as M.W. can neuer maynteine except withal he maynteine him selfe to be an Anabaptist an Ebionite and a Nestorian And thus much touching your philosophicall reason wherein I haue staied somewhat the loÌ„ger partly because you crake so much of it as though it were verie pregnant partly because it is an argument whereinto both in pulpit and writyng you gladly fall because it standeth wel with sense and reason easely deceaue the simple partly also because it toucheth M. Iewels challenge which here is disproued sufficiently except these great States and Euangelistes so magnified by your selues be so fowly ouerseene as so vehemently to auerre that which hath no one clause of Scripture Father Councel or Doctor to vphold it And if they do so in this where they vse such heate and detestation how may we credite them in any other parte of their doctrine how may we be perswaded but they continually lye and deceaue vs in like sorte But I trowe you wil not iudge so rashly especially of Luther what soeuer you accompt of Barns Frith Westphalus Melanchthon and Illyricus and those auncient fathers alleaged by him and his companions for seing the whole church of England commendeth Luther for a man so excellent sent of God to geue light to the vvhole vvorld I hope that you being but a simple member of thar church wil not by defending the contrary oppose your selfe vnto him And certaine it is you can not come from God if you poore worme resist withstand that excellent man whom God sent to be your Prophete and Euangelist which is as monstrous a case as if some simple sheepe should presume to direct his skilful pastor some ignorant scholer to teach his maister most learned or some Alexander a myserable coppersmith should oppose him self against S. Paule whom Christ had made his gouernor and furnished with sufficient giftes to instruct him and al the world besides But you haue I feare a general salue for such fores that you beleeue nether Luther nether yet the church of England any farther then they agree with Gods worde your owne conceite thereof And so still the supreme rule determition of al shal rest in your owne handes After your reasons against the sacrament you bring in to like purpose a place out of S. Ciril that Christ is ascended in to heauen and is absent from vs in the presence of flesh vvhich if vve did not beleeue vve vvould neuer say the Crede so oft as vve doe nor keepe the day of Christes AscensioÌ„ so honorable and festiual as you I thinke may knovv Mary if you thinke there is more pith in S. Cirils vvorde of absence you myght better haue obiected Christes ovvne vvordes The poore you shal haue alvvaies vvith you me you shal not haue but then for ansvvere I should haue sent you to the note vpon that verse as I do novv also for this the reason being al one For that S. Ciril vvas not a Sacramentarie appeareth most clearely by a large discours vvhich he maketh as it vvere of purpose against that maner of reasoning vvhich you haue geuen out in this place Thus he vvriteth Quomodo potest hic nobis carnem dare c. The Ievves aske hovv can he geue vs his flesh Thus they crye out vpon god not vvithout great impietie nether remember they that vvith god nothing is impossible But let vs making great profit of their sinnes and hauing a firme faith in these mysteries neuer in such diuine thinges vtter or so much as thinke of such doubting for that vvord Quomodo hovv is Iudaical and cause of extreme punishment And after a long and good treatise against such peeuish fantastical toyes as here M.W. obiecteth for profound arguments thus he concludeth Yf notvvithstanding al this thou Ievv crye stil hovv is this done I folovving thy ignoraÌ„ce vvill demaund of thee hovv so many miracles vvere done in the old testament the passinge ouer the red sea Moses rod made a serpeÌ„t etc. vvherefore vve ought rather to beleeue Christ humbly to learne of hym then like drunken sots to cry out hovv can he geue vs his flesh by vvhich questioning thou must needes be driuen to deny the vvhole scripture In vvhich vvords vve see he reckeneth you amongst the Ievves accompteth you nethâ—r verie learned nor much better then an Infidel for these stout reasons vvhich here you so magnifie And Peter M. being pressed vvith the authoritie of this Ciril that Christ by the mystical benediction that is by receauing of the Sacrament dvvelleth corpâ—rally in vs vvhich M. Ievvel after his maner ansvvereth verie learnedly though verie easely by comparing it vvith an other phrase that corporally is as much as truly and truly may signifie spiritually and that is al one vvith tropically saith more rudely yet more sincerely The flesh of Christ so to dvvell in vs corporally that the substance of his body should be coÌ„municated vvith vs that is as this man interpreteth it be mingled vvith our flesh it is not in any case to be graunted no not if a thousand angels much lesse if one Ciril said it For it can not be that Christs flesh should so be diffunded or multiplied in infinite men and places which sheweth that Peter Mart. tooke not S. Ciril to be of your faith touching this article of the sacrament The place vvhich you cite out of S. Damascene because you direct me no vvhere to find it I vvil not bestovv the paines to seeke it being graunted it is not much to the purpose and I marueile vvhy you put it in greke as though there vvere some great terrible bugge in it That vvhich vvas circumscript saith he vvas circumscript vncircumscript vncircumscript and visible visible and inuisible inuisible vvhich I take to be as true as that a spade is a spade and a mattock a mattock fier is fier not vvater and the sunne is the sunne and not the moone And if you meane hereof to infer your heresy that therefore Christ is not in the sacrament frame you the argument perhaps it vvil persvvade much In the meane season that Damasc vvas no more of your religion then S. Ciril I refer you for proufe to his books de Orthodoxa fide vvhere namely in the fourth you finde a verie good and large chapter against your Zuinglian heresie especially against your philosophical fansies he disputeth thus If the vvorde of god be liuely forcible if vvhat soeuer our lord would he did if he said let light be made it vvas made let the firmament be made and it vvas made if by the vvorde of god the heauens vvere established and vvith the spirite of his mouth all the povver of them if heauen and earth and vvater-fier and ayer and al their furniture and man him selfe vvere perfited by his vvorde if vvhen god the vvord so vvould he became man and of the moste pure and immaculat
bloud of the holy virgin framed him selfe flesh vvithout the seede of man can not he in the sacrament make of bread his ovvne body and of vvine vvater his bloud No mary can he not saith M.W. for that is against reason and so he should haue tvvo bodies one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But S. Damascene conteÌ„ning such ethnical ioyes proceedeth coÌ„cludeth that as god in the beginning said let the earth bring forth greene hearbes and hetherto being holpen and strengthened by that precept it so doth so god said this is my body and this is my bloud and doe this in commemoration of me and by his omnipotent coÌ„maundement it is vvrought vvhich thing onely faith can conceaue Hovv shal this be done saith the B. Virgin the Archangel Gabriel ansvvered the holy Ghost shal come vpon thee and the povver of the most high shal ouershadovv thee And novv demauÌ„dest thou hovv bread is made the body of Christ and vvine and vvater his bloud I ansvvere in like maner that the holy Ghost commeth vpon it vvorketh that vvhich passeth the capacitie of reason and reach of vnderstanding Whereby you see that hovv soeuer circumscript remained circumscript and visible visible S. Damascene neuer intended by such visible folies so to circumscribe our fâ—â—th or subiecte our religion to humaine reason that Christes presence should be excluded out of the sacrament or the sacrameÌ„t should be esteemed a Zuinglian figure vvhich to induce you take much paine but to very smale effect CHAP. IX VVherein is refelled M. VV. ansvvere to certaine places of S. Chrysostome touching the real presence and sacrifice IN the last chapter vve had an example hovv sufficiently you are vvont to coÌ„firme your ovvne faith by scripture reason fathers here you geue vs an example hovv substantially you ansvvere the fathers vvhich vve vse for confirmation of our faith Tvvo places M. Martin obiected out of S. Chrysostom against your geometrical opinion of Christes body in one place you auoyde them so as you geue out plaine demonstration that you neuer coÌ„sidered them in the author him selfe but only tooke the answere at deliuery from M. Iewel without any farther search Thus you write To Chrysostom teaching that Christ both leaft his flesh vvith vs and ascended hauing the same vvith him I ansvvere that Christ placed his flesh in heauen and neuerthelesse leaft vs a sacrament of that flesh And our fayth enioyeth the same euermore present For the verie substance of his flesh Christ no more leaft in earth then Elias leaft his body vvhen he ascended in to heauen For so Chrisostom vvrote a litle before that Elias vvas aftervvardes double there vvas an Elias aboue and there vvas an Elias beneath Tell me I pray you M. Martyn vvas that Elias body in earth vvhen he leaft his cloke to Elizeus you vvill not say so So true it is vvhich Chrisostome vvriteth that Christ hath left his flesh vnto vs symbolically and yet hath caried the same in to heauen corporally This is your answere which I say you rather allow vs as may be thought because Maister Iewell applieth the same to the selfe same place albeit in my opinion els-where he geueth you a better For labouring to answere the place of S. Ciprian de caena Domini Panis iste quem dominus c. This bread vvhich our lord gaue to his disciples being changed not in shape but in nature by the almightie povver of the vvord of Christ is made flesh after a number of phrases alleaged against the other partes of this senteÌ„ce coÌ„ming to the last is made flesh he sheweth that nether this proueth the real preseÌ„ce that hystore of lyke phrases For S. Aust saith nos Christi facti sumus vve are made Christes Leo saith Corpus regenerati fit caro crucifixi the body of the man that is regenerate is made the flesh of Christ that vvas crucified Beda saith nos ipsi corpus Christi effecti sumus vve our selues are made the body of Christ Origen saith in like maner of speach spiritus sanctus non in turturem vertitur sed coluÌ„ba fit the holy ghost is not changed into a turtell but is made a doue Thus if you had answered that Christ departing tooke his flesh with him really leaft his flesh behinde him allegorically that is the Christian people his church which S. Paul many times calleth his bodye that had bene more probable more to S. Chrisostoms discourse you see what doctors you might alleage for it theÌ„ to say that Christ tooke away with him his flesh really leaft the same with vs symbolically that is bread and wyne which when we receaue at the supper we remember perhaps that Christe had flesh But because it was ether your chaunce or choise to geue vs the other let vs see how handsomly you frame it vnto S. Chrisostoms text The summe of your answere is that as Helias ascendinge leaft his cloke which for certeine reasons was called Elias so our Sauiour ascending leaft vs bread wyne which is a signe of his body for some reasoÌ„s is likewise called by the name of his body but was no more his body theÌ„ the cloke was Elias And are ye not ashamed thus to dally abuse the reader Or can your ignoraÌ„ce be so grosse as to thinke that this is S. Chrisost meaning Or caÌ„ your reader otherwise deeme of you then as of a man altogether rechlesse what you say if euer he reade the place in S. Chrisostome him self For so far of is it that S. Chrisostome hath any such thing that contrarywise he ouerthroweth most stroÌ„gly this your folly and vehemently vrgeth the cleane contrary First touching Elias he hath some of those wordes which you alleage As a great inheretance saith he Elizeus receaued the cloke and truly it vvas a verie great inheritance And aftervvardes that Elias vvas double There vvas an Elias aboue and there vvas an Elias beneath meaning as it is plaine that he was taken vp in body soule and remained beneath in power and operation for so much as by the cloke Elizeus wrought strange myracles such as Elias him selfe did before And so S. Chrisostome saith expresly propterea in coelum ascendens nihil aliud quaÌ„ melotem discipulo reliquit Therefore Elias ascending in to heaueÌ„ leaft to his disciple nothing els but his cloke And would he make a like comparison and say the same of our Sauiour Let vs heare his wordes Thus he coÌ„meth to speake of Christ quid igitur si vobis demonstrauero quid aliud quod illo multo maius c. vvhat then vvil you say if I shevv you an other maner of thing much greater theÌ„ that vvhâ—ch al vve haue receaued vvho so euer haue bene made partakers of the holy misteryes Elias in deed leaft his cloke
question Elizeus might haue and had no doubt his minde in heauen with Elias by your commentarie and sense far greater was the facte of Elias then that of Christ For the cloke was a far better and more liuely figure of Elias then youre bread and wine is of Christ By it Elizeus receaued greate grace strength as writeth S. Chrisostome as by the which he fought agaynst the deuill and vanquished him That your bread should geue any grace it is agaynst your whole doctrine and Zuinglius laboureth to proue it at large in sundrie places callinge it papisticall to say that any sacrament euen baptisme doth aliquid momenti conferre ad sanctificationem aut remissionem peccatorum profite any iote to sanctifie or take avvay synne Elizeus by that cloke wrought straunge miracles so did you by your figuratiue bread neuer nor neuer shall so longe as the worlde standeth Briefly whereas Elizeus cloke cariynge with it such vertue and power was a thing surmounting the abilitie and reach of man and could not be done but by the omnipotencie of god your bread being nothing but a signe or banner as it were a may-pole or token of a tauerne by Zuinglius his owne confession the king of Fraunce or Spaine can make ten thousande as good And the truth is they can make much better because theirs do no harme wheras yours leade men the hye way to damnatioÌ„ Wherefore youre answere to this place of S. Chrisostome is to to fond and childish And hereby we may haue a gesse how substanciallye you are like to deale with the next which is taken out of the same father I must needes write it doune somewhat at large for the readers better vnderstanding of vs both It is in his thirde booke de sacerdotio where he setteth forth the high estate of the priestes of the new Testament and that acte wherein priesthode especiallye consisteth that is the sacrifice thus he writeth This priesthode it selfe is exercised in earth but is to be referred to the order and revv of thinges celestiall and that for good reason because no mortall man no angell no archangell no creature but the holy Ghost him self framed this order Terrible vvere the thinges dreadfull vvhich vvere before the tyme of grace in the lavv of Moyses as vvere the litle bells pomegranats pretious stones in the breast of the prieste the mitre golden plate sancta sanctorum c. But if a man consider these thinges vvhich the tyme of grace hath brought to vs he vvil iudge all those thinges vvhich I called terrible and dreadfull to be but light and though glorious yet not comparable vvith the glorie of the nevv testament as S. Paule saith This being laide before as it were a preface or preparatiue to that which foloweth he then coÌ„meth to that place out of which M. W. culleth certaine wordes For sayth he vvhen thou seest our Lord sacrificed and the prieste earnestlie intent to the sacrifice and pouring out his prayers and the people about him imparted and made red vvith that pretious bloud thinkest thou thy self to conuerse amongest mortall men and remaine on the earth And immediatly ô miraculum ô Dei benignitatem ô miracle ô singular goodnes of God he that sitteth vvith his father aboue at the self same moment of tyme is handled vvith all mens handes and deliuereth him self to those that vvill receaue and imbrace him and this is done playnlie in the sight of all men vvithout any deceate or illusion Of this place M. Martin inferreth that M.W. reasoning Christ is in heauen ergo not in the Sacramet is wicked refuted by the old fathers But M.W. replyeth no. And I vvil geue you your ansvvere sayth he out of the same place for here Chrysostome affirmeth that vve see our Lord sacrificed in the supper and the people imparted and made red vvith the bloud and that this is done in the open sight of all that are presente But vvho seeth ether our Lord truâ—y sacrificed or one droppe of bloud vvith vvhich the people are made red so as all see it as Chrisostome vvriteth Therefore as vve see Christ sacrificed and the people embrued vvith his bloud so vve receaue him in our handes In these vvordes Chrysostome vvould both amplifie the dignitie of priestes vnto vvhom Christ gaue povver to minister the Sacrament of his bodie and bloud and make the people afrayde that they vvhich come to this supper should bring vvith them godlie and religious myndes as though they should take Christ him selfe in their handes The substance of the answere is this Chrysostome in the same place sayth we see Christ offered which in truth is not so but by a figuratiue speach therefore when he saith Christ is in heauen and in the Sacrament it is not simplie true but by like phrase and figure But whereunto then tende al these great wordes and perswasions of this father to honour the priests office and make the people afrayed and were there priestes in the church in those days No. but by priestes you must vnderstand mâ—nisters and then a simili by the sacrifice he speaketh of that is the masse you must vnderstand the CommunioÌ„ that is by Catholike relâ—gion you must vnderstande heresie and by light darkâ—es But I wil go thorough the branches of this answere in order First whereas you make that a thing most assured and certaine that no man seeth Christ offered except you meane in your English supper you are greatly deceaued For in the church Catholike we see Christ offered and that not in phrase of speach only as the protestaÌ„ts may be said to do iniurie to Christ when they abuse his image but in veritie and truth of doctrine And S. Chrysostome with the rest of the fathers neuer thought or spake otherwise How oft hath S. Chrisostome quâ—d summo honore dignum est id tibi â—n terra â—stendam That vvhich deserueth most honor that vvil I shevv thee on earth and in the same place The royal body of Christ is in heaueÌ„ vvhich novv in earth is set before thee to be seene I shevv vnto thee not angels not archangels not heauens not heauen of heauens but I shevv thee the verie Lord him selfe of al these Perceauest thou not hovv not only thou seest in earth and touchest but receauest also the soueraine and principall thing that is And in the same place This body vvhich thou seest on the altar the vvise men adored in the manger But it were tedious to note out such places which are common in euery booke This rather I would wishe M. W. to vnderstand that where it hath pleased God in certaine creatures to exhibite his presence after a more special and singular sort there in a more special and singular maner truely we may ought to beleeue that we see our Lord. God is by essence power and operation present in euerie creature yet in seing a
the cuppe or chalice vvhich he speaketh presupposing his heresie to be true therefore I haue made this alteration sayth he That he neuer found among all his auncient copies latin or greeke any one reading as he translateth himselfe also confesseth Omnes tamen vetusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant Albeit I thus translate yet all our old auncient bookes had it othervvise that is so vvritten as it is commonly read and as the papistes vvould haue it Wherefore this beinge his fault that vpon priuate fansie to serue his peculiar heresie he hath altered the very letter and text of the Gospel is he a Christian is he a common heretike nay is he not worse then a Iew then a Turke then the worst kinde of Paganes that pretendinge the name of a Christian will defende suche a vile caitife and monster directly against the sacred Euangelist our blessed Sauiour him selfe and yet forsooth because this man is not only a great piller but also for some great parte a very coyner of this nevv Gospel as it vvere their very Euangelist for much of their text is made by him he must needes be defended though the old Euangelistes go to vvracke for it Pardon me ChristiaÌ„ reader if I seeme somevvhat vehement their dealing being such that if men held their peace the very infaÌ„tes yea the very stones vvould speake as saith our Sauiour And vvithal consider thou vvhen they vvil geue ouer those barbarous Paradoxes of feminine primacie of baptisme not remitting sinnes of their tropical bread c. vvherein they staÌ„de only against the Catholiks or at the most against vs and their brethren the Lutherans when as they wil not geue ouer but continevv and mainteyne their trayterous and Satanicall action commenced against our blessed Sauiour But if vve may vvithout sinne spend time in hearing what they haue to say against him let vs attend M. Whitaker and waygh what he dareth vtter in that behalfe Thus he disputeth The vvordes of Luke are This cuppe is the nevv testament in my bloud that is if vve folovv M. Martins interpretation This bloud is the nevv testameÌ„t in my bloud vvhich is shedd for you vvhat sense is there of these vvords M. Martin and vvhat doubte bloud is this See you not here a manifest repetition of the same thing rising of your interpretation VVherefore seing your sentence is plainely absurde vvho vvil not rather vvith Beza say there is a faulte in the vvordes or vvith Basil reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First of all to beginne you somewhat misreporte M. Martin in sayng that he interpreteth Hic sanguis est nouum testamentum in sanguine meo this bloud is the nevv testament in my bloud For though he deduce that by necessarie consequence yet is it an other thing to say he interpreteth it so The interpretation he geueth you precisely out of S. Chrysostome hoc quod est in calice illud est quod fluxit de latere that vvhich is in the chalice is that vvhich flovved out of Christs syde which also S. Leo the greate very diuinelye expresseth Fudit sanguinem instum qui reconciliando mundo et pretium esset et poculuÌ„ he shed the iust bloud vvhich should be both the price the cuppe to reconcile the vvorlde the one in his passion on the crosse the other in the sacrameÌ„t at his last supper whereof though you may truly infer that the bloud of Christ in the chalice is the selfe same bloud that flowed out of the syde of Christ as here S. Leo doth yet talking exactly of propositions you may finde a greate difference As if a man pointing to you should saye this man is a Caluinist or heretike he sayth in deed this Caluinist is a Caluinist yet can you not deny but there is a greate difference in the proposition VVherefore we holde you to the wordes and sense of the Euangelist as your greate Rabbine setteth them doune hoc est sanguis mens noui testamenti This cuppe is my bloud of the nevv testament which is the selfe same without any the least difference which M. Martin geueth you out of S. Chrysostome Now what haue you against it Oh say you it is tautologia an absurd repetition of the selfe same thinge for vvhat double bloud is this First why lye you so grossly and intolerably as to say here is mention of double bloud If I say this Christ is Christ the sonne of God this Messias is the Messias Sauiour of the world this God is God of heauen and earth finde you mentioned a double Christ a double Messias a double God as here you finde double bloud if we say this bloud is the bloud of the new testament Againe lett the reader see if you be not possessed vvith a sprite of giddines and what a miserable surgeon you are who going about to cure Bezaes wounde wouÌ„de your selfe as deepely and whiles you endeuour to excuse his Atheisme and impietie runne headlonge on the same rocke your selfe For what is Bezaes faulte this that to helpe forth his Zuinglian heresie he corrected S. Luke in the later parte of the sentence shedde for you and altered that accordinge to his fansie How doth M. W. mende this by rayling at the first parte This cuppe is the bloud of the nevv Testament for this saith he is tautologia here is double bloud here is an absurd sentence So that now betwene you and Beza S. Luke hath neuer a worde right Beza reprouing and mending the later parte and you being as saucie with the former Is not this well defended Now graunt we al these faults of â—autâ— ogia an absurde sentence an idle repetition c. where lie these faults doubtlesse not so much in the Euangelist who wrote them as in our Sauiour who spake them Suppose I say it seeme harde to your delicate and Ciceronian eares must therefore Christ be sett to schole to learne his lesson of that fierbrande of sedition that sinke gulfe of iniquitie Theodore Beza and what is the absurditie you find in these words mary that that vvhich vvas in the chalice vvas shedde for our sinnes and therefore consequently it was the real bloud of our Sauiour which is plaine Papistrye and against our Communion booke Is it so Then to hell with your Communion booke and you to if that be so opposite to the Gospel of Christ you dare mainteyne it by open checking and controling Christ the eternall wisdome of God And see what rouel we shal haue in scripture if this vnchristian diuinitie go forward And alwayes I desyre the reader to remember that I am by force constrayned to remaine in this base kinde of talkinge in so plaine a matter against these enemies of Christ that seeme to haue lost the common senses of men S. Iohn the Baptist beholding Christ saith Ecce agnus dei ecce quitollit peccata mundi Behold the lambe of God Behold the lambe
Lutheran an Anabaptist a Suinkseldian say the like with as good countenance against other partes of scripture which stand as plainly against their conceaued heresies Is Beza to be allowed pronouncing peremptorily touching the storie of the aduouterous woman in the 8. of S. Iohn vpon the diuersitie which is in the greeke writers and testaments that so great difference he found in that narration that he doubteth altogether of the vvhole storie which is as much as to take from it vtterly al authoritie Canonical and is not euerie man els to be allovved vpon like vvarrant geuing like censure vpon other partes of scriptures Reade S. Hierom vvriting to Edibia and see vvhether a part of S. Markes gospel may not by like reason be called in question yea reade Bezaes notes vpon the sixt chapter the 18. and 19. of S. Iohn and 22. of S. Luke see vvhether that diuine sermon of our Sauiour and his very passion by such argument ought not so to be cut out of the testament The like is to be said of verie many places of S. Matthew and S. Paules epistles Then iudge thou Christian reader whether these meÌ„ be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bible-beaters or rather in deede bible murtherers For the first presupposeth the hauing of a bible whereas they haue none For that which they cal their bible and word of God is in deede no word of God no bible at al. For how can a maÌ„ cal that the bible and word of God vvhich hath in it so many foule and filthie corruptions so many vvicked Ethnical and Iudaical errors as I before haue noted in their bible by confessionâ— of their ovvne brethren Is that the bible of God vvhich hath in it so many places maliciously peruerted against the eternal truth and testameÌ„t of God Can vve call him a man vvhom vve see to lacke head hand foote hart and other principal and essential partes of humane nature and hovv then is that a bible that lacketh for canonical the vvritinges of so many Prophetes Apostles and Euangelistes S. Luke S. Paule S. Iames S. Peter S. Iohn S. Iude some of which no bible euer vvanted since Christs time nor can vvant remaining a bible The rest vvere euer true scriptures though not euer in al places so accouÌ„ted as nether was the Godhead of our Sauiour the dignitie and office of his Apostles of al and alwaies at first acknowledged But al haue bene so accounted for these thousand yeres and more by general prouincial councels the great and Apostolike councel of Nice of Laodicea of Carthage by the supreme pastors of Christs church by the general consent of the same Catholike Church in most times ages These meÌ„ therefore good reader folowing the steppes of their old fathers Marcion Cerdon Carpocrates the Arrians and Manichees despising and reiecting so many bookes of sctipture are in deede not beaters but maÌ„glers and defacers and extreme murtherers of the bible And that not only for this plaine and euident reason now geuen but also for their prophane irreligious varietie of translations whereof now in the last part I haue to speake CHAP. XIIII That to leaue the ordinarie translation of the Bible appointed by the Church to appeale to the hebrevv greeke and such nevv diuers translations as the protestants haue made is the very vvay to Atheisme Infidelitie IN this later parte this haue I to shew that whosoeuer taketh to him self that libertie which the heretiks geue here M.W. most busily striueth for that is to refuse the latin and appeale to the greeke and hebrew and these new translations which as they beare vs in hand are framed according to the greeke and hebrew he taketh the high way to denial of al faith to Apostasie from Christ and plaine Atheisme This to do the fittest way were historically to declare how certaine knowen Sects of the Protestants principally vpon this very reason of pretending the greeke and hebrew veritie and therefore running to infinite varietie of diuers translations and resting in no one haue fallen to despise al Bibles Scriptures and concluded as a most assured Euangelical veritie that nothing is certaine but euerie man is to be left to his owne fansie to beleeue as he list Such is the sect of the Swinkfeldians Anabaptists and Academikes and it is the very drifte of Castalio so much commended of many in the preface of his Bible to King Edvvarde the sixte although he beate pretily vpon an other point much of like effect vz that the Messias promised in the law is not yet come but vvil come hereafter according to the Iewes expectation Thus vvriteth he Profecto si verum fateri volumus est adhuc nostrum soeculum in profundis ignorantiae tenebris demersum cuius rei certissimuÌ„ testimonium sunt tam graues tam pertinaces taÌ„ perniciosae dissensiones tam multi et irriti coÌ„uentus de hisce controuersiis c. Truely if vve vvil confesse the truth this our age is as yet drowned in extreme darknes ignoraÌ„ce a most assured proofe vvhereof are these so greuous so obstinate and so pernicious dissensions so many and the same so vnprofitable meetinges about these controuersies so great number of bookes euery day sett out and the same differing one from an other so far as heauen differeth from earth And prosecuting this his plaine and irrefutable argument vvhereby he proueth the Protestants notvvithstanding al their latin greeke and hebrevv to be most ignorant in true diuinitie and matters spiritual thus he addeth For if the spirit of God be one truth one it must of necessitie folovv in vvhoÌ„ that one spirite one truth is that they also be one amoÌ„g theÌ„ selues of one iudgment in matters spiritual And if the day of the most cleare truth of the gospel shined vnto vs vve vvould neuer lighten so many darkesome obscure candles of bookes and vvritinges The vvhich reason concluding this euangelical state and age to be ful of ignorance grosse grosse againe Crassa crassa inquaÌ„ saecuâ—um tenet ignorantia and that there is no certaine vvay to find out the truth and come to an end of these controuersies hereof he inferreth that euery man is to be leaft to his ovvne iudgement suffered to beleeue as he list Thus he speaketh addressing his wordes to the king Cum haec it a sint o rex et cum aetas nostra in tanta adhuc ignorantiae caligine caecutiat c. VVhereas these things are so O king vvhereas our age as yet is blinded in so great darkenes of ignorance I thinke vve ought to vse maruelous diligence lest by error vve offend And if there be any controuersies in the case of religion as there are verie many in these I thinke it good that vve folovv the exaÌ„ple of Iudas Machabeus his felovves vvho vvhen they knevv not vvhat to determine touching the altar
answere to the next demonstration where to S. Austin and S. Hierome reaching Peters chayre and succession of Priests in that Sea to be the very rocke vvhich the proud gates of helâ— ouercome nor which thing they affirme vpon manifest warrant of Christes wordes he answereth vpon warrant of his owne vvord that that succession of priestes is not the rocke the gates of hel haue prevayled against that church so as the faith vvhich somtimes florished there novv appeareth no vvhere in it long since is departed into other places Whereas D. S. replâ—eth this to be false and and that church euer to haue reteyned the same true faith and neuer to haue brought in any heresie or made any chaunge of doctrine vvhich he proueth by al historiographers that euer liued in the church Eusebius Prosper Beda Regino Marianus Scotus Schafnaburgensis Zonaras Nicephorus Cedâ—enus Sigebertus Gotfridus Viterbiensis Trithemius and many others against them al this only censure he opposeth Historias vestras Sandere non moramur vve regard not M. Sanders your stories and yet him selfe for his ovvne side bâ—ingeth not so much as one story So that against scriptures reason councels fathers old and nevv historiographers al kynd of vvriters him selfe euer cometh in as an omnipotent and vniuersal Apostlâ— Doctor Father c. as though in his only vvord consisted more pith then vvas in al mens that euer liued since Christes time And now somwhat farther to descrie the incredible vanitie folie pride and selfe loue of the maÌ„ let the reader note the grosse and barbarous impossibilitie of that paradox vvhich by this his supreme authoritie he vvould defend He graunteth the Church of Rome to haue bene pure godly christian for six hundred yeres after Christ as before hath bene declared VVhen then grew it to be so impure wicked and Antichristian ten yeres after For thus he writeth Six hundred and ten yeres after Christ or there about Bonifacius the third gouerned the Romane church VVhat vvas he to ansvvere truly very Antichrist In which wordes ioyned together thus much he saith in effect That whereas within the space of ten or twelue yeres before the Romane church was religious and euangelical in such sense as they vnderstand it that is abhorred the Popes vniuersal iurisdiction as Antichristian and limited his power within the precinctes of his owne Patriarkship reuerenced euery prince as supreme head of the church within his owne dominion detested the sacrifice of the masse as iniurious to the death of Christ acknowledged no iustification but by only faith allowed mariage of priestes and religious persons as agreable to the libertie of the gospel held for sacramentes none other but Baptisme the Eucharist and Baptisme an only signe not remitting synnes and the Eucharist a sole figure from which the truth of Christes body was as far distant as heauen is from earth and so forth according to the rest of the articles of their reformed faith within the decourse of so few yeres al these thinges were turned vpside downe the contrary faith planted in steede thereof That is the Romane church of late so sound and perfite sodaynly became most corrupt and impure she approued the vniuersal authoritie of the Romane Bishop and appointed no boundes or limites to his iurisdiction which was mere Antichristian she tooke from Princes their Supremacie she brought in the sacrifice of the masse and highly aduaunced it against the death and sacrifice of Christ she acknowledged iustification to proceede not of only faith but of workes also she established the single life of priestes and votaries and condemned their mariages as sacrilegious and execrable for two sacramentes she admitted seuen to baptisme she attributed remission of sinnes and in the Eucharist she beleeued the real and substantial veritie of Christes presence so forth according to the articles of Catholike religion or papistrie as these men terme it Now whereas thus much is comprised in their paradox of making the succession of the Romane bishops Antichrist whereas such weight lieth in the matter which of it selfe to common intendement is so absurd vnreasonable and in deede vnpossible whereas we also bring forth Fathers Councels and Doctors auouching the contrary gather thou Christian reader whether vve haue not iust cause vtterly to discredite them in this so blunt sensles assertioÌ„ vntil we see their Chronicles their monumeÌ„ts their aÌ„tiquities some maner warraÌ„t besides their owne in a matter of such importance Whereas they allow vs no such and yet chalenge to be credited vpon their owne vvord assure they selfe reader their dealing in this behalfe is not only foolish vnlearned and ignorant but also inhumane furious and diabolical Notwithstanding whereas M.W. besides those former profes which to any indifferent man may seeme more then sufficient requireth of vs farther declaratioÌ„ that in these later ages the Romane church hath not departed from that faith which in her first time she professed to content him if any thing mâ—y content him and make more euident the inuincible equitie of the Catholike cause I wil proue the same by such â—istoriographers as him selfe I trust wil allow for vpright and nothing fauorable to our cause Those witnesses I meane to be first of al him selfe and then Iohn Calum Peter Martyr Martin Luther Flacius Illyricus with such other pillers founders of his owne congregation Out of him self this I gather That to haue bene the true and Christian faith which the Romane church maâ—ntained the first fiue hundred yeres at what time that church vvas must pure excellent preserued inuiolablâ— the faâ—th deliuered by S. Peter and S. Paule This proposition is commonly found almost in euery page of M.W. answere to the second DemoÌ„stration Out of the other Caluin Luther c. this I gather that the Romane church in her first primitiue puritie maintained and beleeued the Popes Supremacie the sacrifice at the masse the same to be auailable for the dead priesthode the real presence c. no lesse then we do now This thou shalt find witnessed by their seueral confessions and approued at large hereafter in places conuenient The conclusion hereof rising is this first that these are no pointes of false or AntichristiaÌ„ doctrine but such as Peter Paule taught the primitiue Romane church Next that the later Romane church hath not departed from the former but hath kept inuiolably the self same faith without chaunge or alteration And so the false supposal whereupon this booke standeth being by such euideÌ„ce refuted the rest of the building must needes come to ground Now I say farther that this point which M.W. taketh for a most certaine and cleare veritie that is the fal of the vniuersal church for after the fal of the Romane church they can shew none that stoode and it is their general both preaching and writing that she corrupted the whole world with her errors and her
Stinckfâ—ldius and their scholer vvhether they be at Zuruke or in vvhat place else soeuer vnder the sâ—nne Thus Luther If you know this Maister Whitaker as you wil seeme to be ignorant of nothing what maketh you so busily to defend Luthers barbarous and proude vauntes as though he were such a piller without whom your church could not stande But belyke it is sufficient that he was an Apostata frier as were the founders of your gospel that he with you agreed in rayling at the Pope and Sea of Rome and so for his agreeing with you in these smaler toyes you care not for his disagreeing from you in those weightie matters Wel be it as you liste and perhaps you haue more reason then I perceaue otherwise you shall neuer be able to iustifie this demeanure in the sight of any man endued with common sence Let vs heare how conningly you cure this stinking sore for nothing stinketh more before the face of God and man then a poore contemptible wretch so Lucifer-lyke to prefer him selfe before inumerable excellent learned and glorious Saintes of God What distinction haue you to saue Luthers honestie Forsooth this In certaine cases Luther might more esteeme of his ovvne iudgement then of Austine Ciprian or a thousand Churches For if that vvhich Luther taught vvere agreable to Gods vvord then Luthers iudgment vvas to be preferred before the contrarie iudgment of al men and Churches Here M. VV. thinketh he hath spoken much to the purpose and therefore aduaunceth him selfe alofte Scripturam Lutherus protulit cuinullus mortalis resistit quaeque tandem Pontificiis decretis pesteÌ„ atque exitium afferet Luther brought vvith him scripture vvhich no mortall man can vvithstand and vvhich at length shall be the bane and distruction of the Popish decrees That I may the better conceaue this distinction and ether yelde to it if it stand with reason or discouer the vanitie of it if it fal out to be but a peeuish battologie of wordes as I trowe it will proue let me require a playner explication of that parte Luther might vvell prefer his iudgment before a thousand Austines Ciprianes and Churches if he spake vvith scripture Is this the meaning that in case and controuersie of religion if a thousand Ciprians that is all the Fathers teach vs one thing and bringe scriptures for them and one father Luther teach vs the contrarie and bringe scriptures for him may Luther in this case preferre his owne iudgement before al those Fathers if so as the speach it selfe is so monstrous execrable as the deuil him selfe can not open his mouth into more horrible pride so what heresie what Apostasie what Atheisme in the church can euer be coÌ„trouled if this rule be made currante why shoud Arrius yelde to the Councel of Nice Nestorius to the Councel of Ephesus Macedonius to the CouÌ„cel of Constantinople seinge they brought scriptures for them and by this rule ought to haue preferred their priuate iudgment before those byshops as Luther his offpringe doe theirs before the Councel of Trente or will he say that if perhaps a thousand Austines and Churches teache some doctrine without the writteÌ„ worde of God that is citing no text for it Luther against the same bring the written worde that is some texte of the scripture after his seÌ„se in this case he may better esteeme of himselfe then of al the rest But first he can neuer geue instance that ether the auncient fathers did so in their tymes or that we do so now for howsoeuer in the Councels of Nice of Ephesus of Chalcedon the byshops stoode much vppoÌ„ the traditioÌ„ of their elders ea que sunt patrum teneantur say they sic credere à sanctis patribus edocti sumus let vs hold fast the fayth and decrees of our fathers thus to beleeue vve haue bene taught by our holye fathers yet they waÌ„ted not scriptures as nether did the fathers in the Councel of Trent nor we at this day in our controuersies with the protestantes And if those auncient fathers had alleaged no direct euident place against Arrius Nestorius Eutyches yet notwithstanding the Christian people were bound to beleeue them grounding them selues only vpoÌ„ the Catholike vniuersal fayth of the churches which were before them as they did in the question of our B. Ladies perpetual virginitie And albeit the heretike brought some clauses of scripture for the coÌ„trary part yet ought al faithful men to yeld no more credit thereto theÌ„ to the deuil when he alleaged scripture against our sauiour because as the deuil so al heretikes may vse scripture against the true sense and meaning thereof the vniuersal church caÌ„ neuer teach or beleeue so as by Christ him self we are assured And this case in effect coÌ„meth to one issue with the former for geue this scope to an heretike that all the Bishops Churches Fathers may erre he alone if he can alleage a text may therefore rightly contemne al other in respecte of him selfe as euery Sectmaister doth and hath done where is the Churches quietnes what order is there for coÌ„tinuance of fayth to what ende was the comminge of Christ to what vse the sendinge of the holy Ghost Or perhaps M. W. wil say posito per impossibile that all the Churches fathers teach against scripture Luther alone teache with scripture then lo Luther maye thinke him selfe a better man then they all and this is true this I graunte as in like maner I confesse that if the heauen shoulde falle we knowe what woulde folow And yet of these two suppositions the Spirit of God putteth the later to be more possible that the course of heauen shal soner alter then the Catholike Churche of the new TestameÌ„te fal frome Christe to Apostasie But it may be M.VV. wil say I scanne his wordes to narrowlie his meaning is plaine that whereas Luther bringeth scriptures against vs that is against all the Austines and Ciprianes of the Catholike Church all the Byshops now liuinge he maye well truste his owne iudgmente if this be the meaning yet stil al commeth to one ende and whie may Luther so do more then Caluine whie Caluine more then Muncerus whie a ZwingliaÌ„ more then a Puritane Anabaptiste or Trinitarian Or what assurance hath he more then those other But if Luthers iudgment bringinge scriptures with him be so forcible against vs may not we trow you Lutherize a litle after your example and say the same against you As for example Luther hath made a booke entituled defensio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verborum coenae accipite comedite hoc est corpus meum contra fanaticos SacramentarioruÌ„ spiritus In that booke not very longe or large yet contayninge more substaÌ„ce then some whole volumes of his do his principal conclusion risinge vpon this texte of scripture and grounded vpon many texts of scripture beside is that he and his vvill
of my opinion and thinke the sense which I geue to be the onely true and yours to be the false shal he be so bold to shut out yours and thrust in his owne with like necessitie restraynt as you haue done if so then you know the Lutherans thinke as I say For thus writeth Illyricus and he writeth as it may seeme directlie against your Beza Some vnderstand this place that Christ is receaued or coÌ„teyned of the heauen vvhich sentence is against the scope of the Apostle and should set forth rather the infirmitie then the glorie povver of Christ For so of angels yea of deuils it may be sayd that they are receaued or coÌ„teyned of heaueÌ„ because the vvorde coeluÌ„ sometime in the scripture signifieth the ayer A goodlie matter he vvho by vvitnes â—o the scripture filleth al thinges vve vvil say is receaued or conteyned in a certen place almost as it vvere in a prison Secondarily what wicked and vncoÌ„scionable dealing is this in spending so many wordes not to speake any one worde to the purpose whereunto you should speake al or els hold your peace speake nothing Was not that the point of his reprehension not because you gaue a passiue for an actiue or deponent but because you did it in this place and did it to this end that so you might seeme by scripture to exclude Christ froÌ„ the sacrament For this reason Beza geueth and for this reason M. Martin reproueth Beza Bezaes corruption and of this M.W. speaketh not a worde or if he do it is a manifest falsitie For if M. Whit. sayng that Beza did it for that only cause to auoyde doubtful speach oppose him selfe to M. Martin in this it can not be excused froÌ„ a playne lye for so much as in Bezaes behalfe he auoucheth that to be true which Beza him selfe protesteth to be false They so conclude Christ in heaueÌ„ saith M. Martin that he can not be on the altar and Beza protesteth that he so translateth of purpose to kepe Christes presence thence Yet a third faulte you haue committed besides in iustifying this smal demie sentence and that is whereas M. Martin for the better strengthning of his reason against you ioyned to it the authoritie of Illyricus and Caluin you omit them bothe This translation of Beza is so far from the Greke saith M. Martin that not onely Illyricus the Lutherane but Caluin him selfe doth not like it Which wodes if you had ioyned to the rest if you had but named those men your slender reasoÌ„s in the eyes of your reader would forthwith haue appeared contemptible And wel he might haue marueyled how you durst defend such a translation which not only Illyricus a famous LutheraÌ„ but also Caluin a prince amongst the ZuingliaÌ„s in plaine speach reprehendeth whereby a man may see that you seeke not for truth but only to talke on and serue the tyme abuse the reader And yet once againe vnder preteÌ„ce of a litle simplicitie and most rude and simple sophistrie a fourth fault haue you made worse then the former running first from one sense to an other and then from one worde to an other and so in fine whiles you would seeme to make S. Peter speake clearly and plainly you make him speake falsly heretically whereof forthwith I shal haue occasion to treate The place which you cite out of Nazianzene oportet Christum a coelo recipi maketh no more for you then doth the article of our Creede ascendit ad coelos or sedet ad dexteram patris and I marueile what Catholike beleeueth the contrarie and therefore I let it passe As ye proceede the reason beginneth to appeare why you would so fayne haue that forged interpretation of Beza to stand for good For now you beginne to frame against the real presence argumeÌ„ts drawen from natural and mathematical conditions of a bodie whereby the reader may learne the more to detest and abhorre the whole race of your heretical translators For as our Sauiour saith in the field of his Catholike church in the night vvhen men vvere a slepe his enemie came and ouersovved cockle among the vvheate and vvent his vvay and some time passed before the cockle thus sowen appeared in like maner these feedemen of the same aduersarie wicked corrupters of the good feede and worde of Christ first fall a traÌ„slating of the scripture with many goodlie and plausible pretenses of gods honor the peoples commoditie and publishing gods blessed booke c. And so while no man thinketh amisse of them as it were in the night and darknes being espied of none among the good seede of god they mingle sow their owne wicked and abhommable darnel which at first is not seene but in tyme sheweth it selfe For when M.W. so smoothly went away with the matter and found fault with M. Martins ignorance for dislyking so plaine a thing when he told vs of actiues and passiues that there was no difference betwene the first quem oportet coelum capere and this second quem oportet coelo capi but that this later is more cleare and perspicuous who would haue supposed any great mischeefe to haue bene hidden therein But now euen thereof he frameth his principal argument to spoyle the church of Christes real presence VVith like sinceritie translate the Lutherans for their Lutherish the Brentians for their Vbiquitarie the Trinitaries of Pole for their Arian and Sebastianus Castalio for his Academical heresie sprinkling heare and there many drops of poyson with which symple soules are daungerously infected before the mischeuous practyse be of many discouered But let vs heare M. W. argument drawen as he would haue vs suppose from the former falsified text of scripture but in deede from Aristotle and Euclide If Christes body sayth he be natural and of the same substance that ours is then can it be conteyned but in one place and if it be in heauen it is not in the sacrament But Christs body is such a body consubstantial to ours in al things sauing glorie and immortalitie and that body of Christ is novv conteyned in heauen as Peter saith therefore it is not in the Sacrament much lesse in infinite Sacraments This argument feareth not your forces For if Christs body be together in heauen and in the sacrament then Christ hath a double body or rather infinite bodies but this is false ergo that Furthermore if Christs bodie be circumscribed vvith some certaine place in heauen and reteyneth all properties of a true body the selfe same in the sacrament be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incircumscript inuisible c. then contradictories maye be verified of the same bodye But this can not be therefore the other is vnpossible Of this kinde of reasoning which may be enlarged as far and amplified by as many circumstances as ether Geometrie or Philosophie or any sense seing hearing tasting handling or humaine reason or
common experiment in the course of the world list to heape together al depending of one principle vvhether one body may be in dyuers places or vvhether Christ be bound to the rules and conditions of nature many thinges I learne First how much you can make of a litle and vaunte so lustely of such beggerly argumentes which being found out first and inuented by prentises and artisans in their shops thence admitted by ministers into their pulpits and at length receaued by such as you are in to the scholes for want of better store yet rather as rhetorical theÌ„ theological rather coniectural then necessary haue so oft tymes bene refuted by Catholikes coÌ„demned by Lutherans refused of Caluinistes are withall as coÌ„mon as are the Postilions bootes Secondarily which before I noted I learne how careful a Christian man ought to be in dealing with you whose fashion is of molehils to make mountaines and if of curtesie one graunt you an inch straight waies you borow a spanne and forthwith by force and violence you snatch an ell For when you so demurely made it to be a trifle whether a man translated the wordes quem oportet coelum capere vvhom the heauens must receaue or vvho must be receaued in heauen and so caried away the later against the former who would haue thought that to haue bene such a cokatrice egge as where of should proceede such a pestiferous serpent that would corrupt the vniuersal church of Christ and destroy the faith that hath bene since Christes tyme. If Christes bodie be conteined in heauen as S. Peter saith then is it not in the sacrament which collection when a man perceaueth who before of simplicitie found no fault wiâ—h your translation and made no conscience whether he said heauen receaued Christ or Christ vvas receaued in to heauen he can not now forbeare but needes he must say that your argument is false and you belye S. Peter And this being your sense you haue corrupted the word of god thrusting in your owne word haue made of it the word of the deuil Great dauÌ„ger it is saith S. Hierom to speake in the church leste perhaps through peruerse interpretation of the gospel of Christ be made the gospel of maÌ„ or vvhich is vvorse the gospel of the Deuill And plaine it is that by this corruption shuffling in conteyned for receaued and running sophistically and wickedly as you please from one to the other you abuse the scriptures falsifie them intolerably make them youre owne word not the word of god For S. Peter in sayng that heauen must receaue the body of Christ affirmeth Christes body to be conteyned in heauen no more then S. Luke writing that Samaria receaued the vvord of God affirmeth rhat the word of God vvas then conteyned in Samaria which was most false Our Sauiour saith in this selfe same maner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The like whereof he speaketh in S. Matthew of receauing his Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that receaueth a child Apostle or prophete in my name receaueth me and he that receaueth me receaueth him that hath sent me Here who seeth not what impietie would folow if we should take to our selues M. W. libertie and say he that receaueth a child in Christes name he receaueth Christ he receaueth God that is of him Christ is conteyned God is conteyned And albeit here in the thinges compared together there be some difference yet in the worde vsed by our Sauiour S. Peter and the Euangeliste there is no difference and this indifferency should the interpreter haue expressed and so would Beza haue done had it not bene for his heresie against the B. sacra ment Thirdly I note the proceeding of your Gospel and learne how it goeth on according to S. Paules prophecie a malo in peius from badd to worse from heresie to apostasie running continually forward the verie hye way to infidelitie When this gospel began in England in the ende of King Henryes daies those that in other pointes were starke heretikes and the ringleaders vnto others Tindale Frith Barnes Cranmer leaft it as a thing indiffereÌ„t to beleeue the real presence And namely Frith that glorious martyr permitted euery man to iudge vvhat they listed of the sacrament if so be the adoration thereof were taken away His reason was because then there remained no more any poyson that any man ought or might be afraid of So that the real presence to this great martyr seemed no way harmful or against Christian faith which now to M. Whitaker is a matter so monstruous that it is against scripture against faith against S. Peter and in steede of one Christ multiplieth many And how then calleth he the Lutherans his brethren in Christ who by this reason haue an other Christ froÌ„ him nay a plain contradictorie Christ against him But to answere his argument and in this al other drawen from like principles I demaund of M.W. whether he vrge this argument so that Christs body by course of nature can not be in diuers places and receaue those other contradictory qualities as he falslie imagineth or that by Gods power and omnipoteÌ„cie this can not be wrought If the first then we are agreed and then may al these blotted papers serue for some other purpose For against vs and the doctrine of the church they make nothing And then M. VV. hath done wickedly to moue these scruples to idle heads whereas he should rather haue sought what Christs wil is If he say the later that it is aboue the reach of Gods power where vnto his arguments tende I replie that he is an infidell and beleeueth not the first article of his Crede he beleeueth not other thinges expresly sette downe in the scripture of the same qualitie as that our Lady was a Virgin wheÌ„ she deliuered Christ that he entred in to his disciples ianuis clausis that in the burning fornace one and the selfe same fier was so hotte and violente that it slew those that stode a farre of the ministers of the Kinge and yet to those that were in the middest of it Sidrach Misach and Abdenago it was so cold and temperate that it resembled ventum roris flantem a moyst gale of vvinde and harmed them nothing which is as flat a contradiction as any he bringeth and therefore belike without the compasse of his beleefe I saie againe that he is proceeded farther in infidelitie then his maisters who notwithstanding were gone far inough and a man needed not to ouerrun them For they hitherto were woÌ„t to protest that they neuer doubted but Christ could do it mary they supposed and beleeued that he neuer meant it and so made the question to consist in that vvhether Christ vvould not vvhether he could as may be seene in M. Iewel in the very end of his 10. article against M. Harding and in many other
Next let him note that this his argument is the very shipwracke of Christian religion roote of al Paganisme destroyng our redemption destroyng our resurrection confounding and destroyng al the articles of our faith although it pretend the honor of god as wel writeth Caluin of Seruetus and the Anabaptists For what is the first corner-stone of the Seruetan and Anabaptistical buylding against Christes Incarnation Euen that which M. W. here tendereth them and was squared before to their handes by Zuinglius the Sacramentaries The Anabaptists I say vrging the selfe same Philosophical and Phisical rules obiect that the Papistes beleefe of Christes IncarnatioÌ„ of the Virgin besides that it is base and attributeth to much honor to that woman besides this is also against the rules of Phisicke and Philosophie and implieth a contradiction For ex arte medica Philosophia out of Philosophie and Physicke rules they fynd that vvomen are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore to say that Christe had a true humaine body as is ours and yet of a virgin without the seede of man was to saye he had a true humaine bodie in worde denie it in deed And if M.W. waygh the matter well he shal find their argument better then his and that it toucheth more intrinsecally the essence and origin of our nature to be conceaued of the seede of man that to be formed of a virgin is much more repugnant to nature and sith the beginning of the world hath bene wrought more seeldoÌ„ theÌ„ a body to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof he talketh so peremptorily or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which others of his secte vrge is more to the purpose that is not circumscript nor visible nor local where of the first was practised in the self same body in his natiuitye resurrection ascension and in S. Peter Actorum 12. The second is more common and was not only in our Sauiour wheÌ„ the Iewes meante to haue throvven him dovvne headlong from the hill and he passing through the middes of them went his waye but also in Elizeus when the hoste of the King of Syria hauing him in the middes of them yet saw him not in S. Felix a martir priest of the citie of Nola of whom S. Paulinus bishop of the same citie writeth that in time of persequutioÌ„ when the citizens such as were infidels wel acquainted with him would haue appreheÌ„ded him they could not see or discerne him being in the middes of them although which is more straunge the faithful at the same instant saw him knew him and perceaued in him no difference or chaunge at al. So that at one and the self same time he was visible and inuisible knowen and vnknowen endued with his accustomed figure proportion and lineaments yet altered chaunged and so forth subiect to other such maruelous accidentes as M.W. fondly and falsly nameth contradictions The third is so far beneath the omnipotency of God that by the vulgar opinion of Philosophers the first heauen being a perfect natural body is notwithstaÌ„ding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in no place and therefore much more may we yeld this prerogatiue to Christ the Lord of heauen and earth whose worde wil is the very rule squyre of nature And let M.W. see how vrging so vehemently his proposition Chriâ—tes body is per omnia nostris corporibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sauing glory and immortalitye and he hath all the propertyes of a true and humaine bodye how he will free him self from the filthy and wicked heresies of the Ebionites Nestorians Who vpon this general proposition may must inferre their opinions that Christ was begotten betwene our Lady Ioseph as other men are they may and must infer that Christ assumpted as wel the person as the nature of man the personalitie being a thing much more nylie and essentially ioyned to the nature theÌ„ are these accidental qualities of visible and circumscript which here are obiected Thirdly I answere that this absurdity was forseene by the auÌ„cient fathers who for al that were neuer induced to inueÌ„t this distinctioÌ„ that you haue fouÌ„d out that is to deny the verity of Christes presence Let vs euermore beleeue God saith S. Chrisostom albeit it seeme absurd to our sense cogitation that vvhich he saith albeit his vvords surpasse our sense and reason Thus as in al things vve ought to doe so especially in the sacramentes not beholding those thinges vvhich lie before our eyes but holding fast his vvordes For in his vvordes vve can not be beguiled but our sense is easely deceaued Therefore sith he said This is my body let vs beleeue it vvithout casting any doubt and vvith the eyes of our vnderstanding conceaue the same The lyke is vsed by diuers other fathers which they neuer needed to haue spoken nether could haue spoken with reason had their faith bene so agreable to the rules of Philosophie as you would now make it Fourthly I say that your owne brethren and maisters though in other heresies they agreed with you yet in this kind of argument detested and abhorred you So the Historiographers of Magdeburg in their fourth Centurie where they proue by many authorities of S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Hilary S. Epiphanius S. Nazianzen S. Basil and others the verity of Christes presence dedicating the same to the Quenes Maiestie thus they speake vnto her And this most excellent Quene is not to be ouerpassed that vvhereas novv there grovv euery vvhere diuers as it vvere factions of opinions amonge vvhich some flatly by Philosophical reasons make voyd and frustrate the testament of our lord so as they take avvay the body bloud of Christ touching his presence and communication according to the most cleare most euident most true and most puissant vvordes of Christe and deceaue men vvith marueilous aequiuocation of speach principally your maiestie hath to prouide that the sacramentes may be restored vvithout such pharisaical leaueÌ„ c. And MelanchthoÌ„ whom Peter Martyr maketh equal for learning and godlines with S. Austin S. Hierom S. Leo the auncient fathers debating this matter with Oecolampadius There is no care saith he that hath more troubled my mynde then this of the Eucharist And not only my self haue vvayghed vvhat might be said on ether syde but I haue also sought out the iudgemeÌ„t of the old vvriters touching the same And vvhen I haue laid al together I find no good reason that may satisfye a coÌ„science departing from the propriety of Christes vvordes You gather many absurdities vvhich folovv this opinion as here we see in M.W. but absurdities vvill not trouble him vvho remembreth that vve must iudge of diuine matters according to Gods vvorde not according to Geometrie And not far after in the same booke I find no reason hovv I may depart from this opinion touching the real
to his disciple but the sonne of God ascending leaft to vs his flesh And Elias did so but him selfe being depriued of his cloke but Christ both leaft it vnto vs ascended hauing the selfe same vvith him Therefore let vs not fainte in courage For he that hath not refused to shed his bloud for vs all and hath communâ—cated vnto vs his flesh and the self same bloud againe he vvill refuse nothing for our saluation These are S. Chrisost wordes which tende to set forth not a similitude but an opposition not an equalitye but a supereminent excellencie in our Sauiour I wil shew you an other maner of thing saith this holy father far greater then that of Elias And how so and wherein standeth that so great and singuler difference In this That Elias leaft his cloke but the sonne of God his flesh which none but the sonne of God could doe Againe Elias leauing his cloke loste it and so was bereaft of it but Christ the sonne of God as a worke proper to his diuine maiestie both leaft his flesh with vs in the world and yet lost it not but caried the same flesh with him in to heauen Furthermore Elias tooke some paynes for the sauing of his people but neuer shed his bloud for them much lesse could he impart to them the same for this was aboue the compasse or reach of humaine imbecillitie But Christ both shed his bloud for our redemption and againe imparted vnto vs the self same bloud as the same doctor sayth elswhere Quod est in calice id est quod fluxit è latere et illius sumus participes That vvhich is in the chalice is that vvhich gushed out of his side and vve are partakers thereof This is the most euident speach and sense of S. Chisostome and no man I suppose can be so simple but he may forthwith see how well this matcheth with the doctrine of the catholike church how dissonant it is from the preaching of your congregation especially if he know your doctrine a right and be not deceaued with your fantastical painted words which you sometymes vse to beguile simple sowles seeming to aduaunce that very hyghly and magnifically which in deed your selues esteeme most basely coÌ„temptibly For thinke you of your CoÌ„munion otherwise then as of common bread and wine withouâ— al grace vertue or sanctificatioÌ„ with a bare figure of Christ absent which figure your selues caÌ„ not explicate nor shal be euer able to geue reasoÌ„ but you haue or may haue as good figures at your common breakfastes diners and suppers This is your faith in that poynt yf you be Zuinglians and beleeue as the church of Geneua The Eucharist saith Zuinglius or communion or lordes supper is nothing els but a coÌ„memoration in the vvhich they that firmely beleeue them selues to be reconciled to god the father by Christes death bloud sett forth his liuely death that is praise it geue thankes and preach And when Luther obiected to him that he and his felow heretikes were diuided amongst them selues he answered thus vvhereas thou sayst Luther that there are sectes amongest vs it is false both I Carolostadius OecolaÌ„padius and the rest auouch that the bread and vvine be only figures mary vve shift the vvords of Christ after a diuers maner verba diuersimodè expedimus And in an other booke against Luther It is to be noted saith he that Paule 1. Cor. 11. after the vvordes of the institution calleth it no othervvise then bread and the cuppe For he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is this bread of the supper or that bread hunc hunc paneÌ„ qui praeter panem non est quicquam amplius this bread this bread I say vvhich is nothing els but bread Al which he there expresseth by a playne similitude in this sort Behold this is the sacramental presence of Christ in this supper as the Emperour or the King of Fraunce are said to be in the kingdome of Naples because their banners or signes be there vvhereas in the meane season the one of them liueth in Spaine the other in FrauÌ„ce But the bread and vvine are no more one and the same thinge vvith Christes body and bloud then those kinges banners be the very kinges them selues because they note vnto vs the maiestie and povver of the kinges And that you cauill not that this is not the faith of your Geneuian church so shrowde your selfe in your ordinarie cloude of wordes whereby you seeme to speake honorably of this sacrament heare you what Theodore Beza writeth whom you extoll so highly Dico impudeÌ„tes esse calumniatores c. I say they are impudent slauÌ„derers vvho imagine that there vvas euer any coÌ„trariety betvvene the doctrine of these most excellent men Zuinglius OecolaÌ„padius and Caluine touching the sacramentes I say also that the selfe same faith in euerie respecte is proposed and defended in the Churches of Suizzerlande Sauoy and Fraunce in the Flemmish Scottish and as I thinke in the English churches also Wherefore this being your faith that in the Sacrament there is nothing but bread in such sort as hath bene declared I say with Zuinglius panis panis nihil amplius bread bread and nothing els now compare your faith with S. Chrisostome and see how handsomlie you can patch it together thus you must needes say Elias departing out of this worlde leaft his cloke but Christe leaft a thing of greater power and miracle for he leaft vs breade and wine Elias leaft his cloke and so loste it for he caried it not with him but Christ ascending leaft vs bread and wine and tooke vp bread and wine to heauen with him Againe where in Elias hath no part of coÌ„parison the bloud which Christ shed for our redemption that he imparted vnto vs in the chalice Here you must helpe me thorough for I know not what you wil say but sure I am one of these two it must needes be ether that Christ redeemed the worlde by wine which is the bloud of the grape and so coÌ„municated such wine and bread with vs and this standeth iumpe with your figuratiue supper Communion or that he redeemed the worlde with his owne pretious bloud and so communicated the same with vs in the B. Sacrament which is our faith mary you will none of that In conclusion aduise your selfe better what you write and thinke not with such balde toies to shake of such graue authoritie Regarde the wordes meaning and scope of the author so except you be to dul you can not be ignoraÌ„t but that you cleane peruert this father turne him quite vpside downe For whereas he would infinitely preferre that facte of Christ leauinge the sacrament of his body to his Christians before the facte of Elias leauinge his cloke to Elizeus for of our coÌ„uersinge with Christ in heauen by faith and vnderstanding here is no
persons of this one sauiour from which heresie Beza was not farre as you know now this heresie maketh that citatioÌ„ though otherwise good and sound yet not so perfect and absolute as it had bene to put in the worde god Because in this tyme and against such an heritike the place thus alleaged is more forcible S. Bernard erred not in citing the first but this heretike playeth the verie heretike in pressing it against the later Take an other example to make the thing more manifest In S. Luke we reade that the angel thus speaketh to our blessed Ladie Spiritus sanctus superueniet in te etc. ideoque quod nascetur ex te sanctum vocabitur filius dei The holy Ghost shall come vpon thee c. and therefore that vvhich of thee shall be borne holy shall be called the sonne of god who doubteth but S. Bernard or S. Thomas and some auncient copies albeit they leaue out the wordes ex te of thee neuertheles meane the true and perfecte sense of the place that our Ladie through the power of the holy Ghost coÌ„ceaued of her body and brought forth the sonne of god Now ryse your frindes the Ana baptistes and amongest other heresies spreade this that Christ brought his flesh from heauen and tooke it not of our blessed Lady but passed thorough her as water thorough a cundit pipe or according to your auncient comparison when you first began your gospel Christ was so in her as saffron in a saffron bagge And they being pressed with this place answere as you aÌ„swere for Beza that the true reading is to leaue out those two syllables ex te and so the place proueth nothing And this they would proue by better argument then you pretend any hauing for them some auncient copies both greeke and latin besides the reading of more fathers then one Can not you in this case easily conceaue how those fathers and writers gaue a true sense and far from the Anabaptisticall heresie and yet the Anabaptists are wicked heretiks in vrging this correction of the text why so because the fathers spake truly and meant entierly the full truth although the sense be not so full and absolute to all purposes and in euerie respecte namely of this new heresie whereof these fathers neuer dreamed as is the text it selfe in his naturall strength and force put downe in those words and syllables as it was first by the holy Euangelist the Anabaptistes speake falsly and meane detestably when by that alteration they will seeme to confirme their heresie take from the Catholike church so good a grouÌ„d refelling the same which those other fathers neuer entended This is your very case and so S. Basil meant truly and simply and as a Sainte and a Christian though Beza and you deale in the selfe same matter falsely and subtilly and as it becommeth heretikes And yet one step farther vvhen you haue done spoke al al that ye doe speake is nothing to the purpose For suppose ye sinâ—e many Basils and many greeke copies reading as you vvould haue it yet shall you be neuer for al that able to iustifie Beza because he coÌ„fesseth vvhen he so translated he neuer savv any and therefore vvas not moued by any such reading And therfore your pâ—ying searching for fyg-leaues to couer his filthines can no more serue the turne then if a man should excuse Iudas for betrayng Christ by reason of the good vvhich came thereby to the redemption of mankinde Because vvhatsoeuer vvas the euent of that actioÌ„ he sinned thâ—rin damnably vvho regarded no such matter but only for malice and gayne of xxx pence sold his lord and maister and the selfe same is to be saide of this Iudas vvhose honestie you vvould so fayne sane For vvhatsoeuer may be the successe of your labours in this argument he certainely plaid therein the parte of a damnable corruptor of gods holy vvord vvho for malice against the truth and loue of his heresie vvithout any such knovvledge committed so sacrilegious an acte And the reason vvhich you make helpeth the matter neuer a vvhit but so muche the more discouereth your folly Thus you argue If by the cuppe you vnderstande not the cuppe it selfe but the bloud of Christe in the cuppe is not this a trope vvhy then are you offended vvith vs vvhen you your selues graunt that there is a trope in these vvords Is it lavvfull for you to inuent tropes is it vnlavvfull for vs to appoint one necessarie trope Whereunto I ansvvere first that this is also from the purpose For be your Zuinglian heresie most true as it is moste false it furthereth you nothing nor abbettereth his rashnes in altering the text For vve may not make the scripture speake euerie truth in euerie place much lesse may vve make it speake vile heresie in any place Then the forme of your reasoning is so lose that if a man vvould studie for an argument to make sport vvithall he could not deuise one more fond and ridiculous We allovv of a trope vvhen vve interprete the cuppe to be the bloud or the thing conteyned in the cuppe Ergo vve ought to allovv your trope in the other parte of the sentence that the bloud shed for vs should signifie a cuppe of vvine What vvit reason probabilitie or sense induceth you so to talke vvhence riseth the coherence and connexion of this consequent Is it this because in one part of the seÌ„tence there is a trope or figure therefore the other part is figuratiue also as for example S. Paule sayth by the lavv I am dead to the lavv vvith Christ I am nayled to the crosse and agayne VVe that are baptised are buried together by baptisme in to death vvith Christ in vvhich sentence the Apostle ioyneth tvvo seuerall truthes in the first Christ vvas nayled to the crosse and I am nayled to the crosse vvith him in the next Christ vvas buried and vve that are baptised are buried vvith him Novv is this your argument S. Paule vvas nayled to the crosse mystically and this a trope ergo Christ vvas nayled to the crosse in such maner and that is also a trope vvhen the baptised are sayd to be buried vvith Christ it is a figure ergo that Christ vvas buried is likevvise a figure If this be the knitting of your argumeÌ„t you see vvhat pith is in it Or is it because of one particular figure you may infer an other then also you haue your aunsvvere geuen you partly in that vvhich is hovv sayd partly before by your father Luther that it is as substantiall a reason as if I should saie Peter vvas an Apostle ergo Pilate vvas an Apostle the blessed virgin brought forth and remained a virgin ergo Sara did so Or meane you that your trope hath as good reasoÌ„ to support it as hath ours if so vve geue you infinite difference because vpon our trope to vvitte that the
there is no more daūger in such alteration then if a man should in translating of Plato or Zenophon vse the like libertie and turne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gratiarum actio or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a secret let him learne of Beza vvhom he so aduaūceth what daunger ensueth of such noueltie Beza much detesting in others that fantastical and impious vanitie though he could not perceaue the same in him selfe thus vvriteth against thē The vvorld is novv come to that passe that not they only vvho vvrite their ovvne discourses refuse the familiar accustomed wordes of scripture as obscure vnsauery out of vse but also those that trāslate the scripture out of greeke in to latin challenge vnto them selues the like libertie So as vvhiles euerie man vvil rather freely folovv his ovvne iudgemēt then religiously behaue him selfe as the holy Ghosts interpreter many things they do not conuert but peruert For vvhich licentiousnes and boldnes except remedy be prouided in tyme ether I am notablie deceaued or vvithin fevv yeres in steede of Christians vve shal become Ciceronians that is Gentiles and by litle and litle shal leese the possession of the thinges them selues In these vvordes Beza teacheth yovv that this vvanton noueltie of placing secretes for sacraments and messengers for angels and ambassadours for Apostles and vvashing for Baptisme and thankesgeuing for Eucharist and so forth vvil come to this end that in fine yovv vvil vvith the vvordes take avvay the thinges signified Sacraments Baptisme Eucharist Angels Apostles and al Apostolical doctrine and so in steede of Christians make vs againe Pagans Whereof besides his vvarning the vvorld hath to much experience already And if our deare countrymen would iudge of thinges to come by trial and euent of thinges past they must in their owne memorie finde and feele this to be true which Beza here telleth them For looke what old words you haue vpon newfanglednes as it might seeme altered and taken out of the Bible by the working of Satan those verie thinges you haue remoued from the hartes of men and cast out of the churches which you haue inuaded With the name priest went away the office of priest with the altar that which was the proper seruice of God done at the altar with taking away the word penance you haue withdrawen the people from al doyng of penance and in altering the word church you haue cut them cleane from the church more estraunged them from the communion of it then some barbarous and faithles nations that neuer heard of Christ And so likewise for thinges to come when they see you pricke at the name of angels and begin to leaue out that and for Christ to geue them the anointed and for Apostles Ambassadours and for hel a graue let them assure them selues that your purpose is to extinguish in them al faith and memorie of Angels Christ Apostles Heauen Hel and to bring thē in to the same lamentable state wherein their aūcesters were when by blessed S. Gregory then Pope and S. Austin our Apostle they were first conuerted Wherefore seing reason both humaine and diuine proueth that to be true which I haue said touching their notorious rashnes in corrupting the scriptures seing not only reason but also plaine experience confirmeth the same seing farther the thing is so cleere by reason and experience and al learning that the verie heretikes confesse it whereas their owne brethren by plaine argumēts proue their ttanslatiōs to be most vvicked as vvhich labour to peruert the sentence of the holy Ghost to detort the scriptures from the right sense to preferre darknes before light falshode before truth to deceaue the simple to induce the mortalitie of the sovvle to make men thinke that the sovvle of Christ vvas inclosed in the graue and so buried vvith his body to plant detestable errors to ouerthrovv Gods eternal predestination to take avvay the beleefe of hel and cōsequently of heauen of the extreme iudgment and of God him selfe to make vs of Christians Ciceronians that is Ethnikes and Infidels with alteration of wordes to take from vs al our faith whereas this is euident and confessed and yet for al this M.VV. cometh and saith al this is nothing these be no faultes if the Papistes can find fault vvith no other thing but such toyes and trifles I loued our translations vvel before but novv shal I loue them much better haec et istiusmodi nugae nostra crimina sunt these the like trifles be our faultes I can not otherwise iudg of him but that he is a very Atheist a plaine Sadducee without any feeling and regard of faith and consciēce as it may very wel be thought of the profession of the sect of Libertines Academikes who of late are so far enlarged to whom are ioyned very many of the finest and most elegant Sacramentaries of whom he may reade in Beza who thinke al these questions of Christ his office of his cōsubstancialitie vvith the father of the Trinitie of predestination of freevvill of God of Angels of the Supper of baptisme of the being of mens sovvles after this lyfe who thinke I say al these thinges to be but trifles thinges indifferent and not necessarie to iustification vvhich is obteyned by fayth For these good Gospellers haue a faith and a iustifiyng faith whereby they apprehend eternal life without father sonne and holy Ghost without Christ and his passion or any of these other matters which are rather suttle pointes of the papists historical faith then of the lyuelie iustifying faith wherewith these Euangelical brethren in al securitie are warranted of the certayne fauour of God in this life and assured glory in the next CHAP. XII M. VV. reasons against the latin bible are ansvvered and the same bible is proued to be in sundrie places more pure and sincere then the hebrue novv extant HERE M. VV. draweth to that which is his principal scope in this preface that is to deface the late Translation of the new Testament set forth in this Colledge For although he spend more wordes against M. Martins Discouerie yet he sheweth far more stomake against this whereof before I come to speake order requireth that I examine his disputation against the decree of the Tridentine Councel which for veritie and sinceritie iustifieth approueth as autentical the old common latin edition Against which decree M.VV. thinketh him self to haue good aduantage and much honor he speaketh of the fountaines the greeke and hebrew originals and much he disgraceth our latin translation translator for differing so much ftom those originals First of al before I come to his arguments I request the reader to carye in mind three thinges touching this controuersie vvhereby he shal the more vprightly skilfully iudge betvvene vs and our aduersaries One is that M. VV. discourse in this common place of praising the fountaines maketh against
yet to make all sure here againe he repeateth his former accusatioÌ„ and in particular chargeth vs vvith certaine faultes committed both in the testament it self and in the annotatioÌ„s made vpoÌ„ the same His vvordes albeit they shevv farre more stomake then vvit more malice then reason and therefore are the more lothsome to reade yet because they may be an example of an heretical spirit then most vaunting and triumphing and svvelling a high in loftines of vvordes vvhen in deede he is vnder foote and standeth vpon no grouÌ„d at al I vvil put them dovvne as they are Thus he speaketh There is novv abrode a certaine english translation of the nevv testameÌ„t set forth laboured by that nevv colledge at Rhemes to vvhich I am right gladde that our translatioÌ„ is nothing like For 1 since the first creation of the vvorlde there vvas neuer found any translation like to that vvhich you haue of late published by common iudgment commeÌ„ded to your countrymen For vvhether vve consider the 2 vnaccustomed and monstrous noueltie of vvordes or 3 the prophane corruptions and outragious boldnes to peruert euery thing neuer any heretikes at any time haue done more violence and iniurie to the sacred testament of Christ Iesus our lord They that thus translate the scriptures into any language as you haue done in to ours may rightly be thought 4 not to haue intended that the people should vnderstand the vvil of God declared in the vvord but that they should mocke and coÌ„temne it And truly 5 so farre is it that I thinke this your translatioÌ„ vvil any waies harme our cause that I vvish it might be read also of straungers that vvhen they consider this your nevv kinde of transâ—ation hetherto vnheard of they might acknovvledge the madnes desperatnes of the Papistes 6 It is altogether framed according to the forme of the old latin edition This is his accusation of vs good reader vttered as thou seest in such terrible vvordes as if some counterfaite Aiax Mastigophorus or Hercules Furens or some tragical Tereus or Thyestes after the eating of their ovvne children vvere raging vpon a scaffold Here thou hast The creation of the vvorld Vnaccustomed and monstrous noueltie Prophane corruptions and outragius boldnes Neuer heretikes at any time did the like violence and iniurie to the sacred testament of Christ Iesus The vvord of God mocked and contemned Madnes and desperatnes of the Papistes and so forth as if we were giltie of or himself as bold-faced as he is durst obiect vnto vs any one of those wicked Prophane Heretical Turkish corruptioÌ„s of which we haue proued him his brethreÌ„ to haue coÌ„mitted many Which seing he doth not nether caÌ„ do thou maist vndoubtedly take this for BrutuÌ„ fulmeÌ„ a pange of vile hipocrisie such as when they are disposed now and then they vse in their pulpits to make the people imagine they haue in theÌ„ some dramme of religioÌ„ whereof they are quite destitute And if thou wilt know where these thundering termes may be truly verified recal to memorie not wordes but factes experimeÌ„ts chauÌ„ge of wordes alterations of sentences oppositions against Christ him self and the Euangelistes errors Ethnical Iudaical Diabolical confessed to swarme euery vvhere in these mens nevv bibles in those very same vvhich this vehement orator praiseth as vndefiled and most pure Record this Reader thou shalt find vvhere these oratorial termes so vnaptly applied may be sincerely and truely bestovved And that vve are altogether guiltlesse of any such fault and vvithal that he practiseth not only manifest lying but in deed very grosse hipocrisie in this accusation our ovvne conscience before Christ his Tribunal-seate and the vvorke it self perused by any indifferent man acquiteth vs in the first and his ovvne vvordes and vvriting in this place conuinceth him of the seconde I haue shevved before hovv vvel the learneder protestants esteeme of our latin translator that Molineus and Castalio commonly defend him against Beza that D. Humfrey much commendeth his sincere sidelitie that Beza acknovvledgeth him to haue vsed great conscience and religion and preferreth him before al other translators Caeteris omnibus antepono that this eager Arâ—starchus vvith al his studie malice and conference findeth one only fault in him and of vvhat qualitie that is hath bene declared sufficieÌ„tly This being so hovv can our english translatioÌ„ possibly be so monstruous so horrible so heretical so outragious c. as this man fayneth here of vvhich him self saith that it is Expressa tota ad veteris latinae aditionis formam vvholy framed fasshioned to the forme of the old latin edition which is by the verdicte of his maisters so pure so sincere so religious and Caeteris omnibus anteponenda Better then al other Is it possible I say that this translation should be so horrible and absurde being vvholy formed after the old edition vvhich in comparison of al other is so perfite absolute Seest thou not here the very image of old Caiphas crying out Blasphemy and renting his garments when Christ spake of the iudgement that They should see the sonne of man sitting at the right hande of God comming to iudge in the cloudes of heauen by vvhich kind of straunge behauiour he moued the people to thinke that he did so vpon great zeale of religion vvhereas he being a Sadducee beleeuing the soule to die vvith the body to vvhich opinion Maister W. pure bibles leade meÌ„ the ready vvay and therefore conteÌ„ning as trifles heauen and hel and iudgment to come only by that histrionical dissimulation sought to abuse the simple people vvhen in the meane season him self cared nothing but for his owne belly commoditie Ne forte venirent Romani least perhaps the Romanes their lordes should put him his besides their good feeding which vnder the title and pretence of religioÌ„ they enioyed And he that iudgeth othervvise of these carnal gospellers and the final scope of their gospel he much deceaueth him self and knovveth not vvhat they by their gospel meane And let vs vevv vvhether the seueral partes of this inuectiue be not agreable to this general intention You haue geuen vs saith he a translation of the nevv testament such a one as there vvas neuer founde the like since the vvorld vvas first created What kinde of amplificatioÌ„ is this what figure but of most grosse and ridiculous hypocrisie form substance thus he speaketh It is now 5000. yeres and more since the world was created in which time many translations of the new testament haue bene made yet these 5000 yeres and vpward no man euer translated the new testament so prophanely and wickedly as you haue done And is this true and hath he examined al the translations made these 5000 yeres belike he hath or els he could neuer geue his sentence so peremptorily Of the first 1000 yeres or second vnder the Patriarches and vntil Moyses how
order begone that is first particularly I wil write downe the argument which he fathereth vpon vs then the reason as we gaue it out by conference whereof the indifferent reader shal be able to iudge ether of our ignorance or his impudencie Thus he procedeth VVise men must needes much more abhorre from your religion vvhen they shal finde you thus to gather of the scriptures Christ and Peter vvalked on the vvaters ergo the body of Christ may be shut vp in a litle bread Our wordes are these VVhen not only Christ but by his povver Peter also vvalketh vpon the vvaters it is euident that he caÌ„ dispose of his ovvne body aboue nature coÌ„trarâ—e to the natural conditions thereof as to goe through a doore Iohn 20. to be in the compasse of a litle bread Ephiphan in Aâ—nchorato Let M. VVhitaker shew the reason why the one folovveth not as vvel as the other vvhy he vvil more abridge Christs povver and bynd him to the rules of nature in the Sacrament then in that miraculous entring to his disciples or vvalking on the vvaters Aâ—beit if he had aduisedly considered the note he might haue perceaued the same to coÌ„sist not so much in our collection as in the authoritie of Epiphanius vvho maketh the case of Christs being in the Sacrament so cleare that he accounteth M. VV. and his felovves for their infidelitie in that behalfe reprobates from the face of God and sure of eternal damnation Excidit a gratia et salute in the place before quoted Peter vvalked on the waters Ergo the Pope of Rome hath authoritie ouer al the church This application as S. Bernard and Catholike men vse it is no more reprouable then that of our Sauiour As Moyses exalted the serpent in the desert so must the sonne of man be exalted Or that of S. Paule Abraham had tvvo sonnes Ismael and Isaac one of the bond vvoman according to the flesh and one of the free vvoman by promise And as then he that vvas borne according to the flesh persecuted him that vvas after the spirite so novv also But for a man to folovv M. VV. example and make Christ or S. Paule to argue after his paterne thus The serpent vvas exalted in the desert Ergo Christ must be hanged on the crosse or Abrahams tvvo sonnes could not vvel agree but Ismael vexed Isaac Ergo the Ievves must vexe and persecute the Christians this in old time vvould haue bene accounted diuinitie fit for Lucian and such like scorners hovvsoeuer it be novv vsed of these nevv gospellers in great sadnes Thus staÌ„deth our note Peter saith S. Bernard vvalking vpon the vvaters as Christ did declared him self the only vicar of Christ vvhich should be ruler not ouer one people but ouer al. For many vvaters are many peoples Bernard lib. 2. de considerat ca. 8. See the place hovv he deduceth from Peter the like authoritie and iurisdiction to his successor the bisshop of Rome The good Samaritane said to the host vvhatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate I vvil restore it to the. ergo there are vvorkes of supererogation This argument foloweth wel inough and it is S. Augustins conclusion not ours This is the annotation S. Augustine saith that the Apostle 1. Cor. 9. according to this place did supererogate that is did more then he needed or vvas bound to do vvhen he might haue required al duties for preaching the Gospel but vvould not li. de op Monach. c. 5. VVhereof it coÌ„meth that the vvorkes vvhich vve doe more then precept be called vvâ—rkes of Supererogation and vvhereby it is also euident against the Protestants that there be such vvorkes See Optatus li. 6. cont Parm. hovv aptly he applyeth this parable to S. Paules couÌ„sel of virginitie 1 Cor. 7. as to a vvorke of supererogation Christ vvas transfigured ergo he geueth vs his body in forme of bread and vvine This is M. VV. scoffing not our arguing we only deduce hence that Christ may so do as not being bound to philosophical rules or conditions of nature which is cleare and manifest not that for this cause he doth so which is foolish and impertinent See the first argument Our wordes are Marke in this TraÌ„sfiguration many maruelous points As that he made not only his ovvne body vvhich then vvas mortal but also the bodies of Moyses and Elias the one dead the other to die for the time as it vvere immortal thereby to represent the state and glorie of his body and his Saintes in heauen By vvhich maruelous transfiguring of his body you may the lesse maruel that he caÌ„ exhibite his body vnder the forme of bread and vvine or othervvise as he list Saintes in heauen are like vnto Angels because they vse not mariage ergo they can heare the praiers of al men euery vvhere succour vs. This consequent consisteth of two partes the one is the falsificatioÌ„ of Christs reasoÌ„ the other is like falsificatioÌ„ of our argument drawen theÌ„ce For nether Christ said Saintes are like vnto Angels because they vse not mariage but contrarywise they vse not mariage because they are like vnto Angels nether inferre we their abilitie of hearing or succouring vs for that false cause vvhich M. VV. assigneth but because they are aduaunced vnto the state and condition of angels as sayth our Sauiour whose office â—s to succour and ayde men as in the scripaure we find euery where and the very English Communion booke doth teach and allow The difference is as great as if wheÌ„ one argueth thus N. is a man therefore he hath a head an other should inuert it after this sort N. hath a head therefore he is a man The first is true as any may perceaue the second is false as whereby an asse or a goose is proued to be a man This is our note As Christ proueth here that in heauen they nether mary nor are maried because there they shal be as Angels by the very same reason is proued that Saints may heare our praiers and helpe vs be they neere or farre of because the Angels do so and in euery moment are present vvhere they lâ—st and neede not to be neere vs vvhen they heare or helpe vs. Ioseph vvrapped Christs body in sindoâ— ergo Christs body on the altar must be layd in pure linnen I know not what M. W. disliketh in this argument whether the real presence of the same body on the altar which vvas in the sepulcher or the linnen vsed at the altar as it was in the sepulcher or the relation from one to the other Because ech part is warranted in the Annotation by sufficient authoritie I thinke it needeles to adde any more vntil I better know the pointe whereat he is offended This is the note This honour and duty done to Christs body being dead vvas maruelous grateful and meritorious And this vvrapping of it in cleane sindon may signifie by S. Hierom
1. cal 4. v. 27. see before pag. 59 The end of M.W. doctrine touching Antichrist If the Pope of Rome be Antichrist there be many worse Antichristâ— in the world M. Iewels maner of answering D. Harding He leaueth out the best part of D. Hardings booke An vnconscionable way of answering Apud Sander pa. 764. Sander pa. 767. Ibid. pag. 770.771 â—â—g 774. Vnreasonable mangling corrupting and falsifying Apud Sander pa. 785. Apud Sand. pag. 789. Illyr Luther Luther To. 7. Defensio c. contra fanaticos sacramentariorum spiritus fo 381. The Protestants forbid the reading of scripture See after pa. 459. The heretikes alter their workes continually Of the name Protestants and Sacramentaries Ful. in the Answere to M. Martins preface pa. 17. Pag. 653. 1717. Those that professe the English religion are not Catholikes Brentius et Lutherani passim See before pa. 39. Nor Protestants Sleidan li. 6 fol. 102.101.109 Ibid. lib. 7. fol. 110. et 114. et lib. 8. fol. 128.131 Those of the English fayth are most properly called Zuinglians or Sacramentaries Apol. Ecclesiae Anglicanae d. â— Protestants Hussites Gospellers See before pa. 16. Actes and monumentes pa. 901.902 Ibid pa. 993. aeditionis postremae Sacramentaries Lutherans Zuinglians These names them selues vse besides a more general name vsed and confirmed by Act of Parlament see before pag 21. Sleid. lib. 8. fol. 128.131.133 et lib. 9. fol. 150. Ibid. lib. 7. fol. 107. et lib. 20. fol. 368. lib. 21. fol. 382.390 ibid. lib. 5. fol. 75.78 The proceding of the new gospel In prefat pag. 2. In respons ad episto Campiani prefa pag. 2. The Heretikes corrupt their ovvne vvryters Anno 1568. Colloq Alt. in respo ad excusa cor fol. 227. 2. RespoÌ„ ad Hipothe a fol. 284. ad fo 290. fo 353.355.441 442.443.526 Ibi. Saxoni ad respons de difcess fo 539.540 Vvestphalus in apologia contra caluÌ„ Cal. ca. 46. pag. 458. The vvorks of Luther corrupted by the Caluinistes in Geneua Detruncaeti Bull resp ad Cocle. ca. 3. Pag. 4. Ibid. Manifest contradiction Duraeus fol. 8. S. Iames epistle denyed by the ProtestaÌ„ts Pomeran ad Rom. ca. 8. In Annot. in â—o Test pag. vâ—i S. Iames epistle the Apocalips lefte out of the Protestants bibles Câ—â— 1. li. 2. c. 4. colum 54. Cent. 2. ca. 4. colum 71. Luther 10.5 in 1. Pc. ca. 1. Muscu in locis coÌ„mu ca. de lusti num 5. pag. 271. pag. 4. M.VV. notable vvranglinge pag. 3. Illirieus in praefa Iac. Had it not bene a goodly matter vvorthy the labour of such greate men in the Tovver disputations to discusse vvhether Luther called S. Iâ—mes Epistle stramineâ— made of stravve simply or oÌ„ly in comparison * Cont. Campi pag. 198. Pag. 4. Whit. cont Camp pag. 17 1â—.19 Cal. in argument ep Ia. The Heretikes sit in iudgemente vpon the scriptures allovv disallovve as they find moste fit for their sectes Whit. pag. 5. The reason why the english cleargie admitte some books of scripture and refuse others Aug. de doct chri li. 2. c. 8. A ca. 2. vers 4. vsque ad finem 7. ca. Pag. 5. Contr. CaÌ„p pag. 9. vide ibi pa. 10.12 M. VV. reasons make most against him selfe pag. 5. The summe of the Tower disputation touching the scriptures The fourth dayes conference Whit. pref pag. 4. 5. con Camp Pa. â—0 Ibi. A. 2. â— Ibi. 3. b. 8. The firste dayes conference in the Tower D. 1.2 Sundrye bookes of the scripture denied by the protestantes S. Lukes gospel doubted of Contr CaÌ„p pag. 9 exagitat The open way to deny al scripture pag. 24. Aug. de heresiâ— heresi 53. Epiph. here 75. Hiero. cont Vigilanti Ioâ—iniat The protestantes as in suÌ„dry other partes of their doctrine so in denying certaine books of scripture imitate the auncieÌ„t heretikes The 4. daies conference Epiph. here 42. Epiph. her 51. W. contra Cam. p. 28. Insti li. 1. ca. 7. ¶ 4 The protestants refusing the authoritie of the church can neuer geue reason how they know some bookes and not other to be canonical scripture Cont. Campian pag. 9. I. Tim. 3. v. 15. The protestats refusing the churche beleeue not the scriptures See after chap. 16. Rom. 10. ver 17. 1. Cor. 15. ver 11. Somewhat is the word of god besides scripture Aug. de doc Chris l. 2. ca. 8. Con. Cart. 4. ca. 47. Con. Laod. can 59. The epistle of S. Paule to the hebrewes as much doubted of in the primitiue Churche as that of S. Iames. and bâ—â—n as much as those books of the olde testament which the protestants reiect Hier. in Esai cap. 6. et 8. Latina coâ—suetudo IdeÌ„ in Hier. cap. 31. Hiero. in Catalogo Caius CoÌ„ei Laod. can 59. Pap. 24. M.VV. brag of coÌ„futing the catholike doctrine vayne and impossible Mat. 13. v. 14 Mat. 7. v. 6. Mat. 16. Luc. 22. Luther tom 2. contr Regem Angl. fol. 342. The coÌ„mon vaine spirit of euerie Secte of protestants Henricianae ecclesiae Pag. 6. Luthers extreme hatred against the Sacramentaries Zuinglians Cleâ—â—â—ius a Zuinglian made a booke intituled victoria venitatis â—utiâ—a papaâ—us Saxonici an 1561 Confess orthodox Eccles Tigâ—r tractat 3. â—o 108. Immaniter contra nos expuit Ibid. in prefat fol. 3. â— Lauatieâ— in historia Sacram. fol. 32. Luther reiâ—cteth the bible translated by the Zuinglians how much more ought catholiks to auoyded the same In coÌ„fessio Tigur vers supra fo 30. Confes Tigur tract 3. fol. 108. The Zuinglians condemne them selues in defending Luther M.W. distinctioÌ„ wheÌ„ Luthers iudgemeÌ„t is to be preferred before al the Church The folie of M.W. distinction Cone Chal. actio 1. Lirine cont haeres ca. 43. Mat. c. 4. v. 6. Ioan. c. 14. et 16. Ephes cap. 4. b. c. Esa ca. 59. v. 21. In this case the authoritie of the deuel as wel as of Luther is better theÌ„ all Fathers or al the angels of heauen Gal. 1. Ierem. 31. g. 33. d. Luthers iudgement with scripture against the Sacrametaries Luther to 7. A defence of the literal sense of our Sauiours wordes etc. against the fanatical sprites of the SacrameÌ„taries Ibi. fol. 383. The Sacramentaries enemies of the gospell by Luthers iudgmeÌ„t coÌ„firmed with scripture Euerie protestant soueraine iudge of scripture CouÌ„cels doctors old new See the 5. chap. in the beginning pa. 7 Mat. 10. v. 24. pa. 6. Who are truly priests Melchisedec did sacrifice The sacrifice of Melchisedec denied generally by the protestants though confessed by M. W. Gen. 14. Heb. c. 7. v. 6 Mus in loc com cap. de Miss papist pa. 492. Bib. printed anno 1579. Corruption of the scriptures Cal. in com in episto ad Heb. c. 7. v. 9 Ibid. Caluin reiecteth the auÌ„cieÌ„t fathers touchinge the sacrifice of Melchisedec Cal. in psal 110. Heb. 5. v. 11. 1. Cor. ca. 2. ver 5. ca. 3. ver 2. Hier. ep 126 ad Euagri Greg. Nazi Christ did sacrifice at his