and it is no reason that any one should take to him selfe that vvhich by equal right agreeth to al. This being the true meaning of such places and this being verie often times geuen by S. Gregorie him selfe saepe et in multis epistolis you see how iustly we accuse both M. Iewel you of wilfulnes and blindnes how iustly we obiect vnto you a verbal and talkatiue diuinitie who could not or would not see that is which so commonly repeted againe and againe in so many epistles But maketh S. Gregorie ether in this word or in al his words or workes ought against the primacie of that church This writer proceedeth on thus Verumtamen ex aliis constat c. notvvithstanding by other places it is euident that Gregorie thought that the charge and principalitie of the vvhole church vvas committed to Peter by the voice of our Lord. And thus much he vvrote plainely almost vvord for vvord lib. 4. epistola 32. to the emperour Maurice and confirmed it by testimonie of scripture It is manifest saith Gregorie to al men that knovv the gospel that by the voice of our Lord the care of the vvhole church vvas cōmitted to holy S. Peter Prince of al the Apostles For to him it is said feede my sheepe Iohn 21. To him it is said I haue prayed for the that thy faith fayle not Luc. 22. To him it is said thou art Peter and vpon this rock I vvil build my church c. Mat. 16. Behold he receaueth the keys of the kingdom of heauen povver to bind and loose is geuen to him to him is committed the charge principalite of the vvhole church And yet for this cause Gregorie thought not that Peter vvas the forerunner of Antichrist Thus he prouing both by scripture by reason that S. Gregorie though he disliked and condemned that proude name of vniuersal bishop both in him selfe and others as doth also Pope Gregorie the 13. at this day yet he nether disliked nor condemned the supreme charge and gouernment of the church for Antichristian which him selfe exercised nether could he so do except he first cōdemned for Antichristian S. Peter the Apostle who receaued it and Christ our Sauiour who gaue it So tha◠M. Iew. hath hetherto shewed smal wit learning faith or honestie in making these mē S. Gregorie Leo Xistus Anacletus his maisters in that heresie against the supremacie who haue not only no one word or sillable against it but contrariwise haue whole and long epistles chapters discourses examples and factes arguments reasons scriptures to proue it And here the reader may gesse how like I were to cloy him with abundance and store if I would in like sort go thorough with the other articles which I might do as wel and with as great aduantage But I wil not cast more water into the sea and therefore nether wil prosequute in this order the other two questions but only touch them in a word and so proceede to other matter As here against the Pope so against the real presence for the zuinglian imagination M. Iewel likewise chalengeth al the fathers vnto him namely those aboue rehearsed S. Gregorie S. Leo c. and besides S. Austin S. Hierom and S. Chrisostome then which I thinke he could not haue picked out amongst al the fathers more heauy and deadly enemies to him touching any parte of his false faith and those two partes of the real presence and sacrifice especially For was there euer besides this wicked man any Luther or Bucer or who so euer was worse then other so desperate in lying that would say S. Gregorie was a minister and ministred the holy communion as now is the fashion in England when his bookes in so many places shew him to haue bene a prieste and a prieste to celebrate masse and not to minister communion vnto whom other protestants commonly attribute the framing of the masse because of two or three rites which he ordeined therein Whom for this cause Theodorus Bibliāder scornfully nameth patriarcham caeremoniarum the Patriarch of ceremonies Melanchthō that he horribly prophaned the Communiō allovving by publike authoritie the sacrifice of Christes body and bloud not only for the liuing but also for the dead Flacius Illyricus that by miracle he cōuerted a faithles vvoman vvho beleeued not that the body of Christ vvas substancially in tbe Sacrament ex Paulo Diacono lib. 2. cap. 41.42 and that euery vvhere be doth inculcate sacrifices and masse and by diuers miracles confirmeth the same against whom Petrus Paulus Vergerius for authoritie place and estimation as great a Protestant as any in our dayes hath written a whole booke entituled de nugis fabulis Papae Gregorii primi and finally to passe by many others when your owne English writers protest him to haue bene a perfite and absolute Papist that therefore your first Apostles and Euangelistes in bringing in this your Gospel did directly oppose them selues vnto him and rooted out that which he and his Legate our Apostle S. Austin had planted Gregorie the first saith your Chronicler Iohn Bale the yere of our lord 596. sent Austine the monke to plante in our churches his Romane religion But Latimer is much more vvorthie to be called our Apostle then Austine For Austine brought nothing but mans traditions masse Crosses litanies c. vvhereas Latimer vvith the hooke of truth cut of those superstitions vvhich he had planted and cast them out of the Lords vineyard And doth not M. Horne the late called bishop of Winchester in playne termes reuile this glorious Apostle and name him most ethnically a blinde bussard because he was ignorant of your Alcoran and knew nothing els and therefore induced our forefathers to no other Gospel then to the auncient Gospel of Christ and religion Catholike And doth the other S. Austin make more for you in this point of your vnbeleefe then doth this later S. Austin or S. Gregorie I know you alleage him much more but with what honestie I had rather you should heare of your owne father Luther then of me In my iudgement saith Luther after the Apostles the church hath not had a better doctor then vvas S. Austin And that holie man hovv filthilie hovv spitefullie is he mangled and disfigured by the Sacramentaries that he may become a defender patrone of their venemous blasphemous and erroneous heresie Verely as much as in me lieth so long as I haue breath in my body I vvil vvithstand them and protest that they do him iniury vvhich thing any man may do vvith an assured and confident mynde because the Sacramentaries only pul teare his vvords into their ovvne sense prouing their applicatiō by no reason but only by vayne boasting of their most certaine truth And concerning the rest of the fathers whereas M. Iewel affirmeth that they all taught as he did against the real presence Luther contrarywise
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
groundes of disputation such as are vsed ether in our church or in their owne and how far these men be groweÌ„ to a headstroÌ„g desperatnes beyond the maner of al the auÌ„cient heretikes For when S. Austin and the old fathers had to dispute with such as Donatistes ArriaÌ„s Manichees Pelagians and others they vrged them with the authoritie of Gods Church with the iudgement of the Sea Apostolike the Succession of bishops in the same with the determination of general Councels finally with the name Catholike and that which was so called of al men and the heretikes seemed to be moued therewith and acknowledge such maner of argument But the heretikes of our time conteÌ„ning impudently al these Church Sea Apostolike Succession of bishops general Councels and whatsoeuer els may be inuented are come so far that they now despise and treade vnder foote the name Catholike which the Apostles by diuine wisdome found out and by their Creede sanctified appropriated to true ChristiaÌ„s members of Christs only Catholike and Apostolike Church in so much that in the sinode holdeÌ„ at Altemburg betwene the Diuines of the Palsgraue of Rhene and the Duke of VVirtemberg when one part brought forth a text of Luther against the aduersaries they perusing the place at large and finding there the word Catholike streightwaies reiect the whole as corrupt and counterfaite because Luther was neuer vvont to vse that vvord Ista verba catholicè intellecta non sapiunt phrasin Lutheri say they and vpon this only reason conclude that booke not to haue bene made by him And yet would to God our aduersaries could be content to yelde to the very scriptures them selues such peeces I meane and bookes as they leaue vnto vs and hetherto with vs acknowledge for Canonical VVouâ—d to Gâ—d they could frame them selues humbly to admitte such scriptures when of theÌ„ selues they are playne for vs against them For so surely buâ—ldâ—d is the Catholike cause that by such helpe she is able sufficiently to defend her selfe and confound the aduersaries But whereas besides the reâ—usal of al the forenamed witnesses both of our church and of their owne as though none euer besydes them selues in particular no Saint or man ether in heaueÌ„ or earth had wit learning or grace whereas I say besides al this they expound the same scriptures by plaine partialitie fantasie frensye whereas they make them selues the only arbiters both what bookes are Canonical what Apocriphal and which is the true sense of them whereas in examining the sense they runne sometime from greeke to latin sometime from lâ—tin to greeke sometimes vrge one or other greeke example against innumerable latin sometimes prosse one or other fathers reading against al greeke commonly corrupt the sense both of latin and greeke sticke only to certaine heretical versions made by their maisters in fauour of their seueral heresies whereas they are groweÌ„ to such extreme folly hardnes impudency it may seeme nothing els but wast of vvords to deale vvith men whom contention pride ignorance malice and obstinacie against the Church and her pastors hath so pitifully blinded Novv if I may vvith the readers patience descend from this vvhich I speake generally of the English protestants to apply the same more specially vnto the party vvhose booke I haue to examine it shal both iustifie more clearly that which hetherto hath bene said touching their irreligion want of faith and withal set forth the practise of those proud and arrogant rules of answering which I before haue noted and besides shew what stuffe is contained in his booke of Antichrist wherein he so vainely and insolently triumpheth It hath bene an old disease of auncient heretikes first of al to inuade the cheefe pastors of the church that they being remoued from the gouernment them selues might more freely spoyle the flocke as witnesseth S. Cyprian And for like reason their maner hath bene more malitiously to barke at the Sea Apostolike as saith S. Austin In this as in many other mad partes the heretikes of our age haue not only matched but also far surmounted the heretikes of auncient time For when as vpon their first breach from the church spreading of this new heresie they were reproued by their cheefe pastor and gouernor vpon malice and spite and desire of reuenge they brast forth into this rayling to cal him Antichrist not meaning for al that to cal him Antichrist in such a seÌ„se as the church and faith of Christian men vnderstandeth vvhen vve speake of Antichrist vvhich shal come in the end of the vvorld and of vvhom S. Paule to the Thessalonians and the scriptures in some other places specially do meane but in such a general sense as S. Iohn intendeth wheÌ„ he saith that novv there are many Antichristes and vvho so denieth Christ to haue come in flesh he is Antichrist But the later Protestants going beyond their maisters as commonly it fareth in euery heresie to make their cause more plausible and iustifie their schismatical departure from the church more assuredly haue taken vp the proposition in the more extreme and desperate sense and now hold the Pope of Rome to be that singular Antichrist of whom S. Paule and some other of the Apostles fore-prophecied This wicked and shameles assertion being refuted at sundry times and of sundry men namely of D. Sanders not only as false vnprobable but also as heathenish vnpossible M. Whitaker hath now taken vpon him to make a reply against his argumentes and maintaine that former assertion of his brethren but after such a sort as partly argueth in him want of al religioÌ„ and conscience partly declareth him to haue deepely impressed in his harte a vvonderful pride and coÌ„tempt of al others a principal note and marke of Antichrist And to beginne vvith the later I vvil shortly runne ouer one or tvvo of the first demonstrations and M. W. ansvveres framed there vnto First of al D. Sanders disputeth that the succession of the Romane bishops can not be Antichrist because Antichrist is one man vvhich he confirmeth by sundrie good testmonies of scripture vvherevnto he ioyneth the vniuersal consent of al the auncient fathers His vvordes are Denique omnes sancti patres Graeci Latini Syri quiper tot saecula vel in Oriente vel in Occidente vel in Aquilone vel in Meridie vixerunt secundùm fidem traditionem ab Apostolâ—s acceptaÌ„ de Antichristo locuti sunt velut de homâ—ne vno Briefly al the holy fathers Greeke Latin Syrian vvho for so many ages liued ether in the East or VVest or North or South according to the faith and tradition receaued from the Apostles haue spoken of Antichrist as of one man VVhat is M. VV. answere to this After certaine cauils made to the places of scripture thus at a clappe he dischargeth the fathers writing according to the faith
be most populous and of al nations sundry shal ioyne them selues vnto it abundantly VVherefore let the Ievves be ashamed vvhich thinke them selues alone to be the sonnes of Abraham Avvay with the Montanistes vvhich say that they alone haue receaued the holy Ghost Confounded be the Donatistes c. hovv much should vve vvithdravv and take from the church catholike if vve beleeued these men And againe vpon Ieremie God here speaketh of the eternitie of Christes kingdome and svveareth that as his league is stedfast with the sunne and moone vvith sommer and vvynter vvith day and night so also he vvil performe that vvhich he promised to Christ that he shal haue kinges and priestes and that for euer and that not a fevv but as the starres of heauen and the sand of the sea both for their dignitie and puritie and also for their multitude The like wordes he hath and confirmeth the same by sundry places of scripture in Isai ca. 64 v 13. Daniel ca. 2. v. 44. Zachar ca. 2. v. 1.2.3 et ca. 7. v. 13.14.15 et ca. 12. v. 6.7 And Illyricus gathereth very wel out of the first chap. of S. Matth. that the true church in the middest of al persecutâ—oÌ„s destructions of cities CoÌ„mon welthes and peoples is not only preserued miraculously by gods special ayde protection but also Ostendit ista series saith he ecclesiam et religionem veraÌ„ habere certas historias suae originis et progressus This genealogie proueth that the true church and religion hath assured historyes of her beginning and encrease I passe ouer very many places of these and other learned Protestantes Brentius Lauatherus Luther Bullinger who in their Commentaries vpon the scriptures refel this sauage opinion of our english Protestants by infinite and the same very euident places of scripture And wonder it were if any thing were wonderful in men forsaken of God and geuen ouer to their ovvne sense hovv these men do not perceaue yea and feele the most sensible contradiction which disputing of this question and of Christes real presence in the sacrament they runne into For here they charge vs that we take from Christ the truth of his body and deny his incarnation because we say it is inuisible and not circumscribed with a certaine place which they say are proprieties so essential to humane nature that the very glorified body of our Sauiour remayneth not a body if it wante them Of this argument M. VV. insulteth and triumpheth in this booke Hoc argumentum saith he to M Martin impetus tuos non pertimescit This argument feareth not your forces Yet talking of the Church militant which consisteth of a number of bodies by nature mortal by essential proprietie visible and bound to a certaine place by Christes ordinance dispersed thorough al quarters of the world this Church they say was a true church and yet inuisible consisted of Emperours Priests nations and peoples and yet circumscribed with no certaine place appearing in no certaine citie prouince or kingdome so tying most ethnically the glorious celestial deified and supernatural body of Christ to the base rules of corruptible philosophie from which they exempt the mortal bodies of men which by the law of God and nature are subiect therevnto But to returne to the fal of the vniuersal Church vpoÌ„ the ruines whereof M.W. booke in particular this new congregation in general is buylt and standeth the issue of that doctrine is no other nether possibly can be but a flat abnegation of Christ Christianitie as the writings of our aduersaries ioyned with their practise declare abundantly to al those who lyst to open their eyes and take a litle paines to learne that which so deepely it importeth them to know And to this purpose notable is the storie of Dauid George the Hollander who being expelled from the low countries for the Sacramentarie heresie and for the same cause honorably receaued and intertained by them of Basile being then of the same religion and many yeres wel esteemed of in that citie after proceeded so far in the gospel that he tooke to him self the name and office of Christ and accompted our Sauiour for a seducer and deceauer and secretly drew many to his opinion For which cause three yeres after his death the rulers of that Citie tooke the body out of his graue and burned it and withal set out the whole storie of his life fayth and death and the rest appertaining to his condemnation and their owne defence This man by what reason principally was he lead into that Turkish madnes forsooth his cheefe reason was this as in the same booke appeareth If that Christ had bene the true Christ then the Church erected by him should haue continued for euer But now we see and it is manifest that the Romish bishop that Antichrist hath surpressed and ouerthrowen many hundred yeres since the church which that Christ erected Hereof it foloweth that he was not the true Messias but a lying maister and a false prophet And Sebastianus Castalio in the preface of his bible dedicated to king Edward what doth he els but closely deny Christ to be the true Messias when vpon this very ground of the churches fal he thus discourseth First he laieth for a foundation the excellencies and prerogatiues of the church which should be established by the Messias as her quietnes and vnitie in religion described by Michaeas cap. 4. That the earth should be so replenished vvith the knovvledge of our Lord as the sea is vvith vvaters Esai 11. And againe cap. 60. VVhereas thou were forsaken enuied and vnfrequented I vvil make the saith God to arise into an euerlasting height so as thou shalt sucke the milke of other nations and the brestes of princes and thou shalt knovv that I thy God am thy sauiour and defender Thy sunne shal no more go dovvne nor thy moone leese her light for our lord shal be thy light which euer shal coÌ„tinue After this sort much more he hath touching the churches happy estate and continuance as before hath bene noted Then looking to the effect and accomplishment of these promises according to Protestantes learning and iudgement he protesteth expressely that this excellencie and felicitie promised to the church of Christians by the coÌ„ming of Messias the more he considereth the scriptures the lesse he findeth the same as yet to haue bene performed howsoeuer a man vnderstand those places alleaged Whereof he frameth this argument Equidem aut haec sutura esse fateÌ„dum est aut iam fuisse aut deus accusandus mendacit Quod si quis fuisse dicet quaeram ex eo quaÌ„do fuerint Si dicet Apostolorum tempore quaeram cur nec vndiquaque perfecta fuerit et tam cito exâ—leuerit dei cognitio ac pietas quae et aeterna et marinis vndis abundantior fuerat promissa Truly vve must confesse ether
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
affirmeth that no one euer so taught but euerie one taught the contrarie Thus he writeth in the same booke This truly is maruelous that no one of the fathers vvhereof the number is infinite euer spake of the Sacrament as do the Sacramentaries For none of them vseth such vvordes there is only bread and vvine or the body bloud of Christ is not there Surely it is not credible nay it is not possible vvhere as they talke againe and againe of these things but at some time at the lest once these vvordes vvould haue slipt out of their pen it is only bread or the body of Christ is not there corporally or such like But they al speake so precisely as though none doubted but that there vvere present the body bloud of Christ They al agreably and constantly vvith one mouth auouch the affirmatiue that it is there But our Sacramentaries can do nothing els but proclayme the negatiue that it is not there So Luther prince and father of this Gospel and so that Luther whose iudgmēt M.VV. preferreth before a thousand Austines a thousand Ciprians and as many churches and so at the leste more to be estemed then one M. Iewel though M.W. stand by him to helpe out the matter But this field is so large that the farther I go the farther I may therefore to breake of omitting S. Chrisostome who made 6. bookes of priesthode and neuer a one of ministerhode and therefore is not lyke to be an enemy to the sacrifice which in one part of that work he setteth forth so excellētly referring M. W. for the sacrifice to that which hath bene sayde before for the real presence to that which may by occasion be touched hereafter I wil end this matter wishinge the reader to carie in memorie M. Iewels challēge as an eternal example of his inexplicable impudency and rashnes thereby that he learne not to be moued with the bold coūtenāces of his aftercommers whose fashion is verie commonly to looke biglie when in deede settinge a syde the Tower racke Tiburne they can do nothing and then to crake vnmeasurably when besydes words and crakes and lyes they haue nothing to say which to haue bene the fashion of heretikes in his time S. Austin of old noted and we in our time finde true by experience And in this present quarel it can not be auoyded but ether Caluin Luther Beza Peter Martir Zuinglius Illyricus Bale principal Euāgelists gospellers be egregious lyers who tel vs that the fathers thus taught and thus beleeued of the Popes primacy of the sacrifice and real presence or els M. Iewel must take that to him selfe vnto whom in deede that qualitie was in a verie high degree an inseparable accidēt For in that propertie I beleeue verely he passed any one heretike that euer wrote since Christs tyme. CHAP. VIII Of Beza corruptly translating a place of scripture Act. 3. and of the real presence WHEREFORE leauing M. Iewel proceede we on in order to that which foloweth that is to Bezaes trāslatiō of the wordes of S. Peter Act. 3. in defending whereof you draw neere to the vayne I looke for and shew your selfe to be a scholer of him whose challenge you aduaūce so much For you do nothing els but dally in ambiguitie of words without any regarde of truth deceauing both your reader your self You say vvhē Beza trāslated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by this quē oportet quidē coelo capi vvho must be receaued in heauen he did it onely to auoide ambiguitie of speach vvhich is found in the other quē oportet coelū capere and the sense stil remaineth one For vvhereas Peter vvil say and teach that necessarily heauen must receaue Christ vntill the times that all things be restored this sense Beza deliuered most faithfullie in most conuenient vvordes For if heauen shal receaue Christ then necessarie it is that Christ be receaued of heauen vvhich thing cōmon sense might haue taught you For tel me I pray you M. Martin if the schole receaue and conteyne you are you not receaued conteyned of the schole Hauing obteyned thus much you fal into an idle talke that actiues or deponents may be rendered by passiues by example of Cicero whereof no man doubteth then cōclude that S. Gregorie Nazianzene doth affirme Christū 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This being the entier summe of your discourse gladly would I now learne of the reader whether he vnderstandeth hereby what you would say or what you go about to proue and reproue forsooth that the sense in a Greke writer is not hindered if a verbe deponent or actiue making the sentence doubtful and applicable to diuerse senses for playner vnderstanding in Latin be turned into a verbe passiue For so did Cicero in translating a sentence of Plato and so might you do in translating a sentence of S. Paule animalis homo non percipit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ea quae sunt spiritus spiritual things are not perceaued of a carnall man vvhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a verbe deponent in Greke is vvell expressed in English by a verbe passiue You say wel and like a good scholer But is this al that M. Martin wēt about to shew and for which he found fault with Beza Certes it is al for ought I can cōceaue by your maner of defence but the thing it selfe is far otherwise For first although in common prophane writers where ordinarily in wordes and phrases there lieth no hid secrets or misteries to expresse doubtful Greke by vndoubtful Latin when if there be committed an error it importeth not greatly this is not so material yet in the word of God where ambiguous speaking yeldeth diuers senses and perhaps bothe or not that one which is taken principallie entended there for any mā of purpose to restraine that which the holy Ghost hath leaft at large it is to saucy and malapert if it be not wicked and impious For what if the meaning of Sainte Peter be here not that heauen should take Christ but that Christ should take heauen to rule and gouerne it euen to the end of the world according as els-where it is sayde Al things are deliuered me of my father to me is geuen al povver in heauen in earth againe thou hast put al things vnder his feete setting him on thy right hād aboue all principalitie and potestate and povver and domination and euery thinge that is named not onely in this vvorld but also in that to come But you wil say this is a false sense Suppose it be as perhaps it is not wil you take vpon you by Ciceroes authority as Beza doth oftētimes by Homers and Ouids to limite that which the Euangelist hath leaft at at large And see by this rash audacitie what confusion you bring and what a hotchpoch you make of the scriptures Suppose some other be
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
States Princes and nations who withstoode the bishop Sea of Rome as they do now Nullis temporibus defueruÌ„t sayth he nec Episcopi nec Presbyteri nec Imperatores nec populi c. There neuer vvanted at any time nether Bishops nether Priestes nor Emperours nor nations nor Priuate men vvhich had not rather be condemned of your church for heretikes then to mainteine the Catholike communion of your Apostasie wherefore hauing so large a scope let him repayre to that his owne church and succession of Protestantes and of them seeke for the true written bible of whom he receaueth the sense and meaning of the same not to our church and succession of Catholikes whom he chiefly condemneth for erring in the true sense and then reproueth as bitterly for corrupting the true text The conclusion of al is this if as a Christian as an obedient child of the Church and willing to learne if thus he demauÌ„d of the Church for true bibles she can serue him with more varietie of such in mo languages then it wil stande with his ease to reade If he demaund this as an heretike as a rebellious Apostata as to picke quarels and maintaine strife the Church hath nought to do with him She answereth as our sauiour answered the Pharisees Quid me tentatis hypocritae as he taught his Apostles Nolite dare sanctum canibus She sendeth him to his owne scattered and diuided coÌ„gregation in to whose communion he hath thrust him selfe vnder whose false banner he fighteth against her vvhom the vniuersal Christian vvorld in al times and ages vntil our daies hath acknovvleged for the only true catholike apostolike church of Christ And hitherto of the hebrevv fountaines and originals vvherein I haue staâ—ed somevvhat the longer first of al that the reader may see that not vvithout iust cause I charge M.W. vvith a manifest lie in saing vve flee the hebrevv for that vve knovv it to containe the assured bane and destruction of our cause He may here perceaue in part vvhat reason vvhat argument vvhat conscience moueth the Church thus to prescribe and vs to folovv the Churches ordinance herein That vve nether feare nor contemne nor refuse it but for the vnderstaÌ„ding of the true sense studie and honour it as much as he though vve hange not our faith vpon it so as if the Ievves depraue a text touching Christs diuinitie vve therefore vvil denie him to be God and if they raze out the only text that foreshevveth the maner of his passion and crucifying vve vvil not for al that geue ouer our faith that in such sort he vvas crucifyed for vs. Secondarely thus I haue done to satisfie M· VV. dâ—maund who chalengeth vs so confidently to shevve any error in the originals vvho affirmeth so peremptorily those places to be safe and vntouched which appertaine to the proofe of our Christian religion Which how true it is he now seeth if he wil beleeue ether reason or his owne maisters Besides that his argument is ouer slender when he wil conclude those originalles to be pure because there is no corruption in matters of coÌ„trouersie as though there could be no errors but those which proceede of wilfulnes and malice against Christian religion as though the Iewes could not erre by negligence ignorance and other humane infirmitie by which Caluine Beza the rest of that knot can imagine very many and the same very grosse errors to haue crepte in to our latin bibles But true is the old prouerbe Graculus graculo Like wil to like as I haue said Of the Iewes for neare alliance and brotherhode they iudge so diuinely as though they were halfe goddes who neuer erred ether of malice ether of wilfulnes or ignorance or slowthfulnes or want of due consideration or thorough any kind of like ether sinne or imbecillitie But of the Christian Catholike Church of the Bishops and Pastors by whom they haue that peece of Christianitie which yet they retaine they deeme most wickedly them they accompt more dissolute more irreligious more careles negligent in matters diuine then the worst people that liue vnder the cope of heauen These in the same kind haue erred both of malice and of wilfulnes and of contempt and of negligence by al maner of faulting voluntarie inuoluntarie wherevnto a man may possibly fal Thirdly some reason mouing me thus to doe was because nether M. Martin in his Discouerie much lesse the preface of the new testament handling only such thinges as were incideÌ„t to that booke that is geuing reason why in that translatioÌ„ the latin vulgar edition vvas folowed before the common greeke testamentes had any occasioÌ„ to treate of this matter For albeit M. Martin proueth errors in matters historical to be in our coÌ„mon hebrew bibles yet he maketh no stay therein but rather presupposing the hebrew text to be altogether true as the aduersaries pretend he so much the more discouereth their wilfulnes and peruersitie who in their translations depart sundrie times froÌ„ those hebrew originalls which they seeme to magnifie as altogether faultles and vnspotted One principal corruption of great moment and importance he obiecteth out of the 21. psalme where the prophet saith in the person of Christ They haue pearced my handes and feete which by the Iewes being maliciously altered by mutation of one or other letter in to As a lyon my hands and feete without wit reason or common sense whereby is euacuated the best and clearest prophecie in the whole body of scripture touching the maner and fashion of Christs crucifying who besides M. W. would so blindly haue dissembled it yet stil sing vs the old song of the pure fountaines It is written that not long sithence certaine euangelical Anabaptistes lately conuerted from Iudaisme reading that place of S. Peter in Castalios translation Iesum Nazarenum scelestis manibus comprehendistis et ad palum alligatum sustulistis Iesus of Nazareth you haue apprehended and binding him to a post or stake so made him avvay vpon this text fel to a great and daungerous contention among them selues in their congregations whether Christ were pearced hand and foote with nailes as the Church beleeueth or were only bound hand and foote to a gibbet as the fashion among the Turkes is now a daies as the other two theeues were done to death which were crucifyed with him And remoue the traditioÌ„ of the Church which these good felowes care not for and this place of Dauid and certainly out of the old testament it can not perhaps nether out of the new be clearely proued to a contentious heretike that he was crucified in such sort as the truth is and we beleeue For as the heretikes now a daies at home in our couÌ„trie gladly abhorre the name of the crosse al signes or memories there of both in priuate talking publike preaching and writing rather vse the name of