bookes through enuie that they bare to Christ he found therein much more for confirmation of Christian faith which could not haue beene so if the Iewes had of malice to Christ corrupted their Bibles as now is by our aduersaries vntruly surmised What madnes then should driue them to corrupt the text to no hindrance of our religion to no furtherance of theirs who doubteth but if they had meant such a thing they would haue practised their skill in those places especiallie that doe moste directlie concerne the Gospell of Christ which being otherwise your coniecture of the Iewes dealing about the Hebrew text is foolish and false You declame against the ignorance and reprobate minde of the Iewes you set forth the promises made to the Church of hauing alwaies the truth And thinke you that this maketh anie thing for you Do these promises of gods spirit and truth made to the Church belong onely to the latine Church are they included onelie in the latine translation What shall become then in your iudgement of so manie Churches in Greece in Armenie in Arabie in all places of the world that haue no skill of your latine Bibles Haue they no spirit no scripture no truth doth your Tridentine decree appertaine vnto them also of vsing onelie the latine text in sermons in lectures in expositions in disputations what meane you to talke in this manner You say God hath promised the Church that she shall be a faithfull and perpetuall obseruer of his word and testament that is according to your new commentarie that the Church shal lose the pure fountains of the Hebrew text but shal keepe a pure translation for euer And see you not the vanity of this deuise Confessed you not euen now that in Damasus daies all the latine translations were corrupt wherupon S. Ierome was intreated to take vpon him a labour of correcting them all Was not the promise whereof you speake made to the Church M.R. dreams hang not handsomelie together before S. Hierome set forth his correction and yet the Churches latine translations were as your selfe confesse in his time full of diuersities and corruptions Then if the Bibles in latine were so much corrupted before S. Hierome by your own confession notwithstanding the promise that God made the Church of keeping his word and testament can you by this argument prooue that by force of this promise the latine Bibles haue not bene corrupted since Saint Ieromes time and the Hebrew haue August epist 58. ad quaest 2. S. Augustine saith it came to passe by Gods special prouidence that the Iewes being so continuallie tossed to and fro and still continuing their hatred against our sauiour Christ yet kept the holy scriptures that the truth of Christs Gospel might so much the more be approoued amongst all men because it receiued so sure weightie testimonies of the most malitious enemies And to this purpose he applieth the verse of the Psalme Lord kil them not lest they forget thy lawe but scatter them Furthermore al that you can say against the malice falshoode and ignorance of the Iewes nothing toucheth the new testament for corruption whereof in the originall Greeke I maruaile what you can deuise seeing it was kept not in the custody of Iewes or paganes but of moste Godly and learned Christians Yet doe you reprooue it also as well as the Hebrew of the olde testament what reason haue you M. Rainolds so to doe was it also corrupted since S. Ieromes time as you said of the other The commentaries and writings of the Greeke fathers wil easily conuince you if so you say For the text that we haue is the same which they followed expounded and set downe in their writings except there be in some fewe places some small difference of reading If the latine Church had any promise to keepe Gods truth and testament in a latine translation will you denie that the Greeke Church had not the same promis to keepe it in the originall text while you seeme to auouch the truth of gods promis toward the latine Church as though you cared nothing how the Lord dealt with others so he kept touch and couenant with yourselues you make him by your argument to be vnfaithful toward the Church of Greece and all other Churches els in the world Thus are you driuen into absurdities and contradictions as needes you must when you mainetaine willfullie such false assertions as these That Caluine affirmeth the Romane Church to haue bene more constant Pag. 300. and lesse giuen to nouelties then the East Churches whereby she obtained greater fame and credit then the rest nothing concerneth this matter For though it be graunted the Grecians were more factious for the most part and wauering then the Romanes yet might they retaine the original text of scripture as faithfullie as they No people so froward so malitious so presumptuous so contentious so hard to be brought vnder the obedience of gods lawes as the Iewes and yet for all this peruerse disposition in them it is moste certaine that they had euermore and haue still the bookes of scripture in highest reuerence The Iewes alwaies most dilingent in keeping their Bibles from corruption and keepe them with greatest diligence so as they would not alter one letter in them for all the world And notwithstanding the Romanes greater constancie and staiednes then the Grecians yet were the latine Bibles in S. Hieromes time more corrupt for the new testament then the Greeke fountaines were Which maie be vnderstood vndoubtedlie thereof for that in anie controuersie about the latine translation they alwaies
conscience tolde you that if you opposed your selfe against this trueth therein should you offer iniurie to your Pope and Pope-catholike brethren whome the same so specially doth concerne You saie I know not what Antichrist is Contrae Sander pa. 6. in principio against whome I write and that sometime I make Antichrist to be the wholl Catholike and vniuersall Church wherof the Pope is head which to be a pregnant vntrueth he that looketh one the place may see Haue I saied the Pope is head of the Chatholike vniuersall Church or the Catholike vniuersall Church is Antichrist what will you be ashamed hereafter to write that in the first entrance write thus vntruelie without shame and yet hauing your selfe auouched so notorious an vntruth you dare make mention of Lucians true historie which booke as may seeme you haue not onelie read ouer with diligence and delight but also translated into English propounded vnto your selfe as worthie of your imitaion For to giue you that praise that of due belongeth vnto you Lucian if he liued could hardlie coyne more passing vntruthes or scoffe more kindelie at Christ and his gospell then you haue done A greater reason was he saith for that he abhorred to deale with heretiks pag. 5. who passe al other in pride and ignorance and of all heretikes he maketh vs of England to be the worst Indeede true it is that heretikes for the most part are obstinate past amendment therefore a great wearines vexation of minde is it to maintaine contentions and disputes with them whereof in the end small profit doth redound But this complaint of hereticall wilfulnes nothing toucheth vs who by Gods grace are far from al kinde of heresie and hold no other doctrine then that which the Prophets and Apostles and Iesus Christ him selfe haue taught vs which is plainly contained in the bookes of canonicall scripture from which if labouring to disswade vs you cannot preuaile no maruell is it And in defending the same we are content to be esteemed of you contentious proude ignorant and as you list We are not so much in loue of your society nor seeke your fauour and commendation so greatlie that we will ioine in vnitie with you against the Lord his trueth and Church If you thinke we are proud tell vs wherein our pride consisteth If in that we will not yeald vnto you nor giue ouer maintenance of the Gospell pardon vs Master Rainolds modestie in the Lord is an excellent vertue but the modestie that betraieth the trueth of God is accursed Other pride I doubt not we are as cleare from as your selfe or anie of your fellowes And for ignorance we may thinke it was some spice of pride in you to obiect it vnto vs who for anie thing that appeereth haue no cause to brag of such knowledge or to chalenge more to your selfe then you may safely graunt to an other For tell vs what learning is wherein it consisteth and howe it maie be gotten Vnles you haue some speciall meanes and as it were some secret waie to attaine vnto it which others haue not I see not why we should thinke that you haue gotten a greater measure of learning and wisdome then others who haue vsed as great indeauour as your selfe And what the matter should be I know not that you are sodenlie become so learned and that we haue lost all learning But were you as learned as euer anie was or could be your learning shall not be hable to hurte the cause that we defend your learning shall in the end deceiue you and you that now boaste of your knowledge shall then be ashamed of your ignorance To knowe Christ out of his worde is true knowledge sound learning and perfect wisdome Certaine examples you rehearse of our ignorant assertions onelie thereby to make our cause seeme odious to the simple but the reasons of our assertions you pretermit which is your common sleight continuallie to tell your readers that such and such opinions we holde and not to shew the maner nor to remember or answere our reasons Wherein I desire the reader to consider how vntruelie Master Rainolds hath charged me with a wicked heresie that in this man he maie beholde the conscience of a Papist He setteth downe for one of my sayings that Christ is not begotten of the substance of his father a slaunder moste manifest in a matter of greatest moment I haue not writen thus no I neuer thought thus I abhorre with my hart all such blasphemy against the Person of our sauiour Christ But in the meane time what hath this slaunderer deserued Let the reader equallie iudge betweene him and me and by triall hereof esteeme more indifferentlie of the rest of his malice Now the greatest cause of all that made him so loth pag. 7. was he saith because he found in our doctrine no staie or certentie which yet if it were true should haue ministred vnto him greater will and courage forsomuch as the doctrine that standeth vpon no certaine staie is easilie disprooued and ouerthrowen But in trueth Master Rainolds perceiuing our doctrine to be grounded vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles which maie not be remooued and knowing we will not yeald to mens doctrines and inuentions whatsoeuer differing from the holie scriptures but rest our selues whollie vpon the written word of God I thinke he was indeede somewhat discouraged as great cause was he should being sure his engines could not preuaile against the same And what greater steadfastnes in religion can be required then to holde Gods word which we professe to be the ground whereon we build our faith If you can shewe wherein we swarue from it we will not refuse your instruction But saie not nowe we are vnstaied when as you knowe we relie our selues whollie vpon the worde vnles you will denie Gods word to be a certaine rule and staie of doctrine We plant not our religion in mans iudgement vncertentie of Traditions in vaine ceremonies and deuises as you doe but in matters of faith and religion we depend vpon God whoe in the scriptures of the olde and new Testament hath deliuered to his Church one certaine vniforme and perfect doctrine to which we adde nothing from which we take nothing awaie in which we settle and ground our selues But let vs heare how Master Rainolds can prooue that the Protestants haue no certaine faith For this he hath propounded to himselfe to declare especiallie in this preface And I desire the godlie readers to marke his proofes which shall be I trust to their comfort and confirmation in the truth First he obiecteth diuersitie of iudgement amongst vs Pag. 9. concerning the Princes supremacie in matters Ecclesiasticall wherein is no such difference as he pretendeth if he listed rightlie to vnderstand the case The title of supreme head of the Church hath bene misliked by diuerse godlie and learned men and of right and properlie it onelie belongeth
to the sonne of God and may not be communicated vnto anie man whosoeuer And therfore neuer did our Church giue that title in such wordes vnto the Prince not yet did the Prince euer chalenge the same and so herein is no dissension For the Princes lawfull supreame authoritie in procuring for the Church a good and peaceable estate in defending of the same by maintaining Gods true religion worshipp against heretikes and schissmatikes in remoouing of manifest abuses and disorders in causing the ministers of the Church according to their offices and vocations to execute their duties faithfullie in punishing them if they be found negligent al this with assistance of godlie and learned Ministers of the Church by that absolute and immediat commission which euery souereigne Christian Prince hath receiued from the Lord God being not subiect to anie foraine power of Priest or potentat this also all Protestants confesse with full consent therein condemning the Popes Antichristian supremacie who contrarie to Gods worde chalengeth a sole supreame gouernment ouer al Christian Princes Churches in the world Is this now a good proofe that Protestants haue no certentie in their faith Secondlie pag. 11. touching baptisme Master Rainolds thinketh he hath found some contradiction betweene the communion booke which affirmeth that by baptisme children are regenerate and wherein the Minister exhorteth the people not to doubt but Christ will giue to the Infants baptized eternall life and betweene the disputation in the Tower of London the second daie 〈…〉 wherein the doctors teach that al those who are baptize◠are the sonnes of god If your eies were matches things that are but one would not thus appeere double vnto you Babtisme is the sacrament of new birth wherein our adoption by Christ is sealed vnto vs and we are made the sonnes of God as manie as beleeue both sacramentallie and spirituallie the vnbeleeuers onelie sacramentallie Wherefore this is not so to be vnderstood as though whosoeuer is baptized shall therefore be sure to haue eternall life For Simon Magus was baptized and yet condemned and so also manie moe besides notwithstanding their baptisme shal be excluded from fellowship with the Saints in Gods kingdome So that to be baptized proueth not necessarilie assurance and certentie of life euerlasting in all persons Why then might not the Doctors be bolde to saie that baptisme of it selfe hath not this force to make anie the childe of God that in baptisme none can be made the children of God if they be not his children by election For doubtles he that commeth to be baprized vnles he be one of Gods elect can not in baptisme receaue the gift of adoption which onely belongeth to those that are predestinate and elect and election is not begone in baptisme but was before the foundation of the world Againe betweene the communion booke and me Master Rainolds hath noted a manifest difference pag. 12. as he thinketh The booke hath sett downe an order of priuate baptisme and I finde fault with womens baptisme It is sufficient for answere to you that priuate baptisme is one thing and womens baptisme is another Priuate baptisme hath bene sometimes maintained and vsed in the Church but womens baptisme was neuer allowed in any tolerable state thereof neither doth the communion booke make anie mention of women nor doth giue any authority to women to minister baptisme And therfore reproouing and disalowing of baptisme to be done by women I haue not thereby spoken any word against our communion booke Concerning necessitie of baptisme wherein you would fasten vpon me some suspition of Anabaptisme I graunt baptisme is necessary if it may be had according to Christs ordinance and institution so that the contempt thereof is damnable but not in such sorte necessarie as that the lacke thereof without contempt shal bring a man into the state of condemnation If you will thrust out of Gods kingdome all that are not baptized you shall take awaie from the Lord manie of his deare children whome yet he will not deliuer ouer to your cruell iudgement and power of Sathan The communion booke appointeth not a sacrament of cōfirmation pag. 13. But yet there is an order for confirmation of children which for anie thing I know is in all communion bookes the same Shewe vs what fault you finde with vs for it and answere shall be giuen you sure I am in respect hereof you haue no cause to complaine of our vncertentie in the faith Pag. 14. About the article of Christs descension into hell I graunt there hath bene some diuersitie of iudgements yet so as the trueth of that article is confessed of all The manner of his descension may be doubted of by many protestants but your opinion that Christ in soule descended into hel to fetch vp the soules of the faithful deceased before his passion is generallie improoued Caluine saith not that Christ was damned aliue in soule vpon the Crosse as you foully slaunder him but that Christ taking vpon him selfe our sinnes and punishments suffered in minde those paines of hell for a time which we otherwise should haue sustained for euer Deny this and denie the iustice of God to be satisfied which taketh awaie al hope form vs of escaping the torments of hell and being throughlie reconciled with the Lord. Christs diuinitie acknowledged in our communion booke no protestant euer denied pag. 14. As for Caluins Autotheisme as you fondly terme it I haue answered if you can And if you list to read more of this matter I referre you to that which Lambertus Danaeus hath written against Genebrard and Iordane of Paris concerning the same Our doctrine in this behalfe is no other then hath bene the catholike doctrine of Christs Church euermore In labouring of malice to blaze abroade some heresy of Caluine your selues are now become defenders of heresy against the blessed Trinitie For tell me Master Rainolds if the substance of the Godhead be the same in the sonne and the father and the substance of the father be God of it selfe must not the Godhead of the sonne be of it selfe But you confessing in words Christ to be God in denying him to be God of himselfe take his diuinitie from him indeed For God is of himselfe God by propertie of his owne nature and substance which in denying you are proceeded as farre and somewhat farther then the wicked Archeretike Arius I could turne you ouer to your owne schoolemen and bid you to striue against them In Centil conclus 62. Quod Christus secundùm existentiam diuinam non est filius Des. letting Caluine alone Looke vpon William Ockam a famous schooleman who was not affraid to publish this position amongst his hundred diuinitie conclusions That Christ according to his diuine being is not the sonne of God which how he expoundeth there maie you see but if Caluine had written in such termes whoe could haue staied the outragious cauilling of
the scriptures wherein he doth not so much honour to them for placing them in the first roome as iniury and disgrace in ioyning with them anie other For as they are grounds of all true doctrine so are they onelie grounds and as in matter of faith arguments ought principallie to be drawne from them so such arguments onelie conclude necessarilie as euen your owne Thomas of Aquine doth directlie confesse Thom. 1. part 1. qu. artic 8. ad 2. Traditions of the Apostles are but deuised forged things which you make your second heade and therefore no staie for a man to settle his conscience vpon For tell me if you can which be the Apostles traditions how many and where they may be found If you cannot satisfie this demaunde as you cannot indeede how may you then make any reckoning of that whereof you haue no certaine knowledge how can you without falling builde your faith vpon fantasies such as they are The Apostles doctrine we haue in writing other traditions of the Apostles we receiue none for our beliefe Concerning the catholike Church which is your third head we reuerence and loue it as the spouse of Christ but we know that her duetie is to hearken onelie to the voice of Christ her husband and that she hath no authoritie to adde so much as one iotte to his worde or anie waies to dissent from it And further we know that your Romish synagogue is not that Catholike Church of Christ whereof we speake For generall councels and Doctors which are other twoe of your principall heades we esteeme and regarde them in their place we thanke God for them we reade allowe and commend them so far forth as they agree with Gods word If you thinke they neuer disagree from it your owne masters will correct you and tell you an other tale Are not these then goodly groundes and heads of faith that euen your selues are enforced oftentimes to disauow As for your supreme pastor of the Church we know him not by that name if you meane anie other but Iesus Christ alone For who so els taketh that honour and office vpon him to be the supreme pastor of the Church he is a theefe an Apostata an Antichrist make as great accompt of him as you list And where you saie we care for none of these groundes you speake vntruelie your selues indeede caring for none but onelie the last which is in stead of all the rest The determination of your supreme pastor that is your scripture your Apostolicall Tradition your Church your councels your Doctors your Faith your saluation your onelie staie in this world and in the world to come Scriptures you prooue we deny pag. 26. because we admitte not the authoritie of Tobias for inuocation and helpe of Angels nor of Ecclesiasticus for free will But you must first of all prooue which neuer shall you be hable to prooue that Tobias and Ecclesiasticus be canonicall scripture before you can inferre that we denie the scripture These bookes are not the holie Canonicall scriptures as we haue prooued against you by most inuincible and manifest demonstration by councels Fathers Doctors your owne Cardinals and schoolemen and we reioyce with all our harts that such popish doctrine hath no better scripture for proofe thereof then Apocryphall which because it hath a counterfayte stampe is no currant monie among the Lords people And for Traditions vnles you can approoue them by authoritie of Apostolicall scripture you haue our answere we regarde them nothing we know not from whence they came we will not giue ouer the certaine scriptures for such obscure and most vncertaine traditions For Councels true it is the argument holdeth not in this forme such a Councell decreed soe and therefore so must we beleeue Sett this principle downe for certaine and perpetuall in diuinitie and we shall haue strange beliefes enow yea scarsely shall we retaine any one true beliefe Two farâ—ous generall Councels haue beene held in Nice the first and the second In the first is condemned the Popes supremacie Can. â— in the second is established the Idolatrous worship of Images The first beliefe you will not alow the second we detest Let Councells therefore be esteemed as they deserue let their decrees be examined by Gods word and if they agree let them be receaued for that agreement if not let them be reiected for the contrarie The same iudgement haue we of auncient fathers pag. 27. Learned and Godlie men we graunt they were but yet men hauing their infirmities and imperfections Their learning their zeale their ages were noe priuiledge vnto them but that notwithstanding they might be deceiued in their writings and expositions of scripture And take you this Master Rainolds for a sure conclusion that in the sayings of those who are all of them subiect to errour there is no stable and steadie ground to build our faith vpon lest perhaps we build vpon error in steade of trueth vpon the sand and not vpon the rocke So that without tryall and examination no sentence of a father nor of all fathers may safelie be receiued Neither are we so addicted to the late writers pag. 28. as to beleeue whatsoeuer they haue saied we are no more partiall vnto them in this behalfe then we are vnto the auncient fathers our religion and faith hangeth not vpon the sayings of men be they olde or younge but onely vpon the canonicall scriptures of God And as for Augustine Ierome and Cyprian they are as much ours in the moste and weightiest controuersies as Luther Caluine or Melancthon And if they or any other be against vs so longe as scripture is for vs our cause is good and we will not be ashamed thereof And therefore moste false is it that you say our Diuinitie resteth vpon these fathers pag. 29. c. whome you so scornfullie compare with the olde fathers We vse not to alledge for proofe of any doctrine Thus saith Caluine Bucer or other but thus saith the Lord thus saith the Prophet thus saith the Apostle thus the Euangelist thus is it written in the scriptures thus we reade in some booke of the olde or new Testament Notwithstanding we vse also to reade the fathers both olde and new as much as your selues and oftentimes we rehearse their sentences and expositions not as proofes in doctrine of them selues but to stoppe your mouthes that crie so lowde in the eares of the simple that all the fathers are against vs it being moste true that they are notablie and generallie as I haue saide for vs You talke in this place as one that would saie something and telleth a long tale but in the end forgetteth of what he meant to speake Of all that you saie make your conclusion and then shall appeere how emptie and barren a declamor you are Now saith Master Rainolds if these serue not pag. 31. a man woulde thinke their martyrs testimonie should be irrefragable And thinke you
of the Church For outwarde succession is no more certaine in that Church then in others and it hath bene diuerse times broken of and discontinued by vacations and schismes for manie yeares together If then the Church had bene builded vpon this tottering rocke of externall succession at Rome it had oftentimes bene dashed and ouerthrowen but thankes be to God the Church is builded vpon a surer rocke then is the personall succession of your Popes or els of anie estate of men in the worlde and therefore whatsoeuer becommeth of your Pope or of his chaire and succession the Church falleth not but abideth and remaineth for euer Your stories written in time of Antichristes tyrannie what cause is there whie we should anie whit regarde them the authors thereof being infected with the errors of the Pope and daring not write for the moste parte otherwise then might well stand with his humor And to all histories that since the defection haue commended the faith of that Church we oppose the worde of God which plainelie conuinceth it of manifold and damnable heresies besides we could alledge sundrie writers in all ages that openlie haue reprooued the same The former distinction concerning the Romane Church pag. 25. here Master Rainolds taketh in hand to disprooue and to shewe that my paradox as he calleth it is impossible First he saith I graunted the Church of Rome to haue bene pure godlie Christian for sixe hundred yeares after Christ which forsooth I neuer graunted as he meaneth that simply and absolutelie no manner of corruption in anie parte of doctrine had taken place therin but onelie according to the state of those times and comparison of that general apostasie which afterward ensued So your conceit M. R. that this alteration should whollie be wrought within the space often or twelue years is so vaine childish that nothing can be deuised more foolish and farther of from the purpose No M. Rainolds notwithstanding Antichrist was not openlie aduanced in the Romane Church before Bonifacius the third yet was there in it no small preparation for entertayning of him before that time through corruption of doctrine and manners in that Church though it was in manie things corrupted before yet had it also great sinceritie which by little and little decaied more and more till Antichrist came and was reuealed and after Antichrist was seated there yet was not therefore all puritie lost by and by but in continuance of time it fainted and languished hauing receiued deadlie poison and no remedie being prouided Wherefore this roye of yours was indeed a vanitie of vanities fitte for such a vaine sophister as you are But now because Doctor Saunders and M. Rainolds boldelie affirme that by testimonies of stories no heresie was brought into the Romane Church or anie chaunge of doctrine euer made in the same let me put them in minde briefelie Sigisbâ—rt Gemblacensis in Chronico Ann. 1088. that Sigisberius the moncke an Historiographer mentioned by them both expresselie chargeh Gregorie the seauenth and his successours for maintaining and practizing not onely an error but an heresie also in taking vpon them authoritie to excommunicate the Emperour and other ciuill Princes This heresie hath euer since continued in that See and is at this daie by the Pope and his Popelings auouched and therefore by confession of their owne Historiographers Pag. 55. some heresie hath taken place in the Church of Rome contrarie to Doctor Saunders and Master Rainolds proude assertion That the Romane Church of later time hath not chaunged the faith which the auncient Romane Church professed Master Rainolds promiseth now to prooue by such testimonies as I must needes alowe for vpright and sufficient My selfe is the first then Caluine Luther Martyr Illyricus none of which euer dreamed of such a matter as he taketh in hand to prooue by their confession That I haue said the first Romane Church helde the purity of faith nothing concerneth the later Church in what sense I haue so saide is before declared not thereby to iustifie that Church in euerie particular doctrine custome or ceremonie but onelie that the principall and substantiall articles of Christian religion were in it maintained against the heretikes of those times Then that Caluine Luâ—â—â— c. do graunt that the primitiue Romane Church maintained and beleeued the Popes supremacie the sacrifice of the Masse reall presence and Priesthoode is moste vntrue as further in discourse of this booke shall appeere And therefore the conclusion that of these premises should ensue is like the vntimelie fruite that ere it be ripe falleth downe to the ground And as for the common place that followeth concerning the continuance of Christs vniuersall Church pag. 57. to what purpose doth it serue or what argument maie it afforde you we beleeue and confesse to the comforte of our soules that Christs Church hath continued and neuer shall faile so long as the worlde endureth and we account it a profane heresie to teach that Christs Catholike vniuersal Church hath perished from the earth at anie time For this assertion as you truelie prooue shaketh the foundations of all faith and religion But as you haue effectuallie and inuinciblie by manifolde scriptures euinced that Christs Church can neuer be rooted out and no man in the world can open his mouth against you herein so if you had also proued by like euidence of scripture that the Catholike vniuersall Church of Christ is nothing els but the outwarde succession of the Romane see then had you prooued your matters soundlie and confuted our opinion truelie and proceeded orderlie But hauing spoken much concerning the perpetuitie of Christs Church which no Christian can denie or doubt of you bring vs no text not reason to shew that Christs Church either is the Popes succession or els dependeth vpon the same For as touching externall shew and succession of Churches the scriptures haue foretolde that Antichrist shall seduce great and small Apoc. 12.61 13.16 rich and poore free and bonde and that the Church shall flie into the wildernes and there remaine of al which no word could be true if the Catholike Church were tied to the Popes Chaire and the Popes Chaire were the rocke that can not be remooued And yet notwithstanding this generall dispersion and flight of the Church vnder Antichrist the Catholike Church shall for all that continue although not in that outwarde strength and glorie in which sometimes it hath appeered and florished Now this long discourse following is visible Pag. 59. c. and the Testimonies of Melancthon Oecolampadius Caluine and Illyricus at large rehearsed to that purpose all this argueth nothing els but pitifull and grosse ignorance in this man who not knowing what he auoucheth or what he refelleth yet laieth on such loade as though with euerie blow he felled his aduersarie to the ground The militant Church of Christ to be a visihle companie who hath from the beginning of the
the Bible For proofe whereof Luther is charged to haue written contemptuouslie and contumeliouslie of the Epistle of Saint Iames which though it had beene true and could not haue beene denied yet did it nothing at all touch vs who therein agree not with Luther neither are bound to iustifie al his sayings priuat opinions no more then they wil be content to auouch what-soeuer hath beene spoken or published by any one or other famous man of their side We no more bound to defend Luther in all his sayings then they will be bound to defend whatsoeuer hath bin said by their writers Which thing if they will take vppon them to performe then let them professe it or els they offer vs the more iniurie that obiect still against vs a saying which was neuer either vttered or alowed by vs. This might suffice men of indifferent reason but our aduersaries will yet continue wrangling about nothing and will trouble the world with friuolous writings being neither ashamed nor wearied of any thing For what matter is it worthie soe much adoe and soe many wordes whether Luther euer spake so of Saint Iames epistle as Campian sayth he did or no If he had so spoken as in trueth he hath not for any thing I can vnderstand what haue they wonne what haue we lost what matter was it to multiplie words so much about Is this the controuersie between vs and them doe we striue about mens words and writings Is Luther our God or the author of our faith or our Apostle No they shall not bring vs thus from the defense of Gods trueth to skirmish with them about mens sayings we will not leaue the great questions of Religion and fall to dispute about matters of other nature condition such as this is concerning Luthers particuler iudgement of S. Iames Epistle The truth of Gods word is it for which we contend against the which if anie man haue spoken any thing let him beare the blame himselfe and let not the common cause be charged therewith So if Luther or anie other learned man of our side haue eyther interpreted the scriptures in something amisse or haue doubted of some one booke of Scripture whereof doubte also hath beene of olde in the Church of Christ we are not to defend their expositions or to approoue their iudgement and therefore in vaine do these men spend so much time and take such paynes to prooue that Luther vttered reprochfull wordes against the Epistle of Saint Iames which as though it had beene a principall matter for their aduantage not onelie the Censurer in his defense and Gregorie Martin in his discouerie haue spoken thereof but now also my new aduersarie Master Rainolds in his booke against me beginneth with the same and sayth he hath thought good to sett it downe and prosequute it somewhat more at large But I for my parte haue not thought good to spend my time and comber the reader about such vnnecessarie and impertinent discourses as these are which the aduersaries deuise and wherewith Master Rainolds hath stuffed his booke onely it shal be sufficient for answere to Master Rainolds whoe in trueth deserueth no answere playnlie and briefelie in euerie point to cleare the trueth from his cauils and slaunders for the satisfying of the godlie in this behalfe And first what a sillie argument he gathereth M. Rainolds argum that we haue left no ground of faith because Luther somwhat toucheth the credit of Saint Iames epistle for that Luther hath written somewhat hardlie of Saint Iames his Epistle that therefore the Protestants leue no one ground whereupon a Christian man may rest his faith I trust anie man of mean discretion can easilie perceiue For the iniurie done to Saint Iames Epistle by Luther should not be obiected against the Church of England which doth receiue the same as the Canonicall word of God but against Luther if he did so deserue and such as maintayne Luthers opinion herein But neither I nor any other that I knowe in our Church euer denied much lesse doth the whole Church denie that epistle to be worthely rekned among the bookes of sacred Scripture S. Iames Epistle not doubted of in the Church of England nor haue taken vpon vs to defend either Luther or any other for reiecting the same Indeed because Campian rayled vpon Luther charging him to haue disgraced that epistle with despitefull tearmes I answered that Luther had not so written of it as Campian affirmed which still I may truely holde for anie thing hath bene shewed either by any other or by Master Rainolds him selfe whoe like a profound scholler handleth this worthie matter thus at large Furthermore how doth that followe Maister Rainolds that if Luther thought Saint Iames epistle not to be Canonicall or equall in Authoritie with the epistles of Saint Paull and Peter that therefore he left no ground for a Christian mans faith to stay vppon are all the grounds of our fayth in Saint Iames epistle is all foundation of Religion ouerthrowne yf Saint Iames epistle should not be Canonicall Doe they that deny or doubt of that epistle destroy the credit of all other bookes of holie scipture God forbid that so we should thinke Diuers auncient learned men and Churches haue denyed the Epistle of S. Iames. Amongst the Auncient writers of estimation Eusebius calleth this same epistle of Saint Iames about which you make soe great adoe in playne wordes a Bastard I thinke you will not say that Luther hath written worse or more against it Euseb lib. 2. ca. 23. Ieron in catal And Saint Ierome saith It was affirmed that this epistle was published by some other vnder the name of Saint Iames whereby appeereth that many Christians in auncient tyme thought it to be in deede counterfait and yet did they not therefore ouerthrow al the foundations of our fayth Euseb lib. 7. ca. 25. Dionysius Alexandrinus writeth as Eusebius reporteth that many of his predecessours vtterly refused and reiected the booke of Reuelation Concil Laod. cap. 59. Iunil lib. 1. cap. 3. And so doth the Councell of Laodicea leue the same out of the number of Canonicall bookes Iunilius Africanus an auncient father reiecteth not only the bookes of Iudith Hester and Maccabees as they are worthy in that they are not canonicall but also of Iob Ezra and Paralipomenon which notwithstanding are canonical scriptures And neuerthelesse for al this they left some staie for Christians in the other bookes of Scripture wherein a man may finde sufficient ground to build his faith vpon Yea Ierome was not afraid to discredit the trueth of the historie written in holie Scripture concerning Dauids marrying with Abisag calling it according to the letter that is the true and natural sense Hier. epist 2. Vel. figmentū esse de mimo vel Atellanarum ludicra no better then either a poetical fiction or vnseemely iest and therefore deuiseth a proper Allegorie of Wisdome which cherisheth
So that by his comparison the doctrine of the gospel doth infinitelie in largenes excel al the scriptures of the new testament Such mad wicked sentences hath he throughout his wholl booke manie Ambrose Catharine saith It is the Popes proper priuiledge to Canonize scriptures Catharin in epist ad Galat. cap. 2. Ipse canoniz at scripturas reprobat or to reprooue scriptures to Canonize true Saints and to reiecte false meaning thereby that the holynes authoritie and estimation of scriptures procedeth frō the Pope Wherein yet he seemeth to haue foulie forgotten that canonicall scriptures are a greate deale more auncient then the Pope and therefore could not receiue theire Canonization from him But thus they vtter their minde that scripture is no otherwise the word of God then as it is approoued authorized and Canonized by the Pope which is in effect to bring the holy ghost vnder the censure approbation of a man and such a man as he I omit because I will not be tedious a number of such sayings moe wherein the holie scriptures of God are shamefully intolerably dishonoured by these men in their writings and disputations and yet to procure a litle enuy to Luther they accuse him with out all measure continuallie for calling the epistle of Saint Iames a strawne epistle not absolutelie in it selfe but onelie in respect of S. Peter and Paules epistles Thus much now haue I thought good for satisfiing of the godlie to answere If you will not be satisfied you may write againe twise as much more whoe can let you this matter requireth no longer talke CHAP. 2. Of the canonicall Scriptures and English Cleargie FRom Saint Iames Epistle Master Rainolds proceedeth to entreat of other bookes refused by the Church of England which yet he saith were not further disprooued in times past then that epistle of Saint Iames whereupon he would haue his reader beleeue that in alowing some bookes and reiecting others we are ledde by opinion fansie not by learning or diuinitie Wherein Master Rainolds your selfe haue shewed that opinion not learning ruled you when you writ this For Saint Iames epistle was neuer disprooued by the wholl Church of God but onelie by some of the Church but those bookes that are refused by vs were by the wholl Church distinguished from the canonical scriptures had no greater credit then they are of with vs as shall appeere The reason therefore of our refusing them is not as you imagine because they containe some proofe of your Romish Religion which we cannot otherwise auoid but by denying the bookes to be of Canonicall authoritie but because they doe bewray themselues of what stampe they are by most euident markes and therefore haue bin generally of the wholl Church heeretofore sette in the same degree that they are left by vs. These Reasons you sawe comming against you and because you durst not openlie encounter with them you steale by an other way let them passe But I must call you back a litle though it be to your griefe and trouble and require of you a plaine and direct answere how those bookes of the olde testament which are commonly called Apocryphall written first in Greeke or some other forraine language can be Canonicall For all bookes of holie scripture in the olde Testament were written and deliuered to the Church by the holie prophets of God being approoued by certain Testimonies to be indeed the Lords Prophets Therefore Abraham answered the rich man Lue. 16.29 requiring to send Lazarus to his fathers house They haue Moses and the Prophets whereby it is plaine that the wholl doctrine of the church then was contained in the bookes of Moses and the other Prophets 2. Pet. 1.19 And Peter saith we haue a more sure word of the Prophets meaning the scriptures of the olde testament And so the Apostle to the Hebrewes writeth that God spake to our fathers by the Prophets Heb. 1.1 By which testimonies of Scripture it is prooued that none could write bookes to be receiued of the Church for the Canonicall word of God but onelie they whome God had declared to be his Prophets But the writers of those Apocriphal books were no Prophets as may easily appeere For then they would not haue written their bookes in Greeke as is confessed most of these were nor in any other tongue then that which was proper to the Church of God in that time as Moses and the Prophets after him writers of the holie scriptures had done The Church was then amongst the Iewes and the Prophets were the messengers ministers of God in that Church and vnto it they deliuered dedicated their bookes Wherefore the Greeke tongue being not the tongue of Canaan nor of the Church then was not chosen by the Prophets to write and set forth therein the doctrine and Religion of the Lord so that the verie tongue wherein these bookes were written being not the tongue of the Prophets doth plainlie conuince them to be no prophetical therefore no canonical bookes of the olde Testament And here I omitte particular arguments which might be brought against euery one of those bookes seuerallie whereby it may be prooued inuincibly that though you entitle them with the name of Canonical scriptures yet they had not the spirite of God for their father Agaynst this reason you bring Saint Augustines authoritie De doct Christ l. 2. 8. whoe reckoneth them amongst the Canonicall bookes of scripture and so you say did the Catholike Church of that age But that this is a moste manifest vntruth appeereth by S. Ierome Praesa in Pro. Solom whoe plainlie writeth that the Church readeth those bookes but receiueth them not amongst the Canonicall scriptures So although Saint Augustine had thought them to haue bene of equall authoritie with the writings of the Prophets which are called properlie Canonicall yet was not this the common iudgement of the Church in those dayes as Saint Ierome doth let vs vnderstand who liued in the Church of that age In what sense S. Augustine calleth these bookes canonicall Saint Augustine calleth them indeede Canonicall by a general and improper acception of that word because they are red in the Church and containe profitable and Godlie instruction but yet not so as though there were no difference betweene them and the other which are vndoubtedlie Canonicall For in that very place Saint Augustine opposeth Canonical scriptures to such bookes as by perilous lies and phantasies might abuse the reader Periculosis mendacus phantismatibus and bring preiudice to sound vnderstanding And then giueth a rule to preferre those bookes that are receiued of al Catholike Churches before them that some Churches receiue of those that are not receiued of all to preferre those that the moste of greatest authority do receiue wherby you may see the vanitie of that you said before that the catholike church then iudged them to be canonicall And
further if Saint Augustine himselfe had bene of your opinion he would not haue giuen this admonition to preferre some before some but would haue straitly and precisely charged that no difference should be made but all receiued alike being al of like authoritie As for Daniel albeit some parte of him be written in the Chaldey tongue yet was it vnderstood of the Church being then in captiuitie vnder the Babylonians and that tongue is but a diuerse Dialect from the Hebrew and differeth littel from it My second reason Pag. 21. you say is of more force and if I prooue it you promise to be of my iudgement Let vs then set downe the reason first and see the proofes afterward I sayd betwene thosde bookes Apocryphes of the old Testament and Saint Iames epistle there was this difference that they were refused of the wholl Church and so was not Saint Iames wherfore we had reason to reiecte them and not this By the wholl Church I meant not onely the primitiue Church of Christians as you supposed but the Church of the Iewes before Christ which neuer allowed those bookes for Canonicall as your selues confesse which is an inuincible argument against them For had they bene Canonical that Church would not nor ought not to haue reiected them and other Church there was none then to allowe them So by your iudgement it must be thought that diuerse bookes of Canonicall scripture were neuer receiued for many yeares in any Church which howe absurde it is euery man seeth The Apostle writeth that vnto the Iewes were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3.2 whereby is meant his word But these bookes the Iewes neuer receiued and therefore they are of another sorte then those that containe the oracles of God And that the Iewes did not amisse in reiecting them it may be vnderstoode in that they were neuer reprooued by Christ or his Apostles for the same Their false expositions of scripture are often tymes noted and their errours confuted but they are neuer found fault with for refusing these bookes of scripture whereof if they had bene guilty they should not haue escaped reprehension This argument you deale not with but expound my words of the primitiue Church whereas I spake specially of the Church before Christ For though the Catholike Church neuer thought these bookes to be Canonicall as that word is properlie taken yet it vsed in some places to read them for instruction of manners Hieron praef in Solom not for confirmation of faith as S. Ierome teacheth but the olde Church of the Iewes neuer vouchsafed them so much honour as to read them publikelie And that the Catholike Church receiued not these bookes for Canonicall though it read them you haue alreadie heard the witnes of Saint Ierome who also in another place writing expressely of the Canonicall bookes Hieron in prologo Galeats excludeth these out of the Canon and calleth them Apochryphall Hereunto might I adde many testimonies of Councels and writers both olde and newe wherein appeareth what iudgement the Catholike Church had of these bookes Gregory the great whoe in your opinion was the head of the Catholike Church being Bishop of Rome Writers old and new esteeme those bookes for Apocryphall and therefore one that by likelyhood should not be ignorant of the Churches iudgement calleth the bookes of Macchabees not Canonicall yet set forth to the edification of the Church Greg. in Iob. li. 19. cap. 16. Thus for 600. yeares after Christ you see these bookes were not esteemed in the catholike Church for Canonicall which also must be thought of the rest whereof we speake seeing there is one and the same iudgement of thē all And that this iudgement hath euer since continually remayned in the Church is prooued by a c. 49. in Graeco Veronensi Damascene by b De sacram in prol li. 1. cap. 7. Hugo S. victoris by c in Leu. li. 14. cap. 1. Radulphus by d in prol in li. Apocryp Lyrane by e in prol Iosu Hugo Cardinalis and many moe whoe playnly doe affirme those bookes in the olde Testament that the Church of England now accounteth Apocryphall to be so and not as you would haue them taken canonicall Yea since your Tridentine assembly Arias Montanus a man of your owne side though not so absurd corrupt in iudgement as moste of you in his Hebrew Bible interlined is not affrayd thus to write of the same bookes and that not in a corner but in the very forefront and principal leafe of the booke There are added sayth he in this edition the bookes written in Greeke Bibilia Montani 1584. which the catholike Church following the canon of the Hebrews reckneth among the Apochryphall Thus it is euident that these bookes haue beene and are refused by the catholike Church and that our Church iudgeing them Apochrypall consenteth with the iudgement of the catholike Church and yours in receiuing them for canonicall haue not herein a catholike iudgement Now for Saint Iames epistle where you demaund how it may appeere that it was not refused by the wholl Church I would know whether you will say it was indeed refused by the wholl Church or no if you will so say then you shall as much discredite the authoritie thereof S. Iames epistle was neuer reiected by the wholl Church but by some particuler Churches onely as euer Luther or anie Protestant hath done For as the wholl Church neuer receiued anie booke for canonical but that which was truelie Canonicall so the wholl Church hath neuer refused any as Apocryphall but such as were indeed Apocryphall If then the wholl Church of Christ hath refused Saint Iames Epistle it will necessarilie follow that S. Iames Epistle is not canonicall But that the wholl Church euer refused it is vntrue as maybe prooued by the testimonies of writers and Histories of the Church Euse l. 2. c. 23. Eusebius that was the greatest aduersarie of it and did most sharplie censure it yet in the same place confesseth that both that and the rest were receiued and published in moste Churches Wherfore when you saie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that for this part you must credit me vpon my word herein you bewray either great ignorance or desire to quarrell The difference then which I put betweene the Apocryphall bookes of the olde testament and these bookes of the newe that they were reiected by the Church wholie these not so is fullie prooued whereupon it followeth that the Church of England had greater reason to refuse them then these and was therein led by learning knowledge not by fansie and opinion as you saie What learning or what diuinitie is your Church led by first to esteem of these alike then to alowe for Canonicall such bookes as you confesse and can not denie to haue beene refused by the wholl Church Where you say my reasons make moste against my selfe pag. 23. I
know not how I could haue written more plainelie more consonantlie to my selfe then I haue done But some are so froward that though it be beaten into them with hammer yet they will not seeme to vnderstand I saie Luther followed the iudgement of the auncient Church in refusing Saint Iames Epistle what maketh this against my selfe Can you deny but some of the ancient Churches refused it Doth not Eusebius prooue it when he saith it was receiued in moste Churches Then it followeth not in al Churches And would Eusebius haue called it a Bastard if some Churches had not so accounted of it But what if some refused it doth it follow therefore that the wholl Church did so you maie not thinke M. Rainolds to cast vpon vs such a miste but that we shal be hable to espie your walking along Saint Iames epistle was neuer refused of all Churches generally it was refused onelie by some Luther in refusing it agreed with the auncient Churches not with all but some as many as refused it But the greater number of Churches receiued it as Eusebius witnesseth and our Church is led by Gods spirit and true learning to follow them But for the Apochryphall bookes of the olde Testament I haue prooued sufficiently and can further declare if neede require that both the greatest part of the Church and the wholl Church hath reprooued them As for that Ierome sayth The Church readeth them it maketh litle for their credit S. Ierome a great enemy to those apocryphal bookes seeing he addeth immediatly it was to edifie the people not to confirme the authoritie ef Ecclesiasticall doctrine and that though the Church read them yet it receiueth them not among the canonicall scriptures wherein he hath plainely cast them downe from that height of authoritie and maiestie whereunto you would so faine lift them vp The Tower conference is here brought in to no purpose Pag. 25. Their scope was to shew that in the primitiue Church not onely some particuler persons but wholl congregations haue doubted of many bookes of Scripture and yet notwithstanding lost not their dignite of true Churches of Christ and therefore that Luther doubting or denying some of them cannot for that cause iustelie in any indifferent iudgement be condemned seeing whatsoeuer they obiect against Luther in this behalfe must light vpon the auncient Churches fathers that haue thought herein as Luther did Wherefore your conclusion that you set downe in the end of this your idle wandring talke is onelie deuised of your selfe and not maintained by vs. For you father vpon vs that we thinke we may refuse all such bookes as of olde haue bene doubted of pag. 28. which is as farre from our thinking as heauen is from earth and if any man haue euer vttered such a thing as I thinke none hath it is his owne priuat conceite not the approoued and constant iudgement of our Church The bookes in the olde Testament that we refuse besides that they carie in their foreheades euident notes of Apochryphall writings haue not onelie bene doubted of but clean cast awaie by the Church of God as hath bene prooued all the bookes in the newe Testament doe we whollie admit as canonical not refusing any parcell or word thereof because we acknowledge in them the spirit of God and see no reason to mooue vs otherwise For though they haue beene doubted of in former times yet it was vpon no certaine ground and by fewe in comparison of those that receiued them vndoubtedlie Pag. 29. Thus in a word the necke is broken of al your notes that follow where in you labour to saie as litle in manie words as possiblie maie be sayd That we rente from the bodie of the Scriptures in the old Testament Toby Iudith Hester Baruch Wisdome Ecclesiasticus Maccabees the praier of Manasses the song of the three children the storie of Bell herein we doe the canonical Scriptures no iniurie deuiding from them such bookes as are not of that absolute authoritie that they which are in truth canonical maie remaine intire and wholl together no more then the shepheard doth iniurie to the sheepe in sorting the goates and other cattel from them But which of our brethren are they that ioyne to these the two bookes of Cronicles and the song of Salomon If you can name any such in these daies it will soone appeare they are not brethren of ours You will not I suppose charge vs therewith and yet perhaps you will haue men suspect vs as guiltie thereof But your boldnesse is intolerable that knowing both the common consent and practize of our Church do notwithstanding both labour to caste wrong fullie vppon vs some suspicion for refusing these and furthermore also plainlie and most falsllie avouch that we denie sundrie bookes of the new Testament setting downe in a rowe Saint Lukes Gospell M. Rainold accufeth vs for denying some Canonical books of the olde Testament diuers of the new which all the world knoweth to be a great slaunder the epistle to the Hebrews the epistle of Saint Iames the second of Peter the second and third of Saint Iobn Saint Iude the Apocalyps a parte of Saint Iohns Gospell What ment you Master Rainold thus to say and thus impudentlie to lie Are you gone to Rheames and haue you left all conscience behinde you Care you not to publish in printe to the world so great so manie so manifest vntrueths before you vse to make your sacrifice at Masse do you not vse to confesse your lies as sins and yet will you print your lies without repentance Of these our Church denieth nor one doubteth not of one If you meane some Protestants in Germanie whatsoeuer they thinke of Saint Iames S. Iude the second of Saint Peter the second and third of S. Iohn yet the epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps of Saint Iohn they do receiue as canonicall Saint Lukes gospell came neuer yet in doubt or question amongst vs and I muse what the occasion should be of this your so fowle vntrueth If because in the Tower conference of the fourth day one said that the Laodicean Councel omitteth S. Lukes gospel it is too friuolous seeing that was a slippe of memorie or ouersight in him And though the Councel had so done as it hath not yet how followeth it that we therefore doe so My distinction of the wholl Church some Churhes is as cleare as the day it is to be obserued that whereas in it resteth the summe of this your second Chapter and you are desirous to haue it remooued yet you bring nothing once to stirre it That S. Iames hath bene douted of in such sorte as Iudith Macchabees the counterfaite Hester for the right Hester we embrace is prooued alreadie false and that our owne doctours refuse it is an other vntrueth For were it as you saie of that conference yet is it but one single mans sentence and that by waie of arguing
three notable articles pag. 142. c. out of auncient writers against the Bishop of Sarisburies chalenge first of the Popes supremacy Where good Reader I pray the consider the wrangling and cauilling spirit of this sophister Such tricks of vntrue dealing hath M. R. vsed many Master Iewell in that sermon wherein he bad defiance to the Popish sectaries speaking against their priuate masse and single communion and hauing prooued by euident testimonies of antiquitie the contrary vse and practise of the Church in the end nameth sundry Bishops and Doctors of the Church of whome he saith we haue learned these heresies as our aduersaries account them Among other he reckeneth Anacletus and Sixtus that were Bishops of Rome Master Rainolds taking vpon him to prooue the Popes supreme authoritie by the same witnesses that M. Iewell here alledgeth bringeth in the decretall epistles set forth vnder the names of these two Byshops which no man of wit or iudgement can once imagine to haue bene written by them they are so foolish vnlearned but yet the Church of Rome maketh no small reckening of them being the best euidences she hath to shew for her vnlawfull tyrannical vsurpation To what purpose M.R. doe you obiect those Epistles in the cause of supremacie against M. Iewel speaking of priuate masse and halfe communion Haue you thus solde your selfe to deuise crafty sleights that you may abuse the simplicity of your Reader Master Iewell speaketh of one thing for proofe thereof appealeth to those two Bishops amonge others you bring against him their forged writings for an other matter Replie Arciela 4. Diuis 3. wherein Master Iewell himselfe hath alreadie shewed his iudgement of them But you saie Pag. 145. what other bookes hath he seene of theirs beside these epistles And what though he hath not sene any what though there are none to be seene might not he therfore say that we haue learned of them this doctrine which no man can doubt but they followed and practised and left to their successours behinde them for it being the cleare doctrine of Christ and his Apostles those godlie and faithfull Bishops so neare the Apostles time departed not from it De consec dict 2 peracta And a Bishop of Rome Calixtus by name reporteth that the Apostles ordained and it was the practise of the Romane Church that after consecration all should communicate vnlesse they would incurre excommunication It is but losse of time to answere such palpable cauillation as this booke hath almost nothing els And were it not for regarde I haue to the godlie that desire the aduersarie may be answered though neuer so vnworthie of answere in respect of himselfe might be offended if he should passe without answere I could easilie haue suffered M.R. to haue enioyed quietlie the fruits of his labours and otherwise spent my time more profitablie to my selfe and others Next in like manner S. Leo and S. Gregorie two other Bishops of Rome Pag. 147. c. but long after are obiected and M. R. translateth out of the Centuries a great deale to shewe that by confession of the more famous learned Protestants as he saith the Romane sea had primacie ouer all Churches in Christendome True it is that the Centurie writers in that Chapter doe largelie and plainlie discouer the mystery of iniquity Cent. 5. cap. 7. Col. 774. c. that in those daies did mightelie worke for the obtaining of that vniuersall primacie which afterwards with much endeuour was gotten And as the Church of Rome was then in great estimation and authoritie farre beyond other Churches so the Bishops of that sea vsed all occasion to encrease the credite and prerogatiue thereof especially this Leo and Gregorie also not a litle All this as it is in the Centuries discoursed we confesse and withall iustlie mislike and condemne that ambition in those Bishops but what gather you hereof M. R. for your purpose doth this prooue the Popes supremacie Great and many vntrueths auouched by M.R. doth this disprooue Master Iewells chalenge Doe the learned Protestants also confesse the same what notable and shameles vntruthes are these Not one of all these examples alledged doth argue the Popes vniuersall power or headship ouer Christs Church nor commeth neere vnto it That Leo calleth it the chiefest Church that he requireth Anatolius Archbishop of Constantinople to make relation vnto him if anie matter of controuersie should arise that he willeth Maximus Archbishop of Antioche to write to the sea Apostolike how the Churches there encrease that he reprooued other Bishops if they did ought amisse that he appointed in some places orders and ceremonies and did these and manie other such things as in his epistles is manifest although he tooke vpon him more then he might or ought for aduauncement of his owne seat encroched much vpon the libertie of other Churches yet neuer ment he to make himselfe vniuersall Bishop Though Leo delt in moe matters then appertained to him yet was he farre from the top of the papal supremacie and head of the Church which your Pope claimeth and M. Iewell denieth This was his endeauour to lift his chaire aboue the rest to be accounted a chiefe Bishop to be had in greatest regard to procure to his seate a principall reuerence to obtaine priuiledges and prerogatiues aboue others but of this pontifical power vniuersal iurisdiction which afterwards your Popes vsurped he neuer dreamed for ought that you haue alledged or can furthermore alledge out of his Epistles And though you could what had you greatlie gained against M. Iewell who requireth a lawfull and irrefragable testimonie his being partiall as in his owne matter and for his owne commoditie Yet how farre Leo was from the papall supremacie may in one example appeare that he had not authoritie to call a councell but was faine to be an humble suter to the Emperour Epist 33. that he would by his commandement summone a councell of Bishops in Italie which yet he obtained not that the same Leo fell on his knees before Valentinian Leo was of mean iurisdiction and authoritie in respect of the pope to haue a councell that a Councell by the Emperour Martian being called at Chalcedon he laboured instantlie to haue it somewhat differred vntil a more conuenient time could not preuaile Doth it not euidently hereby appeare that he was not accounted neither by the Emperour nor the Byshops of Christendom Head of the Church vniuersall Bishop And this is the thing in controuersie wherof you haue not shewed anie proofe as yet for all your childish bragging and what you will hereafter doe I need not greatlie stand in doubte For your demonstration following which you full ignorantlie and vainelie commend Pag. 150. comparing it to the brightnes of the sunne in a sommers daie hath no light at all in it to shew that thing which you haue taken in hand to prooue
other and say if you can otherwise That you aske whether he amplifie a lie or truth I answere his amplification is true as he meant it and as it must of necessitie be expounded Of Priests and sacrifice enoughe hath bene spoken before Such priests as Chrysostome after the common manner of speach speaketh of we acknowledged which were the Bishops and Pastours of the Church And concerning the amplification which you say it is impossible to interprete of our communion if you had wil this thing is possible and easie enough We say therefore with Saint Chrysostome we see Christ that is we see a sacrament of Christ For Christ him selfe I thinke you wil not say is seene We see Christ sacrificed that is we see the sacrament of Christs sacrifice administred wherein Christs sacrifice is recorded according to his coÌ„maundement The Priest is bent to the sacrifice that is the minister of Christ ministreth the sacrament of the sacrifice offereth the sacrifice of prayers and thanks giuing The people receiue the precious blood nay M.R.S. Chrysostomes words are more vehement then so he saith the people are sprinckled imbrued with his blood belike S. Chrysostome was here somewhat too vehement in your iudgement The exposition I leaue to your selfe tell vs withal how the people are thus sprinckled in your Church that come not once neere the cuppe Holy water sprinckling you haue enough amongst you but this sprinckling of blood whereof S. Chrisost speaketh you must needes confesse cannot belong to the people amongst you Christ sitting in heauen is receiued in the Church who seeth not the meaning that Christ sitting in heauen as touching his bodilie presence is in the sacrament spirituallie receiued This Doctrine is the Doctrine of our Church and for this no man amongst vs needeth to feare the controlement of anie coÌ„missioner so his meaning be sound as Chrysostomes was to declare a true spirituall presence and communication of Christ in the sacrament not to â—â—siâ—â—ate a caâ—nal being and receiuing of Christ therein which Saint Chrysostome in manie places moste plainly confuteth and which he neuer thought anie man once so fond to imagine That Chrysostome compareth this sacrifice with the Leuiticall sacrifices 〈◊〉 â—29 and that of Elias prooueth not yet a Reall sacrifice of Christ in the sacrament Anâ—ther 〈◊〉 argument of M.R. Let your reason thus be framed according to your minde Chrysostome compareth and preferreth the sacrament of Christs supper wherein the sacrament of Christs death is represented and reâ—orded to the sacrifices of the Lâ—uiticall Priests and of Elias therefore as they offered some Real sacrifice of a beast so the Priest nowe offereth a Reall sacrifice of Christ This conclusion holdeth not Master Rainolds it is too weake Were you not at Rhemes you might see the force of Saint Chrysostomes comparison to lie herein that the olde Priests were appointed to sacrifice onelie a lambe or goate or kowe or some other brute beast but now the sonne of God himselfe is moste liuely yet spirituallie not reallie sacrificed in the Church when the sacrament of this sacrifice according to his institution is receiued Your eloquence in the end is nothing els but childish rayling necessarie for such a cause as you haue taken in hand to maintaine which cannot otherwise be vpholden or continue in anie reasonable account CHAP. 10. Of the place in S. Lukes Gospell which Beza is charged to haue corrupted BEfore you come to the matter pag. 23â— it pleaseth you a litle to whet your eloquence in rayling at Beza a man though much hated of Papists who loue none that loueth not their Pope be he neuer so learned or godly yet knowen to all men euen his enemies to be indued with excellent graces of Gods spirit which haue shined in him notablie to the glorie of God and profit of the Church Your spitefull reproches cast against him others are now of all esteemed as they are in truth fained slaunderous vnworthie of anie regard or credit His skill in the bible hath sufficiently appeered to your griefe and if you Master Rainolds would herein compare your selfe with him it were a token of your singular boldnes and arrogancie His skill in murthering men you saie was better which argueth you haue no conscience to deuise to speake to write moste vntrulie But say your pleasure your reward with God and men is certaine Many I knowe haue written against him much you may knowe that he hath fully answered them al. But of your Remish or Romish colledge of English students I knowe not anie that hath written ought against him in that tongue which he could read and vnderstand The words are in Luke 22. v. 20. which in the Greeke that Beza translated by construction indeed require tha the cuppe which is called the new Testament should be shed for vs. In which respect Beza translateth them otherwise For further knowledge hereof you referre your reader to M. Martin and so doe I for answere to M.D. Fulke And here you might as well haue cut of this long taile of your treatise which hath not in it one drop of learning or profit you rayle at me you raile at Beza you rayle at the holie communion pag. 235. which you cal profane bakerlie but reason scripture or proofe you bring not anie for your sayings I see you are a resolute man continew thus a while and I nothing doubt but he whose ordinance and sacrament you haue thus boldelie and wickedly blasphemed wil be auenged vpon that profane heart and tongue of yours But let vs heare what you saie First pag. 239. whereas I said if they vnderstand by the cuppe the bloode in the cuppe as they doe then is there mention made of double bloode you tell me I lie groslie and intollerablie such curteous speaches I haue no cause to thanke you for but let all men of wisdome be iudges whether I haue not saied the truth Thus you make S. Luke to speake this cup that is this bloode is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you Is not here by your construction mentioned first one blood then an other your reply is pitifull M. R. For to say This Christ is Christ the sonne of God this God is God of heauen and earth as it signifieth not a double Christ or God so is it nothing like this saying of yours concerning the blood in the sacrament For you cannot make the construction as you pretend this blood is the blood of the new Testament the wordsstand otherwise vnles you wil commit a greater fault then that wherewith you charge Beza so hainously S. Luke speaketh not as you make him this blood is the blood of the new testament but this cup is the new testament in my blood If by cup he meant blood as you affirme then our sauiour Christ his blood was the new Testament in his blood And is it all one to say This blood is
much rather against it For of this it plainlie appeareth at the first to euerie one that in S. Ieromes daies the vulgar translations were greatlie corrupted and that S. Ierome reformed the same by the Hebrew and Greeke text In S. Ieromes daies the Hebrewe and Greeke text acknowledged more sincere then all translations which argueth that the text was in those daies generallie without contradiction acknowledged to be purer then all translations whatsoeuer Then if such corruption crept into the Hebrewe and Greeke texte as you affirme it was after S. Ieromes daies but when in what manner you cannot tell Againe that you saie this edition of S. Ierome was by Damasus supreame authoritie commended to the Church maie easilie be disprooued or if he laboured to haue it in the Latine Churches receiued yet could he not bring it to passe Ieromes translation not especiallie vsed in the Roman Church for two hundred yeares after Ierome Greg. in epist ad Leand. For both other Churches vsed it not and in the Church of Rome it was not in anie singular estimation for the space of two hundred yeares after S. Ierome and Damasus as we may vnderstand by S. Gregorie whoe writeth that in his daies the Romane Church vsed two translations an old and a new This newe is the same which now is called the olde The name of High Priest if you thinke it maketh anie thing for the Popes supreame authoritie you are abused through your owne ignorance It was a name belonging as well to euerie Bishop especiallie of the chiefe Churches as to Damasus But of such speaches you can be content to take aduantage to the abusing of the simple Foure thinges doe you propound to your selfe to prooue concerning your vulgar translation First that I haue saide nothing to purpose against it Second that it is purer then the fountaines Third that although it hath some small faults yet absolutelie it hath no errour touching either doctrine or manners Last that to refuse it and appeale to the Greeke and Hebrewe is the highe waie to deniall of all faith to Apostasie and Atheisme These thinges Master Rainolds hath thus deuided not amisse now let vs examine his proofes of these points for performance of his promise First you saie that in commending the fountaines so much pag. 297. I have spoken nothing against you but rather much and all against my selfe If you can make your saying good herein we shall haue cause much to commend your witt and learning The reason that you haue brought is by you vttered in these words following For if the fountaines were so pure in the times of S. Ierome and S. Ambrose and the Church then troubled with great diuersitie of their Latine Bibles reformed one to the puritie of the fountaines and originals and we now finde those fountaines and originals differing from that reformed bible whie shall we not conclude that the fountaines haue in the meane season bene corrupted And what cause haue you thus to conclude where haue you learned to make such conclusions thinke you that this conclusion is ought worth Let vs waie it a litle together Master Rainolds and then shall we better esteeme the value of it First you graunt the fountains were pure in S. Ierome and S. Ambrose daies the translations corrupt Doubtles it greeueth you to confesse thus much but the necessitie of confessing the same enforced you Then foure hundred yeares after Christ by M. Rainolds confession the fountaines of the Hebrewe and Greeke texte were pure The fountaines of the Hebrew and Greeke text pure for the space of four hundred yeares after Christ by the aduersaries confession and all translations were reformed by them Now let vs knowe some certentie of the great alteration that followed What cause was there that the fountaines and originals remained pure so long and then after began to be so shamefullie and vniuersallie corrupted Againe what was the cause that the latine translations were so greatly corrupted for so long a space and neuer since could be corrupted Tell vs some truth shewe some reason alledge your authorities speake to purpose and leaue these vntoward presumptions The same meanes that kept the text pure all that while whie might it not continew in times following if you laie the fault of corrupting the fountaines vpon the Iewes as you doe were there no Iewes in the world for the space of foure hundred yeares after Christ or were they either vnwilling or vnable to attempt such a matter it cannot be denied but that within the compasse of those yeares the Iewes had as great opportunities and greater to haue performed so wicked an enterprise then since that time can be deuised Their malice against Christian religion was no lesse then the number of their learned Rabbines was as great then the troubles of the Church of Christ by reason of the great and general persecutions gaue better occasion to them then therefore if this corruption hath thus mightilie preuailed in the text may it please you to enforme vs how and when it began which request ought not in anie wise seeme vnreasonable vnto you For if you maie demaund of vs the time wherein corruption beganne to enter into the Church and otherwise wil not beleeue vs that there is anie in the Church may not we likewise require of you by as good reason what time this foule corruption wherof you speake first began to sease vpon the texte of scripture and if you cannot tell how may you looke to be herein beleeued The Iewes must be charged for all and the hatred which the Iewes beare to our religion must be an argument that now all is corrupted in the Hebrew Saint Ierome saide he was ashamed to see the Christians thus vnworthily and vntrulie charge the Hebrew veritie with corruption Hâ—eron in c. 17. Ierem. And so may we also trulie saie that it is a shame for these men to slaunder the Hebrew texte and to accuse the Iewes of that fault whereof they are not guiltie for ought that can be prooued in this behalfe against them August de civit Dei lib. 15. cap. 13. And S. Augustine entreating at large of a place read otherwise in the Greeke and Latine translations then in the Hebrew text not onelie dischargeth the Iewes from all suspicion of corrupting their bookes but giueth this rule that whensoeuer there is found any variety or difference in the texts we should geue greatest credit to that tongue out of which the interpreters haue made their translation Vpon which place Lewes Viues writeth thus Ludou Viues ibid. This same doth Ierome auouch and this reason it selfe teacheth there is none of sound iudgement that thinketh otherwise But in vaine doth the consent of good witts thus thinke For stout senslesnes as it were an hil is opposed against it not because these men are ignorant of those tongues for Augustine knew not the Hebrew the Greeke but meanlie but there is not in
had recourse to the Greeke copies and haue prescribed the same rule to be followed continuallie and Saint Hierome himselfe reformed the latin translations according to the Greeke then extant read in the Greeke Churches Thus then you maie perceaue that to be constant in the profession of Gods trueth and to be carefull to keepe the text of scripture from corruption are two diuerse things which you might haue soone considered if you had but looked backe to that your selfe haue written before For these are euen the same Grecians whose exemplars Saint Ierome followed in correcting the Euangelists and which he calleth waters of the moste pure fountaine and sundrie wise commendeth Hieron Marcellae For proofe that the Hebrew fountaines are by the Iewes corrupted pag. 303. c. you bring vs forth a place out of the prophet Esaie Chap. 9. First in that I say the Iewes haue not corrupted the hebrew text I say no other thing then that which the moste learned Papists of all times haue affirmed M.R. in this controuersie hath his master papists aduersaries to him namelie Isaac Clarius Valla Andradius Montanus Lucas Bellarmine and manie moe and that by the same argument which my selfe vsed that then this corruption moste certainelie would haue appeared in those places that directlie concerne our Sauiour Christ amongst the which this that you mention here is notable And although I wil not deny but that the Iewes might haue some purpose to wrest it from the sense that it might be aplied to any rather then to Christ yet the corruption is not so greate as you would haue it seeme consisting not in change of any letter but only of the pointes The letters remaining without alteration whatsoeuer is amisse in the pointes may easilie be corrected Furthermore if we reade the word with the same pointes which now it commonly hath in the Hebrew Bibles whereby the verbópassiue is turned into an actiue yet the place notwithstanding prooueth inuinciblie the Diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ For as well doth it confirme this doctrine if we read Vajikrae vocabit that is God the father shall call his name wonderfull c as if we read Vajikkare vocabitur his name shall be called wonderfull Although you that take vpon you such profound knowledge and cunning in the Hebrew language should not haue beene ignorant that this is the phrase of that tongue That the Iewes refer the last name onely which is the Prince of peace Sar-shaelom to the Childe borne all the rest going before to God him selfe this I graunt to be a malitious construction of the wordes but no corruption of the text One thing is it to expound the wordes in a wronge sense an other to falsifie the wordes You hoped no doubte to haue gained much more by this place then will any waies be yelded vnto you for that you adde of the Churches authoritie which you call the supreame grounde and stay is nothing worth being an olde worne and wasted sentence brought in rashelie without credite or countenaunce The wordes are plaine of them-selues and haue in them authoritie and stay sufficient to prooue the trueth of Christs diuinitie and to confute the enemies thereof An other such place you obiecte out of the Prophet Ieremie pag. 306. Chap. 23. v. 6. wherein that some corruption hath bene committed either in letter or poynt may be imagined but cannot by euident demonstration be prooued ijcro What mooued S. Ierome to translate thus vocabunt eum They shall call him I will not dispute The reason might be in the variety and incertentie of poynts or in the ambiguous acception of the word But because M. Rainolds chargeth the Iewes with so foule a corruption of this place only to discredite the diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ he must remember that the Seuentie interpreters translated it in the singular number according to the Hebrewe now extant In comment ad Hier. ca. 23. as S. Ierom also maketh mention yet were they neuer chalenged for partial interpretation of the scriptures being as many write wonderfullie assisted gouerned in that work and not smallie had of auncient time in regard And this was long before our sauiour Christ was come in the flesh and therefore vndoubtedlie the place was not corrupted by the Iewes for such a cause as you imagine vnlesse you will saie the Iewes in hatred of Christ corrupted the Bible diuerse hundred yeares before Christ was borne and before they had cause to conceiue any malice or displeasure against our sauiour Christ And so your Lyranes surmise is plainelie disprooued in which you rest your selfe as in a certaine veritie and vpon his worde are boulde to pronounce sentence against the poore Iewes for committing a crime which by cleare euidence of greater authoritie they are not guilty of Neither maketh it lesse for Christs diuinitie to read it vocabit He shall cal him that is God the father or euerie faithful man shal call him The Lord our righteousnes then if we reade vocabunt They shall call him the Lord our righteousnes And Saint Hierome as you might haue seene had you looked on the place your selfe translateth the text after this manner Et hoc est nomen quo vocabunt eum sine vocabit eum Dominus iustus noster wherein he sheweth plainelie there is no substance of matter more in the one then the other If this be so shameful so notable a corruption as you in countenaunce and shew pretende S. Hierome was greatly ouerseene that not onelie gaue no warning thereof in his Commentarie but vsed the same also in the text it selfe But what wil you say to those learned men whoe hauing more skill in the Hebrew tongue then you Master Rainolds or els your Lyra thoug a Iewe borne haue translated the word as it is now read in the hebrew Bibles no otherwise then your selues would haue it to be translated I meane Arias Montanus and Vatablus as in their translations you may finde whoe if they haue rightelie and well translated the worde then may you see that no such wickednesse hath bene practized in this place as you haue fathered vpō the Iewes And furthermore compare an other like place in the same Prophet Chap. 33. v. 15. Where this worde is vsed in the singular number without controuersie the Prophet speaking againe of the same matter and almoste whollie in the same wordes Thus you may vnderstand that the integritie of this place may be auouched and the Iewes deliuered from your vniust accusation many waies One example more you giue mean an other kinde Pag. 310. wherein no kinde of corruption appeereth at all In the Prophet Esay chap. 53. vers 8. the old latine translation standeth thus propter scelus populi mei percussi eum For the sinne of my people haue I smitten him The Hebrew text is something otherwise Miphshahh 〈◊〉 mi negahh lamo propter defectionem populi
mei plaga ipsi that is For the transgression of my people was he plagued Your selfe confesse there is agreement in the sense as indeed euerie one maie see yet by and by as a man without memorie or reason you saie the sense is inuerted greatlie altered Something would you gladlie saie but nothing to purpose can you saie The sense in the Hebrew now extant agreeing so fullie with the translation of S. Ierome which you hold as authenticall and consonant to the veritie of the auncient Hebrew Bibles how can you probablie charge the Iewes with corruption of this place there being no difference and therefore no corruption in the sense by your owne confession If they corrupted the text it was because they would corrupt the sense but here the sense runneth as pure and clear in the Hebrew as in the Latine therefore this text is not corrupted by the Iewes What Luther hath written of the Iewes and Rabbines endeauour in this behalfe maketh nothing for your aduantage Yet as though it had bene by plaine demonstration declared that the bibles are corrupted by them M.R. taketh vpon him now to shew the sorts and manners of their corruption And two he noteth Pag. 314. the first is by plaine alteration of points letters and syllables the second by deuiding words which by the Prophets were ioyned together And that you maie knowe he hath plentifull store and varietie of examples Sernetus is alledged neither Iewe nor Rabbine whoe by diuiding a texte of the Apostle in the Greeke corrupted the sense Thus trimlie can M. R. prooue the matter he goeth about although he speake neuer a word to the question The controuersie is whether the Iewes haue thus corrupted the Hebrew Bibles M.R. alledgeth an example wherein Seruetus of late thus corrupteth the Greek Testament No man now can saie but he hath wel performed his parte prooued inuincibly both manifest corruption in the Bibles and shewed also the manners thereof More perhaps anon will come to his hands for as yet nothing hath he found pag. 316. * M.R. saith he could note sundrie other particular errors in the Hebrew but that he wanteth a peece of that insolent vaine which manie of his aduersaries haue If he wanted nothing els he need not greatlie to complaine but doubtles much greater want hath he of truth and learning then insolencie One thing here he confesseth which the Reader maie remember M. Rain hath made a notable confession against himselfe that howsoeuer some grosse errors haue crept into the fountaines and originals yet commonlie and for the most parte the text is true and sincere Thus M.R. hath voluntarilie protested for the Hebrewe and Greeke text And are there no grosse errors in your latine translation or not so manie as in the fountaines it shall be prooued there are not onelie grosser faults in yoâ—â— translation but also moe manifest corruptions then you can imagine in the text In that you demaund pag 317. what reason I haue to thinke the Hebrew text so pure I answere the care which God hath for the truth of his worde and the diligence of them to whose custodie the same was committed Against this reason you argue but without a good argument That diuerse bookes of scripture haue perished is not denied But the Canon of scripture being after the captiuitie gathered by Ezra and other Prophets and deliuered to the Church that since that time anie parcell hath bene lost you cannot prooue And those that are lost of which you recken some in some you are deceiued they are wanting without anie losse or decaie of necessarie doctrine for the Church in those times wherein they were not extant And that the Iewes haue bene more diligent to keepe their Bibles from corruption then Christians haue bene to keepe their translations sincere who can doubt considering that in S. Ieromes daies the common translations were moste faultie as himselfe is a witnesse but the Hebrew text remained true sincere incorrupt and was a rule to follow in reforming the translations vsed in the Church And your selfe euen now confessed of your owne good accord that the Hebrewe text was for the moste parte and commonlie voide of all corruption which being true sheweth a wonderfull prouidence of the Lord watching ouer the bookes of his heauenlie word to defend them from such infections as otherwise through negligence and malice of men they were subiect vnto Now if the Iewes were either so negligent or so malitious as you imagine and the Christians so carefull for preseruation of the Bible how then came it to passe that in the Hebrew copies was found so great truth sinceritie in the common translations such notorious errors corruptions Andrad Defens Concil Trident. lib. 4. and that for so many hundred yeares after Christ Andradius a doctor of your owne schools a great master in your Romane synagogue hath tolde you alreadie that you haue herein vnaduisedlie foolishlie deemed that therfore more credit is to be giuen to the latin edition then to the Hebrewe bookes for that these were corrupted through the treacherie of the Iewes saith you cannot either note the time or describe the authors of that hainous fact or assigne the place or shew such other circumstances which might conuict the Iewes of this sacrilege that therfore the whol matter hangeth vpon bare suspicioÌ„ for which we ought not to charge in this manner the holie bookes of the hebrewes so auncient so commended by our elders so renoumed by testimonies of al ages pag. 320. The likenes of some Hebrew letters betweene themselues hath beene a cause I graunt of some corruption in the Bible but that not greate and such as hath hapned of negligence rather then purpose and may easelie both be espied and amended and nothing so grosse or common as in your latine Bibles may be seen Is it reason thinke you that for as much as some letters haue bene mistaken in the Hebrew therefore the wholl text should be condemned Is there not such mistaking of letter for letter word for word in the latine vulgare translation who knoweth not there is shall we then vse your argument against the translation which you haue deuised against the fountaine There is no reason to the contrarie For if diligence hath bene bestowed in purging and reforming such errors of the translation More reason had it bene for the Councel of Trent to haue taken order that the fountaines might be clensed if there be in them anie fault then the latine translation why may not the same be done in restoring the originall text to the naturall truth and sinceritie The errors rising vpon the similitude of letters and words may in the Hebrew as wel as any other language be corrected That in these examples by you alledged out of the Psalmes 100. v. 3. 59. v. 10. any such errour of mistaking hath bene committed in the text would haue bene by
and two with Pe. Wherefore you see how litle proofe of corruption this reason maketh whatsoeuer you in your ignorance esteeme of it That which Master Rainolds hetherto hath saide as though it were greatly to purpose Pag. 333. and worthie to be remembred he gathereth now into certaine conclusions and as the smith he beateth stil vpon the same anuill I haue alreadie answered enoughe to the wholl If any thing further be offered in this repetition it shal be hand led First it is neither Iudaical nor iniurious to the Church to thinke more reuerentlie of the Hebrew fountaines then the latine translation as hath beene shewed Yea absurde and vnlearned is it to preferre the translation before the text vpon certaine I know not what blinde surmises Secondlie if the heresie of the Arrians corrupted the Latine Bibles as you imagine whereupon they needed such correction and reformation by Saint Ierome how came it to passe that the Greeke translation of the seuentie and the Greeke of the new testament was not by that meanes much more corrupted for so much as that heresie preuailed much more in the Greeke then in the latine Churches why notwithstanding this heresie doe the fathers appeale to the Greeke fountaines of the new testamēt by them amend their translations The Arrians would haue corrupted the spring rather then a streame and Saint Ierome had more cause in respect of them to suspecte the Greeke then the latine Whereby it is plaine that your geasse of the latine translations being troubled and corrupted by the Arrians is vaine and nothing but a geasse at all aduenture That you say the Canon of the scripture in those daies was not by generall authoritie confirmed and receiued though it be greate vntrueth yet for as much as it pertaineth not directly to the matter I will not stand vpon it Two authorities M. R. alleadgeth out of the commentaries of S. Hierome vpon the epistle to the Galathians The Apostle in the 3. Chap. citeth two testimonies out of Deuteronomie not altogether according to euerie word in the Hebrewe text Saint Ierome among other reasons hereof vseth that for one that the Iewes perhaps haue changed something in their originals If the Apostle had alwaies bound him-selfe to the wordes in rehearsing authorities out of the olde testament this reason had beene of waight but seeing the Apostle Saint Paul and other Apostles vse not preciselie to recite the words of the text but the sence Saint Ierome had no cause to suspecte such a matter in these places For compare the 〈…〉 Prophets and Apostles wordes together and no difference in sense shall ye finde Deuteronomie Chap. 27. v. 26. the words stand thus in the Hebrewe Accursed is whosoeuer performeth not the wordes of this lawe to doe them The Apostle to the Galat. chap. 3. v. 10. alledgeth them thus Accursed is euerie one that abideth not in all things that are written in the booke of the lawe to doe them Here you haue moe words I graunt but what diuersitie is there in the sense againe Deuter. Chap. 21. v. 23. the wordes are these Accursed of God is he that is hanged Saint Paul Galat. Chap. 3. v. 13. alledgeth the words thus Accursed is euery one that is hanged on a tree in wordes a litle alteration in matter meaning none at all That the Hebrewe was corrupted either before S. Ierome or since Pag. 336. in such manner as you pretend when wil you prooue vnto vs M. R hetherto nothing haue you done as plainlie appeareth now are you spent almoste so that litle more maie be looked for at your hands Concerning points prickes distinctions resemblance of letters malice of the Rabbines and such like coniectures I haue before answered And lastlie touching the confession of some Protestants hath bene declared it maketh litle to your purpose Here M.R. answereth a question which reasonablie is demaunded Pag. 339. namelie when these corruptions came into the Hebrewe Bibles that is whether before Christs time or betweene that and S. Ieromes time or since He answereth as one nothing affraid that the Hebrewe was corrupted before Christ more after Christ vntill S. Ieromes age and moste from S. Ierome since These parts are handled by Master R. seuerallie First that the Bible was corrupted before the time of our sauiour Christ what cause haue we to thinke especiallie seeing our sauiour Christ neuer once chargeth the Iewes with any such corruption M. Rainolds saith it might be that Christ obiected the same vnto them although not recorded in the Testament Remember then that this be put amonge the traditions vnwritten of your Church and so you neede not to seeke for other answere as you doe Yet our sauiour Christ when he saith ye haue hearde it saide thou shalt loue thy neighboure Mat. 5.43 and hate thine enemie accuseth not the Scribes and Pharisies for corrupting the letter of the text by adding therunto the second member but for gathering out of the text wicked doctrine that for so much as we are commaunded to loue our neighbour that is as they expounded it our friende therefore we are licensed to hate our enemie This false exposition of the scripture not corruption of the text doth Christ correct For that in wicked Manasses daies diuerse books were loste I haue before answered If Christ reprooue not the Iewes therefore no maruell seeing that losse was not through their negligence but many hundred yeares before yet maintenance of open corruption in the text had deserued in them sharpe reproofe although them selues had not bene the first authores of that corruption S. Augustine in manie places by occasion speaketh of difference betweene the Hebrewe text and the translation of the 70. interpreters which he much esteemed euen as you do now your latine translation Yet in this diuersity doth he not at anytime accuse the Hebrew of corruption but rather imagineth some mysterie in the Septuagints translation Which plainlie prooueth that the Church beleeued not the Hebrew to be corrupted then Yea S. Augustine maketh it a matter not onelie of great absurditie August de Ciuit lib. 15. c. 13. but also notable impietie to say that the Iewes could conspire together in such sorte as that they might though neuer so peeuishlie and malitiouslie bent corrupt the bookes of Scripture being so manie and so generallie spred abroad That more corruption crept into the Bibles after Christ Pag. 340 you prooue by testimonie of Iustinus Martyr in his disputation with Tryphon wherein he alledgeth three examples of notable corruption committed by the Iewes A place of Iustinus Martyr answered A short answere may serue Iustinus spake of suspicion more then knowledge as being not verie skilful in the Hebrewe brewe tongue if we diligentlie examine the places it wil sone appeere that no such matter can be proued The first is out of Esdras Ch. 6 The words are these Esdras spake vnto the people this pascha is our sauiour
and refuge c. Now in the hebrew no such wordes are found no truelie nor neuer were which I proue because they are not in your latine translation And this against you is an argument strong enough that maintaine your latine text to be the authentical word of God If anie thing want it wanteth as much in your latine Bibles as in the Hebrew and so no more corruption here in the Hebrew text then in the latine Againe the Greeke now extant hath them not whatsoeuer can be said no more shal be proued against the veritie and synceritie of the hebrew fountaines then of the latine translation in this behalfe so no aduantage shal redownde to your opinion and defense The second place out of Ieremie the 11. Chap. v. 19. is by your owne confession void of corruption in the hebrew bibles now extant Your argument for reall presence out of this place is singular The Prophet you saie calleth Christs naturall bodie vppon the Crosse by the name of bread That is vntrue he speaketh not of Christs bodie nor of the Crosse nor of reall presence in the sacrament And was Christs naturall bodie hanging on the Crosse nothing but bread was bread crucified for you Els how maketh this for your reall presence A straunge presence a goodlie religion a wonderfull argument The last place in the 95. psalme v. 10. is no otherwise in the hebrew now then not onelie in the Greeke but in the vulgar latine and Saint Ieromes translation also The wordes a ligno From the woode your owne fellowes haue confessed not to be of the hebrew veritie but of Christian deuotion Then is it plaine enough that whatsoeuer Iustinus supposed the hebrew text was not corrupted And so your argument from Iustinus authoritie is sufficientlie cleared and it is shewed that these three examples proue nothing against the Hebrew originall text now extant That from S. Ieromes age errors corruptions haue stil encreased multiplied Pag. 345. you affirme to be very probable This was something faintlie and doubtfullie spoken That it maie seeme vnto you probable is not sufficient to cause you cast awaie the Hebrew texte and take in stead thereof a latine translation which to be since S. Ieromes time shamefullie corrupted is not onelie probable but verie certaine and euident as shal appeere So although it could be prooued not onelie by probable coniectures but by cleare and substantiall demonstrations that the Hebrewe Bibles were somewhere corrupted yet for al that no reason haue our aduersaries to make greater account of their latine translation then of the Hebrew fountaine seeing it may and shall effectuall◠be declared that the same vulgare latine translation which by them is preferred to the rome of the authentical written word of God before the Hebrew and Greeke originals is full of grosse faults errours corruptions Where I demaund how the Church can saie she hath kept faithfullie the word of god if she haue lost the originall text thereof Master Rainolds answereth she hath conserued the scriptures faithfullie although not in this or that language But why in the Latine language more then in the Hebrewe Greeke or anie other hath she conserued the scriptures what thinke you of the Greeke Church Did shee lose the worde of God in her owne tongue and kept it in the latine And must she nowe al other Churces in the world fetch their text of scripture out of the latine translation must onelie latine among them be vsed in sermons lectures disputations and all other such exercises as your fathers of Trent in their late meeting haue appointed Or graunt you them rather no vse of the scriptures at all nor iudge them Christians because they will not be obedient to your Pope whatsoeuer you saie no reason can you shewe whie the Church should keepe the word of God and Testament of Christ her spouse in an other tongue rather then that wherein it was written and deliuered vnto her whie in the latine more then in some other language and speciallie the Greeke seing that Church euer was larger in number and circuite then the latine and now not anie latine Church at all in the world remaining That which followeth in certaine pages is nothing els but rouing talke not worthy the reading where no argument is framed nor reason vsed no aunswere can be required Gregorie Martin hath his answere long agoe pag. 355. his Discouerie is disprooued and his obiections refelled throughly orderly and learnedly It wil be too greate and troublesome a worke for you to maintaine that quarel better it is to leaue it to some other that can doe more therein then your selfe if anie such be amongst you As for that notable corruption of great moment and importance by him obiected out of the 22. Psal v. 17. read the answere Verie like a letter was mistaken in the writing and printing as maie fall out in bookes set forth with greatest diligence and conscience soe Genebrard your Hebrew professor at Paris imputeth not the corruption of this place to wilfull malice in the Iewes but to chaunce Genebrard in Psalm 21. by reason the two letters were soe like and prooueth by testimonie of learned Iewes that the best and truest copies had Caaru Caaru they digged not Caari as a Lion Caari and that when Caari is written it must be redde Caaru Who euer denied but some fault by this meanes might come into the Bibles Fortuiò casis such as in your translation are plentifullie found is this a reason then of moment importance to prooue the Hebrew Bibles soe full of corruption errours that they must be cast away the latine translation Canonized for authenticall scripture and receiued in their place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and much worse Consider now peruse the summe of your wholl discourse Verie fewe places can the aduersaries finde in the hebrew text that maie probablie be once suspected of corruption Let vs graunt that these by you hetherto rehearsed are indeede corruptions which yet is plainelie false and not anywaies to be graunted but let vs for your cause suppose such a thing Tell vs I pray you how many corruptions haue you found score them vp and let vs know the number with al your skil labour conference yet were you not able to obiect ten places out of the Hebrew Bibles which you might probablie charge with corruption A manifest proofe and certaine argument of rare and notable puritie in them far aboue not onelie the diuerse translations of olde time but also your vulgare latine edition which you notwithstanding boldly but moste vntrulie maintaine to be sounder and purer then the Greeke text in the new testament and the Hebrew in the olde Let vs therefore somewhat examine your latine Bibles whether in them such corruptions may not be found as you haue charged the originall text withall whereby it shall appeere that there are in your Bibles of
in the verie conclusion Eccle. 12.14 God will bring euerie worke into iudgement with euerie hidden thing whether it be good or euill your translation goeth something wide from this true sense and telleth vs that God will bring into iudgement all thinges that are done for euerie error Pro omni errato Cant. 1.2 4.10 Cant. 2.17 be it good or euill In the booke of Canticles by mistaking an hebrew word your translator hath put thy pâ—ppes for thy Loue diuerse times In the 2. Chapter for Bether is put Bethel and so still is it standing in your text and of long hath stood as appeereth by Gregory S. Bernard yet is it a plaine corruption in the iudgement of al that can iudge anie thing insomuch as Genebrard hath not feared to make a chaunge of the wordes euen in the text it selfe which he hath printed with his annotations In the 4. Chapter in steede of these wordes betweene thy looks Cant. 4.1 your translation hath farre otherwise absque eo quod intrinsecus latet torque crine besides that which lieth hidde inwardlie and afterward for one chaine of thy neck it hath one heare of thy neck All this perhaps in your iudgement seemeth little who haue learned more highlie to esteeme the word of your Pope then of God and therfore so your Pope may gaine something or loose nothing you care not how corruptlie or sincerelie Gods word be red and set forth amongst you But they that consider how holie and precious a thing the word of God is and what charge the Lord hath giuen to keepe it faithfullie must needes confesse that these are indeed grosse corruptions and ought with all diligence to be searched and remooued out of the Scriptures The bookes of the holie Prophets allthough they are not so generallie and foulie defaced as some other Scriptures by this corrupt kinde of translating and by such faultes as haue since the translation growen by sundrie meanes yet are they not in your vulgar edition so incorrupt and sincere as they ought to be seeing they maie by the authenticall text easilie be amended I might set downe sundrie proofes and testimonies of such imperfections as I haue now done in other books And it were a thing greatlie to be wished that some man of learning and iudgement would throughlie and perfectlie discouer the corruptions of this wholl translation whereby it would fullie appeere what shame or trueth there is in the Church of Rome to prefer it before the faithfull originall bookes of holie scripture as it doth now in parte appeere by this that hath bene before alledged I verelie am afraid lest I haue alreadie wearied the reader with multitude of examples and the thing which I tooke in hand to prooue I haue not onelie in this treatise sufficientlie but also moste plentifullie performed The translation of the new testament is something more tolerable in respect then of the old Yet he that will looke narrowly into the same shall finde cause and matter enough of complaint against either the ignorance or negligence or malice of some by whose fault it hath bene noe better preserued in that holie purenes and integritie which the word of God doth require and especiallie this so singular a parte of his word Wherein alreadie both Valla and Faber and Erasmus and Beza and Camerarius and many mo haue laboured to shew the errors of that translation for which their paines as they haue deserued great thankes of all the godlie soe haue they receaued much hatred and discurtesie at the aduersaries hands For auoiding tedious length more then were in this answere conuenient I referr the readers for the new testament to those learned writers by perusing of whome and of that which I haue gathered here together and thus particularlie noted he shal manifestlie perceiue that in the Romish vulgar translation are manifold and almoste infinite faults of all sortes by adding by omitting by mistaking of letters pointes syllables and wordes by wronge interpreting the originall texte Which faultes they shal neuer be hable to approoue or iustifie though they weary themselues neuer so much with traueling and toyling and seeking some defense When they haue saide what they can say for maintenance of these corruptions it shall for all that still appeere by all learning and true euidence of reason that they haue neither the olde nor newe Testament in the entire and originall trueth thereof CHAp 13. Of the new Testament in latine and a comparison of the vulgar translator with all other of this age NOw M. R. beginneth to declame against pag. 361. the newe Testament in Greeke as he hath in the former Chapter done against the old Testament in Hebrew Wherein how vnlearnedlie and vnworthelie he hath behaued him-selfe the wise reader may perceiue by that which hath beene answered to his particular reprehensions And as no cause can be alledged to preferre the latine translation of the old Testament before the Hebrew fountaine so no lesse absurd and vnreasonable is it to leaue the Greeke and follow the vulgare translation in the new testament Their chiefest reason of greatest shew and likelyhood against the Hebrew text is the malice and impietie of the Iewes whoe being enimies of Christian religion may therefore be thought to haue in many places corrupted their bibles of purpose to disgrace and discredite the Gospell of Christ But as this is prooued moste vntrue so being graunted for true it can be no reason against the Greeke testament which euer since the writing and first publishing thereof remained in the custodie and handling of most godlie fathers Churches and Countries who had as great skill and care to preserue it from corruption as had the latins to kepe their translations pure and sincere Then what reason can you bring or what colour of reason can you pretend in the new testament to cleaue onelie to the latine and to reiecte the Greeke The latine you saie is purer then the Greeke So haue your fellowes of Rhemes indeede tolde vs and this they make their principall ground whereupon they haue bene bolde to followe the latine and not the Greeke in translating the new testament But what aduantage soeuer you thinke to make of this or any other such reason true it is and by triall so shall be found and hath heretofore by diuerse sufficientlie bene prooued that the latine translation of the new testament is more generallie notoriously corrupted then you shall euer be hable to auouch of the Greeke originall text That Beza writeth against Erasmus in commendation defense of the latine translation it is euident he meaneth not whollie to excuse it from corruption in all places but onelie in certaine which Erasmus found fault withall For otherwise Beza sheweth the vulgare translation to be full of corruptions as if you reade his annotations you may perceiue Wherefore this testimony of Beza serued your Remists to litle purpose but that they haue a sleight to
make such things as are spoken in some respecte seeme to be vttered without exception as in this place and many others may be seene Your assertions are now to be examined by which you labour to strengthen the Remish slaunder of corruption against the Greeke testament Pag. 363. Three in number haue you brought of no importaunce as shall appeere so that we may easilie thinke they are indeed your owne The first is the difference of our Greeke copies now M. Rai argumēts against the newe testamente in Greeke confuted from the olde It may perhaps I graunt be prooued that in the Greeke copies of the new testament some diuersitie may be founde So was there much greater difference in the latine translations as your selfe cannot deny Then what maketh this for the latine translation against the Greeke fountaine if you say the latine was corrected I answere it was indede corrected but according to the Greeke and the Greeke nowe remaineth still which maie be prooued to be not onelie as pure as the latine but purer by many degrees For what reason haue you to saie that the latine translation euer since the correction hath bene preserued faithfullie without corruption but the Greeke text it selfe after which it was corrected became forthwith distayned and replenished with grosse corruptions Our Greeke testament for the moste parte and in a manner euerie where agreeth fullie with that copie which the auncient Greeke Church vsed and which therefore vndoubtedlie was the true originall Greeke text of the newe testament And as the olde latine Church reformed her translations according to the copies vsed in the Greek Churches so shall it neuer be prooued but that the same Greeke copies haue continued still as free from corruption as the latine translations haue wherefore the difference of our Greeke copies nowe from some olde maketh nothing against the puritie and authoritie of our Greeke Testament vnles you can shewe by euident proofe that the Greeke Testament nowe extant differeth from that which the Greeke Churches in times past generallie vsed Some difference there might be I denie not in such infinite multitude of copies But what then is no copie now therefore to be alowed Maie we not also shewe the like difference betwene these latter editions of your latine translation and some other of elder time you knowe we can and it is by your owne writers confessed acknowledged Is this then a learned obseruation is this a good conclusion is this a sound reason against the greek testament such arguments runne for currant at Rhemes where popish blindnes raigneth but being a litle opened and laid forth in the light are by and by espied to be naught Of this difference twoe examples you alledge the former is the story of the adulterous woman in the eight of S. Iohn which although some Greeke copies haue wanted as apeereth by the Syriake interpreter by Chrysostom by Nonnus by Ierome yet others of as great authoritie had it So this difference is not through later corruption nor prooueth no more that the Greeke testament nowe is to be reiected then it was in S. Chrysostomes daies And furthermore this storie being in your vulgare translation what can you deuise against the Greeke more then the latine The Greeke and latine agreeing how is the Greeke more corrupt then the Latine The other is in the Epistle to the Ephesians Chap. 3. verse 14. Wherein Saint Ierome saith certaine wordes were added in the latine Domini nostri Iesu Christi not being in the Greeke But that herein Saint Ierome was deceiued appeereth by S. Chrystome who readeth the wordes in the Greeke as you may see in his Greeke commentaries And by this one example we may further note what diligence Saint Ierome vsed some time in correcting the latine according to the Greeke that denieth wordes to be in the Greeke which yet are found in Saint Chrysostomes copies and manie moe Your second obseruation is of rashe additions which haue bene made in the Greeke text Pag. 365. If this be an argument of anie force against the testament in Greeke it must haue much more weight against your common translation which is so full of additions both in the old testament as I haue shewed and also in the new as hath bene faithfullie declared by others Your examples are but twoe the one in Saint Iohns Gospell Chap. 8. vers 59. It may indeede appeere that those last words of the verse passing through the midst of them and so departed haue bene added But this corruption may be espied and corrected by auncient copies and so in this respecte no cause to reiecte or disallowe the wholl text in Greeke The other is the conclusion of the Lordes prayer For thine is the kingdome the power and the glorie for euer and euer Amen This peece as you call it your latine hath not our Greeke copies haue That some had it not in times past I confesse that others had it is plaine by the Syriake translator if you suspecte our copy of corruption why may not weas probably suspecte the same of yours and we haue as iust cause to be offended with you for omitting this as you with vs for so glorious singing and saying of it The third obseruation is pa 3. 67. that the Greeke testaments oftentimes omit that which they should not Examples in Luc. Chap. 1. v. 35. and Chapter 17. v. 36. For the first you might haue found that in many greeke copies now extant and vsed the wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of thee are not omitted and that hath Beza noted and therefore supplyed those wordes in the greeke of the last Geneuian edition Your reproche of Anabaptisme is ridiculous The same maie be answered of the second For that 3 6. verse of Luc. 17. is extant in sundrie greeke editions as well as in your latine translation But what maketh all this to purpose Conclude hereof an argument if you can that therfore the greeke testament is more corrupted then the latine What a pitifull syllogisme will this be that must seuerallie of these places be concluded that therfore the greeke testament is more corrupt then the latine vulgar edition because the latine is in some places not so faulty as some Greeke copies either are or haue bene supposed to be Your last and principall reason pag. 371. c. why your Latine translator ought to be preferred before all other toucheth not the cause in hand as your owne wordes doe witnesse The controuesie is not which translation is best and moste to be preferred but whether this latine edition of your translator whosoeuer he were be worthely of your Church preferred before the originall fountaine Admit he was indued with such qualities as are moste requisite in faithfull translators of scripture in respect thereof deserueth greater creditte then the rest doth it therefore followe Master Rainolds that we must preferre him before the writers of holie scripture themselues was he of sounder religion
to leaue the ordinarie translation of the Bible and to appeale to the Hebrew Greeke and such new diuerse translations as the Protestans haue made THis absurd Chapter M. R. pag. 406. c. beginneth with Castalion translating long sentences out of the preface of his Bible to King Edwarde the Sixt wherein how vntrulie it is obiected vnto him that he thinketh the Messias promised in the law not to be come as yet and that he would haue euery man left to his owne priuate iudgement I will not loose time to declare Let Castalion say and write what he list and let M. R. alledge at his pleasure store of testimonies out of such authors whoe can denie him libertie so to do or who can thinke him worthie answere therein when he hath so done As Saint Ierome being vrged with Tertullians opinion answered De Tertulliano nihilamplius dico quà m Ecclesia hominem non fuisse That he was not a man of the Church so will answere no more about Castalion but that he was a man not sound in some points of the Catholike faith and religion of Christ as by his dealings and writings hath appeered and therefore we make no greate account of him nor haue regard what assertions he held what counsell he gaue what can be rehearsed out of his workes Al this was vainely brought in and no lesse vaine is it that you talke of neglecting all antiquity suspending our religion vpon the onelie testament translated after the new guise where you saie is found more varietie then there are conlours in the rainebowe Doe we neglect antiquitie or you rather For which is more auncient Master Rainolds the Hebrewe and Greeke or the Latine and doe not you suspend your religion vpon the testament translated that haue noe scripture in your Church but onelie a translation of which I maie trulie saie that greater imperfections and moe corruptions are found therein then in all our English translations together can be espied we depend not vpon anie translation English or Latine or of other language no otherwise then the same agreeth with the originall text but your wholl Church indeed is hanged vpon the latine translation onelie which how bad it is hath partlie bene shewed alreadie and if need require shall much more be discouered That you aske which Hebrewe which Greeke I meane are you so ignorant not to knowe the Hebrewe Bible and greeke testament How manie Hebrews how manie greeks haue you vnles you meane certaine editions of the greeke testament wherein is found small varietie of anie moment pag. 411. To prooue that the departing from the latine translation is the verie introduction to Apostasie you propound one example of the heretikes in Germanie called Antinomi whoe holde M. Rai chargeth vs with the heresie of the Antinomies most vntruelie as Sleidan writeth that how wickedlie soeuer a man liueth yet if he beleeue the gospell he shall be iustified and this you saie is the verie conclusion of the Protestants common doctrine of iustification by faith What need you M. Rainolds in this place thus falselie and malitiouslie to slaunder vs Doe we teach any such doctrine as this in our Church doe we giue libertie of licentious life to the professors of the gospel doth iustification by faith inferre this wicked and detestable conclusion your conscience can tell you that you speake vntrulie If hope of repentance be left for such slaunderers and blaspehmers God giue you repentance otherwise I doubt not the Lord will auenge in time such reproches against his holie religion Let vs now consider your proceeding against these men First pag 411. fathers and councells are by them you saie not regarded which I graunt may well be that such wicked men will regard neither fathers nor Councells but this can not be vnderstood of vs who haue the fathers and the Councells in such reuerence and regard as meet is we should Then Saint Iames is also by them reiected as contrarie to Saint Paull They that reiecte Saint Iames be they Antinomi or whoesoeuer let them answere for it them selues this appertaineth not vnto vs but hereof hath bene saide enough before Thirdelie the epistle to the Hebrews is denyed by Beza and Caluine to be Saint Paule What then is it denyed therefore to be holy scripture And for Illyricus he is fo far from denying this Epistle to be Canonicall scripture that he thinketh the same to be written by Saint Paul himselfe and to be amonst excellent and necessarie part of the Scripture as you maie reade in his preface vpon that epistle Fourthlie Saint Peters place is brought in which helpeth litle 2. pet 1.20 whether we read the wordes by good workes according to the latine translation or leaue them out according to the greeke veritie That our calling election is confirmed by good workes maketh nothing against iustification by faith Will you saie we are elected and called by our workes that is grosse herefie worsse then Pelagianisme But Saint Peter biddeth vs to make our vocation and election sure by good workes and yet you know your selues and graunt that our vocation and election is wrought without anie meanes of good workes because we are elected before the world and before our vocation our workes were onelie wicked what maketh all this then for merite of good workes that they are testimonies and arguments of our election and effectuall vocation 1 Pet. 1 2◠Fiftlie an other pregnant place is brought out of the first of Saint Peter against which no exception can be made whereby you say is prooued first that we haue free wil which I graunt we haue after we are regenerate Secondlie that we purifie our selues from sinne as though we denied that after grace receaued we ought and in some measure might labour against the sinnes and corruptions of our soule Thirdlie that good workes are necessarily required of Christian men this indede confuteth those heretikes of whome you speake but maketh nothing against vs who thinke teach and continuallie preach that good workes are necessarie for al Christians otherwise they shall neuer see the kingdome of god so that we are as far from that damnable heresie of the Anabaptists and Antinomies as heauen is from earth Further you proceede to a place of Saint Paul Phil. 1. v. 28 where anie man of knowledge maie soone perceaue that your translator was deceaued fouly when he translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cause the word signifying not a cause but a plaine declaration or proofe And this is the manifest meaning of Saint Paul in that place that as the malice and rage of the wicked enemies of the Church is an argument of their condemnation so the patience of the godly in suffering such afflictions is an euident proofe that they are the children of god and therefore shal inherit eternal life Not Beza therfore but you and your translator haue altered the text and peruerted the sense of this scripture As for
imagined presence of Christs bodie in the sacrament which being graunted according to your doctrine of transsubstantiation inferreth moste necessarilie that Christs bodie at once is both compassed in a litle bread which is contrarie to the nature of a mans true bodie and also is not compassed therein as sitting in heauen and hauing the naturall properties of a true bodie which cannot be brought within so narrowe a compasse as is your wafer cake This is repugnant to scripture to reason to Gods ordinaunce and therefore a moste absurde and impossible thing is it that Christs bodie should remaine a true naturall bodie and yet at once be contained in so small a compasse as you teach In that Christ and Peter walked on the water no such inconuenience nor absurditie can be found whether the waters were made by miracle firme as the ground or the bodies were sustained by Gods power that they suncke not Christ might beare vp him-selfe and Peter from sincking downe by his diuine power and chaunge no naturall propertie of his or Peters bodie but Christs bodie can not be brought into that slender compasse of your mathematicall cake without destruction of all properties incident vnto a natural body So then betweene these two is no likenes at all as any man not blinded with Popish folly and not wilfullie shutting his eyes against the cleare light may manifestlie perceiue Wherefore distrusting this argument you protest that your note consisteth not so much thereupon as in the authoritie of Epiphanius whoe hath not anie worde at all to this purpose For tell vs Master Rainolds doth Epiphanius drawe an argumente from Christs walking on the water to prooue his bodie reallie present in the sacramentall bread No such matter can you finde in Epiphanius or any auncient father of Christs Church That which Christ hath said he that beleeueth not to be true is fallen from grace and saluation as Epiphanius writeth but Christ hath neuer said that his bodie should be in the compasse of a litle bread Howbeit what talke you of a litle bread when you teach no bread at all remaineth but onelie signes and shadowes of bread False is your doctrine and foolish is your argument but bad reasons are good enoughe for such a bad religion Of Peters walking on the water pag. 498 is gathered an other argument of like qualitie to prooue the Popes supreme authoritie which argument was first inuented and deuised by Saint Bernarde in his second booke and eight Chapter to Eugenius a Pope Manie waters are many people Peter walked on the waters therefore Peter and his successors are rulers ouer manie people saith good Saint Bernarde to whome your Pope is greatlie bound for deuising such a fine argument which no auncient Doctor was able to finde But must we now receiue Bernards phantasies for substantiall proofes of the papall supremacie No Master Rainolds Saint Bernarde hath no warrant to make allegories at his pleasure for confirmation of that Antichristian tiranny which in those daies was established Your comparison of this argument with that of Christs about the brasen serpent and of Pauls concerning Isaac and Ismael is no better then blasphemous Might Saint Bernarde with like authoritie reason thus Peter walked on the waters therefore he and his successors are supreme gouernours of the vniuersall Church as Christ did shew the manner of his death by the lifting vp of the brasen serpent in the desert or as Saint Paul did prooue the haued and persecution of false brethren against the true Christians by example of Ismael and Isaac Had Bernard the fullnes of wisdome and trueth that was in Christ was Bernard alwaies directed with that spirit wherewith Saint Paul expounded the scriptures of God Here we may see how baselie you thinke of Gods word to match therewith mens seelie expositions and applications such as Saint Bernards often times were and this moste notablie is An argument is gathered for workes of supererogation pag. 499. out of the Samaritanes wordes whatsoeuer thou shalt bestow more or as it is by them translated Luc. 10.35 whatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate This argument saith Master Rainolds followeth wel enough and is Saint Augustins conclusion to prooue that Saint Paul did supererogate when he might haue receiued all duties for preaching the Gospell but would not That men may remit some part of their due and doe more towardes men outwardlie then they can of necessitie be vrged to doe no man will denie and thus may one man be said to supererogate towards another but what maketh this for workes of supererogation towards God whoe requireth both inward and outward obedience of vs in moste absolute manner For reall presence a like argument to the first is gathered of Christs transfiguration Pag. 499. whereof yet Master Rainolds being ashamed saith it is not their argument Matt. 17. â— but onelie a deduction that Christ maie giue vs his bodie in forme of bread and wine A proper deduction no doubt of a glorious bodie to prooue no bodie That Saints can heare and helpe vs euerie where pag. 500. because they are like to Angels is a verie bad argument Mat. 22.30 considering that neither Angels can so do for then were they of equall power with God and though Saints are like to Angels as in other things so in this that they marrie not yet it followeth not that therefore they are equall to Angels You are glad of such arguments hauing no other but if ye had better ye would not esteeme such Ioseph wrapped Christs bodie in sindon pag. 501. Therefore Christs bodie on the altar must be laid in pure linnen Mat. 27.59 In this argument Master Rainolds cannot tell what I mislike whether the reall presence or the linnen vsed at the altar as it was in the sepulcher or the relation from one to the other I answere in a worde I mislike all there being no trueth in anie of all The women came to beholde the sepulcher pag. 502. Ergo we must goe to the holie sepulcher in pilgrimage Matt 28.1 This argument Master Rainolds confesseth cannot indeede prooue that we must but that we maie goe in pilgrimage by example of those godlie and zealous women which yet is a false and fond deduction seing there is no such like cause for vs to goe as was for them That Christ appeered to the twoe disciples in another forme pag. 504. cannot prooue that he is in the sacrament in forme of bread Mark 16.12 for somuch as in Christs bodie noe alteration at this time was wrought but onelie the disciples eies were helde that they know him not as Saint Luke expreslie noteth Luk. 34.16 For your exorcisme in baptisme argument you saie you made none of Christes saying to the dombe and dease Ephpheta Mat. 7.34 If no argument no proofe if no proofe then no cause to vse by example of Christ such exorcisme in you baptismes pag. 505. Luk. 1.3
Saint Lukes preface before his gospell cannot by anie meanes excuse the second booke of Machabees from being Apocryphall wherein the Author craueth pardon for his so slender writing of that historie There is no likenes of comparison at all betweene the Euangelists endeauour to learne and write the certaine truth and that authors confession of his infirmitie and imperfection in writing his booke One thing it is to enquire the truth with all diligence and so hauing found the same to set it forth in writing moste exactlie an other hauing written a booke to desire the readers fauour and forgiuenes in respect of the writers simplicitie and vnskillfulnes The first detracteth nothing from the wisdome maiesty of Gods spirit to search the truâ—h by all such meanes as by which the same maie be learned the other argueth a conscience acknowledgement of wants in writing which cannot be applied to the holie Ghost whoe whatsoeuer he taketh in hand moste wiselie and excellentlie performeth the same Doth Saint Luke anie where excuse his want of vtterance his rude slender and vnlearned manner of writing Nothing lesse nay he protesteth in the same preface that he hath attained to the exacte knowledge of euerie thing and that he writeth a moste certaine and vndoubted trueth so farre of is he from crauing pardon of anie man which the simple writer of that booke of Machabees in regard of his owne weaknes and vnhabilitie thought it expedient for him to doe Your places out of the Apostle are friuolous bewraying your grosse ignorance S. Paul saith that in some part he had written boldelie to the Romanes 〈…〉 15. What then did he therefore craue pardon for his so bolde writing vnto them Doth he not shew immediatlie the cause of this boldnes to be for that he was a minister of Iesus Christ among the gentiles That he faith he was conuersant among the Corinthians in weakenes in feare and trembling 1. Cor. 2.3 what concerneth this the writings that he published to the Church The greatnes of the Lords worke in hand made him to tremble but for his writings he feared not the iudgement of man nor euer submitted them to mans discretion That he desireth them to beare with his follie c. 2. Co. 11.1.17 he speaketh not to excuse anie follie in him selfe who had alwaies moste wiselie and grauelie behaued himselfe towards the Corinthians but to reprooue rather the singular arrogancie and follie of the false Apostles whoe being in no respecte comparable to the Apostle yet bragged immoderatlie and preferred themselues before him This is another case Master Rainolds vnlike to that whereof we spake Men of good will pag. 505. Luc. 2.14 to whome the Angell wisheth well are by our newe diuines of Rhemes expounded for men indued with free will And thus saith Master Rainolds was it taught in the old gospell But what gospell he meaneth it were a good thing to vnderstand For S. Lukes gospell teacheth no such thing which yet sure I am is the olde and true gospell of Christ E ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which worde S. Luke in that place hath vsed neuer signifieth free will but fauour and good wil which one beareth towards another S. Augustine was by ignorance of the Greeke tongue deceiued and anie man maie soone perceiue that the Angell speaketh of Gods loue towards mankind which then moste notablie appeered when the Sonne of God was borne of a woman For our papists to gather hereof mans free will is too childish and absurde abuse of holie scripture Christ preached out of Peters shippe Luc. 5.3 and therefore our Rhemists make an argument that the wholl Church is Peters shipp If such allegories may goe for sound proofes then will it be easie not onlie for the Pope to prooue his primacie but for all other heretikes that euer were to iustifie their detestable opinions what-soeuer That by Peters ship the fathers haue taught the Church of Christ to be resembled no man denieth but they conclude not nor applie their allegorie so far as you doe to prooue that as Peter was owner of that ship so he and his successors are gouernours of the wholl Church Such allegories as this of yours may please fooles in their merie conceits but wise men will esteeme them no better then they deserue Barnabas laid downe the price of his land at the Apostles feete pag. 510. Act 4.37 where upon our Rhemists make a long annotation of reuerence due to sacred persons either Prophets Apostles or Popes Whoe can otherwise thinke but that hereof they meant to make an argumente for kissing of the Popes feet least anie thing concerning the Pope should want due confirmation yet Master Rainolds calleth this and the rest merie conclusions and complaineth of mockers Indeed such merie conclusions haue you deuised manie in your Annotations fitter a great deal to bring your wholl Religion into derision then to edifie in true faith Thus haue you long and yet still would you mocke the world but your mockeries are well espied the Lord be praised for it The Queenes Eunuch of Aethiopia came to Ierusalem to worshipp ergo pilgremages to holie places are acceptable to God pag. 512. Act. 8.27 This reason why it should not be allowed Master R. saieth he cannot gesse and desiereth me if I haue anie hid imagination to impart it vnto him which I am verie well content to doe The cause that mooued this noble man of Aethiopia to trauaile so farre was for that in Iudea onelie was the visible Church of God and in Ierusalem stood the Temple wherein onelie sacrifices might be offered to God Which being so necessarie was it for him to repaire thither for the exercise of his religion in the Church of God and place particularlie thereunto appointed by the Lord. This can you not applie to Rome or Ierusalem now or anie other place in the world and therefore manifest dissimilitude and inequality is there betweene this Eunuches iourneying to Ierusalem for so godlie and necessarie causes and popish pilgremages to places abroade for noe cause but onelie for idle and wandering superstition Concerning putting of our cappes pag. 515. Phil. 2.10 and making curtesie at the name of Iesus Master Rainolds is verie earnest and concludeth in the end that I am an Atheist and make no account of Christ for denying that seeing we yeald this honour of capp and curtesie to the letters name seale and seat of the Prince If this be a true argument Master Rainolds as you in your vehemencie would haue it seeme how commeth it to passe that Gods name amongst you is not honoured with like reuerence of capp and knee whensoeuer it is heard will you put of your capp when the Prince is named and wil you make curtesie at the Popes name at his triple crowne or crosse and will you neuer once stirre your cappes or bowe your knees when God is named Is this your Religion is
this your fashion Then let me conclude against you as you haue done against me that you are by your owne argument very Atheists such as make no account of God himselfe For otherwise this conclusion of yours that I am such a one for not honouring the name of Iesus in such sort is falssie though moste maliciouslie deuised That Iewes and Infidels haue abhorred the name of Iesus I graunt but no more the name of Iesus then the name of Christ seeing Iesus is Christ and Christ hath as much deserued to be hated of them as Iesus Christes name may a thousand times be heard amongst you and noe man mooueth capp or knee Iesus is noe sooner sounded but euerie man by and by putteth of his capp and scrapeth on the ground with his foot and yet not alwaies and in all places but in the Church and speciallie at reading of the Gospell This may breede a more dangerous opinion then it can remooue anie that Iesus is better then is Christ and more worthie of reuerence which is wicked to imagine Now Master Rainolds hauing in particular made some seelie defense pag. 516. 〈◊〉 as you haue heard for certaine of their annotations vpon the new Testament noted as notorious absurd and ridiculous conclusions because he knoweth the matter is not yet sufficienly answered addeth in the and a further proofe and confirmation of the arguments by example of the scripture it selfe wherein diuerse reasons may be found and namelie touching the resurrection which if they be examined according to philosophy and humane wisdome will followe no better then theirs haue done but may be thought as improbable weake as any that they haue made This discourse doth Master Rainolds in manie wordes prosecute with great superfluitie of speach and many opprobrious termes after his olde manner But when he hath talked his pleasure at full an answere in one word shall ouerthrow all that he hath builded and as it were cutt in sunder the threed of all that he hath sewed thus loselie together Whatsoeuer is affirmed or denied in scripture although it be moste contrarie to mans reason yet is it true and certaine and must without contradiction be beleeued because the Lord whose word is truth hath said it The resurrection of the flesh cannot I graunt be prooued by philosophicall reasons and arguments but Gods word hath set down this for a principle of our faith that our bodies shall rise againe and whatsoeuer reason iudgeth thereof faith maketh no doubte but so it shall be But now Master Rainolds what maketh this for your former collections because we must beleeue Christ and his Apostles in all that they teach though naturall reason will not so easilie yeald must we therefore allowe whatsoeuer our nouices of Rhemes haue fondlie without authoritie of Gods worde concluded in their Annotations for maintenance of Popish heresie This forsooth is your argument if you ment to make any argument at all if you thought not to driue your speach to this conclusion then haue you ranged at randon all this while and spoken neuer a word to that purpose to the which you shoulde haue directed your talke CHAP. 17. Of certaine blasphemies contained in the Annotations HEtherto hath appeered with what conscience and spirit you haue translated and expounded sundrie places of the new Testament wresting writhing moste violently the text of holie scripture to confirmation of your Popish errours and absurdities pag. 52◠Wherein I doubt not but whosoeuer shall consider with himselfe aduisedlie your manner of collection your argument your application of scripture and shall examine a litle how your conclusion followeth vpon your proofes with out all coherence or consequence of reason must needes greatlie mislike your wholl Religion that is builded vpon so weake so tickle so ruinous a foundation For vnles it be graunted that of euery thing may be concluded any thing and that the word of God may be made appliable to all purposes opinions and doctrines it is impossible that these and such like arguments of yours as you haue in your annotations gathered vpon the wordes of scripture should haue in them such strength and trueth as Diuinitie and religion requireth But further when your blasphemous audacitie in controlling the word of God shall be perceaued it must of necessitie breede in all such as feare God and reuerence his worde a far greater alienation of minde from you and from all your damnable doctrine Examples of such blasphemies some I alledged whereof now Master Rainolds in his last Chapter intreateth and with his accustomed boldnes of defending anie thing laboureth to iustifie the same The Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrewes intreating at large of Christes priesthood pag. 529. Sec. compareth Christ with Melchisedech and by this argument prooueth that Christ is a priest for euer because he is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech which he confirmeth by testimonie of Moses and Dauid In all which treatise the Apostle although he fullie sheweth what resemblance was betwene Melchisedech and Christ yet he maketh not anie mention of the masse nor of the vnbloodie sacrifice of Christes bodie and blood in bread and wine nor of anie such matter as by the papists hath beene imagined Which because our Rhemists vnderstoode to be greatlie preiudiciall to their sacrifice of the Masse they haue moste shamefullie and blasphemouslie behaued themselues in handling this scripture as to anie that compareth their annotations with the text it selfe maie easily apperee For they haue plainlie written in their annotations that all that the Apostle hath alledged concerning the eternitie of Christes person and his perpetuall intercession for vs and euerlasting effect of his death prooueth not that in proper signification his priesthood is perpetuall Hebr. 7.17 Whereof what other thing can possiblie be collected but that the Apostle hath not by sufficient reasons prooued that thing which he tooke in hand to prooue that Iesus Christ is a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech For these men boldelie affirme that all this prooueth not that in proper signification Christs priesthood is perpetuall then the Apostle in proper signification hath prooued nothing lesse then that which he went about to prooue concerning Christes euerlasting priesthood wherein all our saluation consisteth hath but vsed a sleight to make men beleeue a thing which either he coulde not prooue or at lest hath not effectuallie prooued Our papists wil haue the principall respect of resemblance betweene Christ and Melchisedech to stand in offering bread and wine whereof forsooth must arise a perpetuall sacrifice to be continued in the Church Nowe hereof the Apostle hath not spoken so much as one word nor giuen the least signification of such a matter What other thing is it then but plaine blasphemie for maintenance of an idolatrous sacrifice to charge the Apostle that he hath not prooued Christs priesthood to be perpetual which yet he hath by moste necessarie and substantiall arguments
fathers and Doctors as you report Luth. cont Regem Angl. fol. 342. vnius maiestatis aeter nae verbum Euangelium Dei verbū est super omnia c. but that he setteth against the sayings of fathers of men of Angels of Diuells the word of the onely eternall maiesty the Gospell And againe immediatly he saith The word of God is aboue all the maiesty of God maketh with me that I care not though a thousand Augustines and Cyprians stood agaynst me Gods word is of more authoritie then all men or Angels Is this to set his priuate iudgement against all the fathers is this pride is this presumption must Gods word and maiestie and Gospell yeald to the iudgement of fathers be they neuer so manie This forsooth is your modestie that though the Lord hath spoken it yet if the fathers saie anie thing against it you will not prefere your iudgement grounded on the scriptures before the auncient fathers Accursed be such modestie that doth soe great iniurie and dishonour vnto god This ciuilitie towards men is treason and blasphemie towards the lord Remember what Elihu saith Iob. 32. v. 21.22 I will not now accept the person of man neither wil I give titles to man For I may not giue titles lest my maker should take me away suddenlie If this affection was in Luther as it was what fault can you finde therin You aske of me the reason why I so busilie defend Luther I aske of you the reason why you so continuallie accuse Luther If you seeke for some reasons to accuse him I cannot want better reasons to defend him your accusations being so vntrue That you say we aduance him into the place of Christe or at least among his Apostles belike you imagine that Luther is to vs as your Pope is to you whome you more esteeme and honour then Christe and all his Apostles For saie they what they will their saying hath litle force or authoritie if it like not your holie father but his saying must preuaile whatsoeuer they saie to the contrarie You thinke it good reason I should giue ouer all defense of Luther seing he bare extreame hatred as you say against the Sacramentaries here you bring in much to that purpose which yet you know is not the matter you tooke in hand But it is alwaies the propertie of such discreet and worthie writers whatsoeuer they finde though from the cause to hale it in by some meanes in one place or other I answere in a word Luther dissented bitterlie from Zuinglius and O Ecolampadius in the matter of the sacrament as it falleth out often times that sharpe contentions may arise amongst Godlie and learned men yet it is no cause why we should not answere in Luthers behalfe when he is wrongfullie charged by you Therefore you come to scanne my defense of Luther particularlie pag. 48. and finde your selfe occupied in deuising diuers senses of Luthers words and then disputing against them First if all the fathers teach one thing and bring scriptures for them Luther the contrarie bring scriptures for him whether in this case Luther may preferre his iudgement before all the fathers This is not the case M. R. that Luther ment you must therefore proceade further yet in your suppose Next then you put case If a thousand Augustines Churches teache some doctrine citing no text for it and Luther bring some text of scripture after his sense against the same the matter is not in citing textes but in deliuering the doctrine that is approoued by the text Then leaue your childish trifling and take Luther as he meant If Augustine or Cyprian or any other father maintaine any thing against Gods word Luther or any other minister of Christ may in such case preferre his iudgement warranted by the word of God before theirs If you denie this you are not worthie to be called a Christian and yet closelie you doe denie it in that you reprooue Luther and condemne him for saying the same And where you saie I can bring no instance that euer the auncient fathers did so haue you forgotten what fell out in the Councell of Nice Socrat. l. 1. c. 11. when the fathers agreeing to dissolue the marriage of ministers were withstood by Paphnutius One man maintaining the trueth of Gods word may lawfully dissent from others although neuer so many August cont petil l. 3. c. 6. and yealded in the ende Here one Paphnutius iudgment was preferred before al the other three hundred fathers And so often times the iudgement of many hath beene corrected by one S. Aug. saith whether of Christe or of his Church or of any other thing that appertayneth to our faith and life I will not say we not to be compared to him that sayd though we but as he added If an Angell from heauen shall preach any thing besides that ye haue receiued in the legall and Euangelicall scriptures lette him be accursed If we maie accurse them how many and whosoeuer they be that teach contrary to the Propheticall and Apostolicall scriptures then may we preferre our iudgement in such cases before them Saint Augustines words you see are very sharpe but he learned thus to speake of the Apostle him selfe August epi. 19. In an other place Saint Augustine saith For all these fathers yea aboue all these the Apostle Paul offereth himselfe I flee to him I appeale to him from all writers that thinke otherwise This was S. Augustine bolde to write euen to S. Ierome and feared not any suspicion either of arrogancie or heresie for the same such accoumpte then must be made of the trueth that we must stand with it against al the world and not for reuerence of mens persons giue it ouer or betraie it or be afraid to defend it If this be so as you will not I am sure for shame or feare denie openlie then haue you nothing to burthen Luther in this behalfe When you say Though the fathers in the Councells of Nice Ephesus Chalcedon had alleadged no direct and euident place against Arius Nestorius Eutyches yet the Christian people were bound to beleeue them grounding them selues onelie vpon the catholike and vniuersall faith of the Churches before them it is boldly and bluntlie spoken These godly and catholike fathers assembled in Councel against those heritikes confuted them by the authoritie of Gods word and as it were cut the throte of their heresies with the sworde of the spirit This was onelie the weapon then vsed and with this they preuayled The councels and fathers confuted all Heretikes by the scriptures as likwise haue all other godlie councels euer done against all heretikes and enemies of the trueth For in Religion there is no trueth but grounded vppon scriptures no errour or heresie but repugnant to scriptures no heretikes but refuted by scriptures They dealt not against the heretikes as you imagine omitting scriptures and grounding vpon the faith of Churches
but they prooued their faith to be grounded vppon the scriptures So Cyprian a wise and Catholike Bishop writeth that in controuersies of Religion we must haue recourse to the origine of trueth Cypria de vnit Eccles in Epist ad Pompei whereby he meaneth the scriptures and that the cause of heresie is for that the head is not sought which he declareth further adding that the doctrine of the heauenlie Master is not kept And therefore if those fathers had obiected nothing but the common beliefe of the Churches against those heretikes they had taken a wrong course and should neuer thus haue stopped their mouthes But they had a surer waie to conuince heretikes then you haue whoe being of all heretikes the greatest would take awaie all means of confuting heretikes that so your selues might not be espied or not controlled As for Heluidius Ambrose Epist 81. 79. Hieron cont Heluid who denied the blessed virgine to haue remained a virgine afterward the fathers Ierome and Ambrose alleadged against him not tradition onely but the scriptures especiallie although what Saint Basill hath written of this wholl matter you maie reade in his sermon of the Natiuitie wherein he is not affraied plainlie to affirme that after she had borne our sauiour Christ Basil de Christi â—tiuit whither she married againe or remained a virgine still belongeth longeth nothing to the mysterie of faith Againe you imagine a third sense of Luthers wordes Pag. 51. by supposing a thing impossible that if all Churches and fathers teach against Scripture Luther with Scripture then Luther maie thinke him-selfe a better man then they al. What Luthers meaning was you haue heard and therefore it skilleth not what you suppose further Indeed M. R. as you saie the Church falleth not from Christ to Apostasie but this is true as well of the Church in the olde Testament as in the newe yet as the visible Churches of the Iewes fell awaie from God and became open enemies vnto our sauiour Christ so it might come to passe since Christ that the particular Churches and congregations did corrupte the doctrine of the Gosepll and slid into that Apostasie which the Scriptures foresaid should ouerspread the Churches afterward 1. Tim. 4.1 2. Thes 2.3 But the Catholike Church which is the number of Gods elect can no more fall awaie from Christe into Apostasie then the course of heauen can be chaunged For it standeth vpon Christ the rocke and hell gates shall not be hable to cast it downe Here againe you come in with Luthers opinion of the sacrament pag. 52. wherein as he dissented from vs the truth verie much so your popish Transsubstantiation then which was neuer a more impious and absurd heresie maintained in the Church he vtterlie abhorred And what though herein Luther somthing swarued from the truth might he not therefore being in other causes assured thereof out of the word of God reiect the opinions of such as dissented from the same By this reason no man in defense of Gods trueth may chalenge or bid defiance to the aduersaries thereof seeing they haue no priuiledge or Charter graunted to them but that them selues maie also be deceiued Luther was an excellent man and a worthie seruante of Christ whose Ministerie especiallie it pleased the Lord to vse in reuealing to these times that sonne of perdition whoe sitteth in the Temple of God and aduaunceth him selfe aboue God yet was Luther a man and therefore no maruaile if he were not exempted altogether from ignorance and infirmitie And what miserable peruersnes is it in you that being not able to maintaine your owne heresies against Luther will thinke to escape in the iudgement of men from beeing condemned because Luther him selfe in one pointe of doctrine erred Maie no man conuince error but such a one as is free from erring at all him selfe the scriptures are left vnto vs to be our rule of trueth by them must all doctrine be squared and directed they sit in the hiest seate of indgement to giue sentence in euerie cause With them did Luther cut downe your errours of them haue we learned to thinke of the sacrament otherwise then Luther did to them doe we submit our selues in euerie thing we teach and are contented that our wholl Religion be tried by them so that if you or anie other can shewe wherein we disagree from them we are readie and willing to be reformed But one error of Luther cannot serue to excuse infinite errors in the popish Church Thus haue you my answere as plainlie as I could deuise in this matter which though you haue handled at large as became a man of your learning leasure and discretion yet in the end you cast it awaie from you as not worthy to haue any time bestowed about it Now therfore I trust herafter you wil be better occupied CHAPTER 4. Of Priesthod and of the sacrifice continued after Christ SEeing you will needes be called accounted Priests that in the proper sense pag. 56. and signification of this word I require no pardon at your hands for terming you as I did For if Christ be the onelie Priest of the new Testament and his sacrifice neuer to be repeated as we are plainlie taught by the word of God what Priests can you be but Baalites and what sacrificers but Antichristian shewe your order your Author your institution otherwise we must esteeme and speake of you Heb. 5.4 The Popish priest hoode was not ordainied by Christ but is contrarie to the Priesthood of Christ and therefore worthie to be contemned detested of al faithfull Christians as such a generation deserueth It is not lawfull for any to take honour to him-selfe but he that is called of God as Aaron If you can prooue that God hath called you it is meet you be receiued reuerenced as the ordinaunce of God in all functions deserueth but this can you neuer doe and therefore both your name your profession is of al the godly to be detested as a venemous plant neuer planted by the heauenlie father Mat. 15.13 Two waies you haue chosen by which you will prooue your selues lawfull priests principally you say by mine owne words secondarily by deduction out of the scriptures Let vs consider of both these arguments in order and so it shall appeare in the end that your Priesthood was hatched of an ill egge pag. 57. And here you declare euidentlie to the world in the verie begininng your pitifull ignorance M. R. affirmeth that we denie Melchisedech to haue bene a Priest how vntruelie all the world caÌ„ witnes Gen. 14.18 Psal 110.4 Heb. 7.1 not knowing against whom you fight For was it euer of vs doubted that Melchisedech was a Priest and offered sacrifice doth not the scripture teach the same moste expreslie and that in manie places yet you saie you could neuer obtaine so much of our brethren which argueth that God