know not how I could haue written more plainelie more consonantlie to my selfe then I haue done But some are so froward that though it be beaten into them with hammer yet they will not seeme to vnderstand I saie Luther followed the iudgement of the auncient Church in refusing Saint Iames Epistle what maketh this against my selfe Can you deny but some of the ancient Churches refused it Doth not Eusebius prooue it when he saith it was receiued in moste Churches Then it followeth not in al Churches And would Eusebius haue called it a Bastard if some Churches had not so accounted of it But what if some refused it doth it follow therefore that the wholl Church did so you maie not thinke M. Rainolds to cast vpon vs such a miste but that we shal be hable to espie your walking along Saint Iames epistle was neuer refused of all Churches generally it was refused onelie by some Luther in refusing it agreed with the auncient Churches not with all but some as many as refused it But the greater number of Churches receiued it as Eusebius witnesseth and our Church is led by Gods spirit and true learning to follow them But for the Apochryphall bookes of the olde Testament I haue prooued sufficiently and can further declare if neede require that both the greatest part of the Church and the wholl Church hath reprooued them As for that Ierome sayth The Church readeth them it maketh litle for their credit S. Ierome a great enemy to those apocryphal bookes seeing he addeth immediatly it was to edifie the people not to confirme the authoritie ef Ecclesiasticall doctrine and that though the Church read them yet it receiueth them not among the canonicall scriptures wherein he hath plainely cast them downe from that height of authoritie and maiestie whereunto you would so faine lift them vp The Tower conference is here brought in to no purpose Pag. 25. Their scope was to shew that in the primitiue Church not onely some particuler persons but wholl congregations haue doubted of many bookes of Scripture and yet notwithstanding lost not their dignite of true Churches of Christ and therefore that Luther doubting or denying some of them cannot for that cause iustelie in any indifferent iudgement be condemned seeing whatsoeuer they obiect against Luther in this behalfe must light vpon the auncient Churches fathers that haue thought herein as Luther did Wherefore your conclusion that you set downe in the end of this your idle wandring talke is onelie deuised of your selfe and not maintained by vs. For you father vpon vs that we thinke we may refuse all such bookes as of olde haue bene doubted of pag. 28. which is as farre from our thinking as heauen is from earth and if any man haue euer vttered such a thing as I thinke none hath it is his owne priuat conceite not the approoued and constant iudgement of our Church The bookes in the olde Testament that we refuse besides that they carie in their foreheades euident notes of Apochryphall writings haue not onelie bene doubted of but clean cast awaie by the Church of God as hath bene prooued all the bookes in the newe Testament doe we whollie admit as canonical not refusing any parcell or word thereof because we acknowledge in them the spirit of God and see no reason to mooue vs otherwise For though they haue beene doubted of in former times yet it was vpon no certaine ground and by fewe in comparison of those that receiued them vndoubtedlie Pag. 29. Thus in a word the necke is broken of al your notes that follow where in you labour to saie as litle in manie words as possiblie maie be sayd That we rente from the bodie of the Scriptures in the old Testament Toby Iudith Hester Baruch Wisdome Ecclesiasticus Maccabees the praier of Manasses the song of the three children the storie of Bell herein we doe the canonical Scriptures no iniurie deuiding from them such bookes as are not of that absolute authoritie that they which are in truth canonical maie remaine intire and wholl together no more then the shepheard doth iniurie to the sheepe in sorting the goates and other cattel from them But which of our brethren are they that ioyne to these the two bookes of Cronicles and the song of Salomon If you can name any such in these daies it will soone appeare they are not brethren of ours You will not I suppose charge vs therewith and yet perhaps you will haue men suspect vs as guiltie thereof But your boldnesse is intolerable that knowing both the common consent and practize of our Church do notwithstanding both labour to caste wrong fullie vppon vs some suspicion for refusing these and furthermore also plainlie and most falsllie avouch that we denie sundrie bookes of the new Testament setting downe in a rowe Saint Lukes Gospell M. Rainold accufeth vs for denying some Canonical books of the olde Testament diuers of the new which all the world knoweth to be a great slaunder the epistle to the Hebrews the epistle of Saint Iames the second of Peter the second and third of Saint Iobn Saint Iude the Apocalyps a parte of Saint Iohns Gospell What ment you Master Rainold thus to say and thus impudentlie to lie Are you gone to Rheames and haue you left all conscience behinde you Care you not to publish in printe to the world so great so manie so manifest vntrueths before you vse to make your sacrifice at Masse do you not vse to confesse your lies as sins and yet will you print your lies without repentance Of these our Church denieth nor one doubteth not of one If you meane some Protestants in Germanie whatsoeuer they thinke of Saint Iames S. Iude the second of Saint Peter the second and third of S. Iohn yet the epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps of Saint Iohn they do receiue as canonicall Saint Lukes gospell came neuer yet in doubt or question amongst vs and I muse what the occasion should be of this your so fowle vntrueth If because in the Tower conference of the fourth day one said that the Laodicean Councel omitteth S. Lukes gospel it is too friuolous seeing that was a slippe of memorie or ouersight in him And though the Councel had so done as it hath not yet how followeth it that we therefore doe so My distinction of the wholl Church some Churhes is as cleare as the day it is to be obserued that whereas in it resteth the summe of this your second Chapter and you are desirous to haue it remooued yet you bring nothing once to stirre it That S. Iames hath bene douted of in such sorte as Iudith Macchabees the counterfaite Hester for the right Hester we embrace is prooued alreadie false and that our owne doctours refuse it is an other vntrueth For were it as you saie of that conference yet is it but one single mans sentence and that by waie of arguing
the scriptures wherein he doth not so much honour to them for placing them in the first roome as iniury and disgrace in ioyning with them anie other For as they are grounds of all true doctrine so are they onelie grounds and as in matter of faith arguments ought principallie to be drawne from them so such arguments onelie conclude necessarilie as euen your owne Thomas of Aquine doth directlie confesse Thom. 1. part 1. qu. artic 8. ad 2. Traditions of the Apostles are but deuised forged things which you make your second heade and therefore no staie for a man to settle his conscience vpon For tell me if you can which be the Apostles traditions how many and where they may be found If you cannot satisfie this demaunde as you cannot indeede how may you then make any reckoning of that whereof you haue no certaine knowledge how can you without falling builde your faith vpon fantasies such as they are The Apostles doctrine we haue in writing other traditions of the Apostles we receiue none for our beliefe Concerning the catholike Church which is your third head we reuerence and loue it as the spouse of Christ but we know that her duetie is to hearken onelie to the voice of Christ her husband and that she hath no authoritie to adde so much as one iotte to his worde or anie waies to dissent from it And further we know that your Romish synagogue is not that Catholike Church of Christ whereof we speake For generall councels and Doctors which are other twoe of your principall heades we esteeme and regarde them in their place we thanke God for them we reade allowe and commend them so far forth as they agree with Gods word If you thinke they neuer disagree from it your owne masters will correct you and tell you an other tale Are not these then goodly groundes and heads of faith that euen your selues are enforced oftentimes to disauow As for your supreme pastor of the Church we know him not by that name if you meane anie other but Iesus Christ alone For who so els taketh that honour and office vpon him to be the supreme pastor of the Church he is a theefe an Apostata an Antichrist make as great accompt of him as you list And where you saie we care for none of these groundes you speake vntruelie your selues indeede caring for none but onelie the last which is in stead of all the rest The determination of your supreme pastor that is your scripture your Apostolicall Tradition your Church your councels your Doctors your Faith your saluation your onelie staie in this world and in the world to come Scriptures you prooue we deny pag. 26. because we admitte not the authoritie of Tobias for inuocation and helpe of Angels nor of Ecclesiasticus for free will But you must first of all prooue which neuer shall you be hable to prooue that Tobias and Ecclesiasticus be canonicall scripture before you can inferre that we denie the scripture These bookes are not the holie Canonicall scriptures as we haue prooued against you by most inuincible and manifest demonstration by councels Fathers Doctors your owne Cardinals and schoolemen and we reioyce with all our harts that such popish doctrine hath no better scripture for proofe thereof then Apocryphall which because it hath a counterfayte stampe is no currant monie among the Lords people And for Traditions vnles you can approoue them by authoritie of Apostolicall scripture you haue our answere we regarde them nothing we know not from whence they came we will not giue ouer the certaine scriptures for such obscure and most vncertaine traditions For Councels true it is the argument holdeth not in this forme such a Councell decreed soe and therefore so must we beleeue Sett this principle downe for certaine and perpetuall in diuinitie and we shall haue strange beliefes enow yea scarsely shall we retaine any one true beliefe Two farâ—ous generall Councels haue beene held in Nice the first and the second In the first is condemned the Popes supremacie Can. â— in the second is established the Idolatrous worship of Images The first beliefe you will not alow the second we detest Let Councells therefore be esteemed as they deserue let their decrees be examined by Gods word and if they agree let them be receaued for that agreement if not let them be reiected for the contrarie The same iudgement haue we of auncient fathers pag. 27. Learned and Godlie men we graunt they were but yet men hauing their infirmities and imperfections Their learning their zeale their ages were noe priuiledge vnto them but that notwithstanding they might be deceiued in their writings and expositions of scripture And take you this Master Rainolds for a sure conclusion that in the sayings of those who are all of them subiect to errour there is no stable and steadie ground to build our faith vpon lest perhaps we build vpon error in steade of trueth vpon the sand and not vpon the rocke So that without tryall and examination no sentence of a father nor of all fathers may safelie be receiued Neither are we so addicted to the late writers pag. 28. as to beleeue whatsoeuer they haue saied we are no more partiall vnto them in this behalfe then we are vnto the auncient fathers our religion and faith hangeth not vpon the sayings of men be they olde or younge but onely vpon the canonicall scriptures of God And as for Augustine Ierome and Cyprian they are as much ours in the moste and weightiest controuersies as Luther Caluine or Melancthon And if they or any other be against vs so longe as scripture is for vs our cause is good and we will not be ashamed thereof And therefore moste false is it that you say our Diuinitie resteth vpon these fathers pag. 29. c. whome you so scornfullie compare with the olde fathers We vse not to alledge for proofe of any doctrine Thus saith Caluine Bucer or other but thus saith the Lord thus saith the Prophet thus saith the Apostle thus the Euangelist thus is it written in the scriptures thus we reade in some booke of the olde or new Testament Notwithstanding we vse also to reade the fathers both olde and new as much as your selues and oftentimes we rehearse their sentences and expositions not as proofes in doctrine of them selues but to stoppe your mouthes that crie so lowde in the eares of the simple that all the fathers are against vs it being moste true that they are notablie and generallie as I haue saide for vs You talke in this place as one that would saie something and telleth a long tale but in the end forgetteth of what he meant to speake Of all that you saie make your conclusion and then shall appeere how emptie and barren a declamor you are Now saith Master Rainolds if these serue not pag. 31. a man woulde thinke their martyrs testimonie should be irrefragable And thinke you
third of Iohn are not Canonicall scripture Cardinal Caietane denieth sunday bookes and partes of Canonical Scripture in the new Testament where fore Catharinus hath written against him that the Epist of Iude is Apocryphall that the last Chap. of S. Marke is not of sound authority that the history of the adulterous woman in S. Iohn is not authentical namely of S. Iames Ep. that the salutation is prophane hauing nothing of God nor of Iesus Christ But what speake I of Caietane disalowing certaine bookes and parcells of diuine scripture whereas Hosius another Cardinal and one chiefe founder of all your late sophistications hath written most dishonorably and vilely of the wholl scripture for thus he sayth Scriptura quomodo profertur á Catholicis est verbum Dei quomodo profertur ab haereticis Hofius contra Brent lib. 4. est verbum diaboli that is The scripture as it is brought forth by the Catholikes is the word of god as it is brought forth by the Heretikes is the word of the deuil So that by this notable Cardinals iudgement if a Protestant that is in their language and meaning an heretick shall alledge for proofe of Christes eternall diuinitie the beginning of the Gospel written by Saint Iohn this scripture shall now become of Gods word as it is and alwaies shal be the word of the deuil because it is vsed by such as they account and call heretikes O blasphemous hand and tongue And can you prooue this Maister Rainolds can the word of God be made the word of Sathan It will not stand with your honestie to maintaine it Gods word by whome-soeuer it be vttered though by the deuill him-selfe is not the worde of the deuill God is immutable so is his worde Then hath Hosius blasphemed in calling Gods word the deuills word which you ought to consider who thinke you haue found somewhat against the Protestants when you shewe what Luther hath written in some disgrace of Saint Iames Epistle I can further put you in remembrance what others of your syde haue taught and maintained to the great slaunder and derogation of the Scriptures and that not in one worde or two but in earnest and long discourses Pighius Hierarch li. 1. Cap. 2. What doth Pighius labour to perswade in one whole Chapter often in other places by occasion but onlie that the Scriptures haue al their credit authoritie from the Church as though they had not any of them selues from the lord by whose spirit they were written For thus he sayth All authoritie of Scripture among vs dependeth necessarily vpon the authoritie of the Church Neque enim aliter cis credere possemus nisi quia testimoniumillis perhibenti Ecclesiç credimus for we could not otherwise beleeue them but because we beleeue the Church giuing testimonie vnto them And againe The primitiue Church hath made certaine proofe vnto vs that the writings of all the Euangelists are of canonicall trueth and not the Euangelists themselues that were the writers And against SS Marke and Luke he disputeth at large and boldly auoucheth that they were not meete witnesses of the trueth of those gospells which they writ Marcum Lucam nonsuisse testes libneos veritatis scriptorum à se Euangeliorum Ecclesie therefore euen while they liued that credit was not giuen to their Gospels for them-selues no not of those that certainly knew they were written by them yea and farther also had their verie principall copies written with their ownehands but for the Apostolike Church Yea this presumptuos and arrogant spirit of Pighius proceedeth farther yet and sayth that the Gospells were written by the Euangelists not to the end that those wrytings should beare rule ouer our faith and religion Non quidem vt scripta illa praeessent fidei religionique nostrae sed subessent potiùs Hoc Euangeli um inquit vnicum solumque designans Eu◠gelium esse nō que nos Matthaei Marci Lucae Ioannis que dicimus Euangelia quat uor Hier. li. 3. ca. 3. Ceusur Colonien pag. 112. Cusan epist 2. 7. but rather be subiect thereunto And yet a litle more blasphemouslie That they are not the true Gospell which Christ ascending into heauen commanded his Apostles to preach to euery creature What should I rehearse his often reprochfull comparisons of scripture to a nose of wax and a rule of lead which may easelie be turned bowed and applied euerie way at our pleasure which also the Censure of Colen hath affirmed of them in like manner And to the same effect hath Cardinall Cusane long before set downe that the Scriptures must be expounded diuersly and framed to the time and practise of the Church so that one time they are to be vnderstood and interpreted one waie and an other time an other way Which is more vnreasonable and absurd by many degrees then if one should prescribe that the Ladie must conforme hir selfe to the fashion and manners of hir handmaide William Lindane hath bene and still is a stout Champion for the Pope Lindan Pan. Lib. 1. c. 17. in whose defence he hath vttered many bolde blasphemies against the Scriptures as namelie that the Euangelists tooke in hand to write the Gospels Non vt aliquam totius Euangelij methodum insormarent non vt Christianae fisdei summam consor berent Lib. 3. cap. 1. not to the intent to set downe any forme of the wholl Gospell or to write the sume of Christian faith And that the authoritie of the word not written is greater then of the word written which question he saieth maie easilie be determined howsoeuer to some it seemeth full of difficultie and perplexitie Lib. 3. cap. 6. De to to in vniuersum sacrae scripturae corpore accipiendum and that whereas Saint Peter hath affirmed of Saint Paules epistles that in them are somethings hard to be vnderstoode the same must be taken and ment generallie of the wholl bodie of the Scriptures soe that according to this mans doctrine there is not in all the scriptures one easie sentence and S. Peter was ouerseene to saie that but somethings in the epistles of Saint Paule were hard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he should rather haue said that all things were hard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 1. cap. 22. Furthermore that it is extreame madnes to thinke the wholl entire bodie of Euangelicall doctrine is to be fetched out of those sole Apostolike letters written with incke Dementissimae insaniae Ex pusillo noui testanmenti libello and that litle small booke of the new testament Thus scornefullie wirteth this proud Papist of the diuine scriptures and exemplifieth his meaning by a notable similitude that it is as greate a want of wit to esteeme iudge that al Euangelical doctrine is comprehended in the bookes of the newe Testament as if one should saie that the wholl frame of the world is contained in some one sensible creature
So that by his comparison the doctrine of the gospel doth infinitelie in largenes excel al the scriptures of the new testament Such mad wicked sentences hath he throughout his wholl booke manie Ambrose Catharine saith It is the Popes proper priuiledge to Canonize scriptures Catharin in epist ad Galat. cap. 2. Ipse canoniz at scripturas reprobat or to reprooue scriptures to Canonize true Saints and to reiecte false meaning thereby that the holynes authoritie and estimation of scriptures procedeth frō the Pope Wherein yet he seemeth to haue foulie forgotten that canonicall scriptures are a greate deale more auncient then the Pope and therefore could not receiue theire Canonization from him But thus they vtter their minde that scripture is no otherwise the word of God then as it is approoued authorized and Canonized by the Pope which is in effect to bring the holy ghost vnder the censure approbation of a man and such a man as he I omit because I will not be tedious a number of such sayings moe wherein the holie scriptures of God are shamefully intolerably dishonoured by these men in their writings and disputations and yet to procure a litle enuy to Luther they accuse him with out all measure continuallie for calling the epistle of Saint Iames a strawne epistle not absolutelie in it selfe but onelie in respect of S. Peter and Paules epistles Thus much now haue I thought good for satisfiing of the godlie to answere If you will not be satisfied you may write againe twise as much more whoe can let you this matter requireth no longer talke CHAP. 2. Of the canonicall Scriptures and English Cleargie FRom Saint Iames Epistle Master Rainolds proceedeth to entreat of other bookes refused by the Church of England which yet he saith were not further disprooued in times past then that epistle of Saint Iames whereupon he would haue his reader beleeue that in alowing some bookes and reiecting others we are ledde by opinion fansie not by learning or diuinitie Wherein Master Rainolds your selfe haue shewed that opinion not learning ruled you when you writ this For Saint Iames epistle was neuer disprooued by the wholl Church of God but onelie by some of the Church but those bookes that are refused by vs were by the wholl Church distinguished from the canonical scriptures had no greater credit then they are of with vs as shall appeere The reason therefore of our refusing them is not as you imagine because they containe some proofe of your Romish Religion which we cannot otherwise auoid but by denying the bookes to be of Canonicall authoritie but because they doe bewray themselues of what stampe they are by most euident markes and therefore haue bin generally of the wholl Church heeretofore sette in the same degree that they are left by vs. These Reasons you sawe comming against you and because you durst not openlie encounter with them you steale by an other way let them passe But I must call you back a litle though it be to your griefe and trouble and require of you a plaine and direct answere how those bookes of the olde testament which are commonly called Apocryphall written first in Greeke or some other forraine language can be Canonicall For all bookes of holie scripture in the olde Testament were written and deliuered to the Church by the holie prophets of God being approoued by certain Testimonies to be indeed the Lords Prophets Therefore Abraham answered the rich man Lue. 16.29 requiring to send Lazarus to his fathers house They haue Moses and the Prophets whereby it is plaine that the wholl doctrine of the church then was contained in the bookes of Moses and the other Prophets 2. Pet. 1.19 And Peter saith we haue a more sure word of the Prophets meaning the scriptures of the olde testament And so the Apostle to the Hebrewes writeth that God spake to our fathers by the Prophets Heb. 1.1 By which testimonies of Scripture it is prooued that none could write bookes to be receiued of the Church for the Canonicall word of God but onelie they whome God had declared to be his Prophets But the writers of those Apocriphal books were no Prophets as may easily appeere For then they would not haue written their bookes in Greeke as is confessed most of these were nor in any other tongue then that which was proper to the Church of God in that time as Moses and the Prophets after him writers of the holie scriptures had done The Church was then amongst the Iewes and the Prophets were the messengers ministers of God in that Church and vnto it they deliuered dedicated their bookes Wherefore the Greeke tongue being not the tongue of Canaan nor of the Church then was not chosen by the Prophets to write and set forth therein the doctrine and Religion of the Lord so that the verie tongue wherein these bookes were written being not the tongue of the Prophets doth plainlie conuince them to be no prophetical therefore no canonical bookes of the olde Testament And here I omitte particular arguments which might be brought against euery one of those bookes seuerallie whereby it may be prooued inuincibly that though you entitle them with the name of Canonical scriptures yet they had not the spirite of God for their father Agaynst this reason you bring Saint Augustines authoritie De doct Christ l. 2. 8. whoe reckoneth them amongst the Canonicall bookes of scripture and so you say did the Catholike Church of that age But that this is a moste manifest vntruth appeereth by S. Ierome Praesa in Pro. Solom whoe plainlie writeth that the Church readeth those bookes but receiueth them not amongst the Canonicall scriptures So although Saint Augustine had thought them to haue bene of equall authoritie with the writings of the Prophets which are called properlie Canonicall yet was not this the common iudgement of the Church in those dayes as Saint Ierome doth let vs vnderstand who liued in the Church of that age In what sense S. Augustine calleth these bookes canonicall Saint Augustine calleth them indeede Canonicall by a general and improper acception of that word because they are red in the Church and containe profitable and Godlie instruction but yet not so as though there were no difference betweene them and the other which are vndoubtedlie Canonicall For in that very place Saint Augustine opposeth Canonical scriptures to such bookes as by perilous lies and phantasies might abuse the reader Periculosis mendacus phantismatibus and bring preiudice to sound vnderstanding And then giueth a rule to preferre those bookes that are receiued of al Catholike Churches before them that some Churches receiue of those that are not receiued of all to preferre those that the moste of greatest authority do receiue wherby you may see the vanitie of that you said before that the catholike church then iudged them to be canonicall And
acknowledge the bookes them-selues to be canonicall wherfore in that you saie we finde not this word in the scriptures vnles you thinke no word is found in them but such as is set downe in expresse tearmes you are abused For this word is found in them by necessarie collection so be not your vaine vnwritten Traditions and therfore are neither parte nor parcell of Gods diuine word But here is by the waie to be noted how this man seeking to disprooue my comparison of the sunne pag. 36. hath suddenlie ouerthrowen the principall staie of their religion which is the visiblenes of the Church That which is knowen by sense saith he is no article of faith for these two are directly opposite Then the Church is not knowne by sense and so visiblenes is not a marke of the Church For if it be then is it not an article of faith to beleeue the Church Thus sometime you can reason well but then it is against your selfe The similitude was brought not to match our beliefe of scripture with knowledge of the sunne that as we know the one by sense so the other but that we haue certaine and vndoubted beliefe of the canonicall scriptures by themselues as we know the sunne by it selfe Your beliefe in deede of the bookes of scripture is naturall and to vse your owne example such as when you beleeue Tusculans Questions to be written by Tullie For as you are ledde thus to beleeue of this booke because it hath bene so accounted in all times by constant tradition euer since so likewise you haue no better reason to discerne the canonicall scriptures from other bookes but onely this common receiued opinion of the Church which you call Tradition We haue this as well as you and we haue also an other better and surer then this which you haue not yea which you blasphemously deride the testimony of the spirit wherby the authoritie of the scriptures is sealed in our harts and we are throughly induced to receiue them as the most blessed Testament and trueth of God For example that there is a God who created heauen and earth both the Scriptures teache and the creatures them-selues confirme soe as no man ought to stand in doubt thereof Yet notwithstanding this persuasion cannot be faithfullie setled and rooted in mans hearte vnlesse it be approoued and as it were sealed vnto vs by the holie Ghost without the confirmation whereof great doubtfulnes and distrust will arise in our mindes continuallie through the greate corruptiō of our nature Euen so that these scriptures are in trueth the verie word of God not onelie them selues doe prooue by their subiecte matter argument but also the testimony iudgement of the Church which euer so esteemed them may inuinciblie argue the same And yet for all this that we faithfullie receiue them and submit our selues vnto them as to the word of God without wandring or suspicion Gods holie spirit must inwardlie perswade our heartes that this indeede is his word and therefore of vs by all meanes to be imbraced and beleeued Thus it appeereth how false it is that you haue noted in your margent that the Protestants refusing the Church beleeued not the scriptures We refuse not the Church but we knowe the Scriptures of God haue greater credit and assurance then the onelie approbation of the Church I haue allreadie answered whatsoeuer you bring out of Augustine the Councel of Carthage or any other pag. 38.39 both in what sense those bookes of the olde Testament are called canonicall by them alsoe how the other of the new Testament were refused or receiued in times past You shall neuer be able to prooue that you set down in your margent wherein the summe of your wholl speach is briefly comprised that S. Iames epistle and the epistle to the Hebrews haue beene as much doubted of as the bookes of the olde Apochryphall Testament which the Protestans reiect The moste you can alledge is that some Churches haue doubted of those epistles but I haue before shewed that the wholl Church reiected these of the olde Testament This was mine answere to M. Martines demaunde this is mine answere still which you cannot with all your endeuour take away Something you write for a colour and fashion but you come alwaies behinde with your reckning It offendeth you that I saide we haue seene we haue confuted we haue troden vnder foote all the arguments of the Papistes and whatsoeuer they could saie Vnlesse you haue some new haruest growing which yet hath not bene reaped I might truely saie as I saide for you haue vttered all your store such as it was and we haue seene and confuted it long agoe and that by the written word of god against which no tradition no religion though neuer so auncient so vniuersall so glorious may preiudice anie thing What reasons moued you to departe from vs and become a feedes-man of the Pope I leaue to the Lord and your owne conscience for any thing that I could euer see and I haue laboured to see the trueth and what could be saide against it by the best of your side I doe with al my heart reioyce in the cause which we maintaine against you and I thinke it to be the iustest and honorablest defense that euer was vndertaken What you haue learned since you went and how substantiallie you confute my bragge as you call it shall hereafter further appeare as it hath in part alreadie done CHAP. 3. Of Luther preferring his priuate iudgement before all auncient fathers HEre againe is repeated an other quarrel about Luther to no purpose in the world but onely to discredite him a litle with the simple sorte For our aduersaries are so wasted and spent for good reasons that whatsoeuer they light vpon though neuer so vnfit to frame good arguments of they handle it with great earnestnes like seelie fletchers that hauing no store of steles left in theire shoppe are saine to make their blots of euerie crooked sticke What maketh it againest the trueth of our reliligion if Luther preferred his owne iudgement before the fathers is our doctrine therefore false and yours true either in wholl or in parte Others desire to reape great profit of a litle labour but you are content to take a great deale of paine for no commoditie at al. I would not herin vouchsafe you an answere but that I haue respect to the readers weaknesse whoe by such slaunders may be abused Your title sheweth plainlie there is in this Chapter no truth to be looked for at your hands pag. 42. you say Luther preferred his priuate iudgement before all auncient fathers and Doctors wherein you would haue men thinke he was vnmeasurablie arrogant and wilfull But Luthers spirit was farre from this insolent and immoderate presumption as maie by his owne wordes appeare which you haue noted For he saith not that he more setteth by his owne priuate iudgement then he doth by al the
fathers and Doctors as you report Luth. cont Regem Angl. fol. 342. vnius maiestatis aeter nae verbum Euangelium Dei verbū est super omnia c. but that he setteth against the sayings of fathers of men of Angels of Diuells the word of the onely eternall maiesty the Gospell And againe immediatly he saith The word of God is aboue all the maiesty of God maketh with me that I care not though a thousand Augustines and Cyprians stood agaynst me Gods word is of more authoritie then all men or Angels Is this to set his priuate iudgement against all the fathers is this pride is this presumption must Gods word and maiestie and Gospell yeald to the iudgement of fathers be they neuer so manie This forsooth is your modestie that though the Lord hath spoken it yet if the fathers saie anie thing against it you will not prefere your iudgement grounded on the scriptures before the auncient fathers Accursed be such modestie that doth soe great iniurie and dishonour vnto god This ciuilitie towards men is treason and blasphemie towards the lord Remember what Elihu saith Iob. 32. v. 21.22 I will not now accept the person of man neither wil I give titles to man For I may not giue titles lest my maker should take me away suddenlie If this affection was in Luther as it was what fault can you finde therin You aske of me the reason why I so busilie defend Luther I aske of you the reason why you so continuallie accuse Luther If you seeke for some reasons to accuse him I cannot want better reasons to defend him your accusations being so vntrue That you say we aduance him into the place of Christe or at least among his Apostles belike you imagine that Luther is to vs as your Pope is to you whome you more esteeme and honour then Christe and all his Apostles For saie they what they will their saying hath litle force or authoritie if it like not your holie father but his saying must preuaile whatsoeuer they saie to the contrarie You thinke it good reason I should giue ouer all defense of Luther seing he bare extreame hatred as you say against the Sacramentaries here you bring in much to that purpose which yet you know is not the matter you tooke in hand But it is alwaies the propertie of such discreet and worthie writers whatsoeuer they finde though from the cause to hale it in by some meanes in one place or other I answere in a word Luther dissented bitterlie from Zuinglius and O Ecolampadius in the matter of the sacrament as it falleth out often times that sharpe contentions may arise amongst Godlie and learned men yet it is no cause why we should not answere in Luthers behalfe when he is wrongfullie charged by you Therefore you come to scanne my defense of Luther particularlie pag. 48. and finde your selfe occupied in deuising diuers senses of Luthers words and then disputing against them First if all the fathers teach one thing and bring scriptures for them Luther the contrarie bring scriptures for him whether in this case Luther may preferre his iudgement before all the fathers This is not the case M. R. that Luther ment you must therefore proceade further yet in your suppose Next then you put case If a thousand Augustines Churches teache some doctrine citing no text for it and Luther bring some text of scripture after his sense against the same the matter is not in citing textes but in deliuering the doctrine that is approoued by the text Then leaue your childish trifling and take Luther as he meant If Augustine or Cyprian or any other father maintaine any thing against Gods word Luther or any other minister of Christ may in such case preferre his iudgement warranted by the word of God before theirs If you denie this you are not worthie to be called a Christian and yet closelie you doe denie it in that you reprooue Luther and condemne him for saying the same And where you saie I can bring no instance that euer the auncient fathers did so haue you forgotten what fell out in the Councell of Nice Socrat. l. 1. c. 11. when the fathers agreeing to dissolue the marriage of ministers were withstood by Paphnutius One man maintaining the trueth of Gods word may lawfully dissent from others although neuer so many August cont petil l. 3. c. 6. and yealded in the ende Here one Paphnutius iudgment was preferred before al the other three hundred fathers And so often times the iudgement of many hath beene corrected by one S. Aug. saith whether of Christe or of his Church or of any other thing that appertayneth to our faith and life I will not say we not to be compared to him that sayd though we but as he added If an Angell from heauen shall preach any thing besides that ye haue receiued in the legall and Euangelicall scriptures lette him be accursed If we maie accurse them how many and whosoeuer they be that teach contrary to the Propheticall and Apostolicall scriptures then may we preferre our iudgement in such cases before them Saint Augustines words you see are very sharpe but he learned thus to speake of the Apostle him selfe August epi. 19. In an other place Saint Augustine saith For all these fathers yea aboue all these the Apostle Paul offereth himselfe I flee to him I appeale to him from all writers that thinke otherwise This was S. Augustine bolde to write euen to S. Ierome and feared not any suspicion either of arrogancie or heresie for the same such accoumpte then must be made of the trueth that we must stand with it against al the world and not for reuerence of mens persons giue it ouer or betraie it or be afraid to defend it If this be so as you will not I am sure for shame or feare denie openlie then haue you nothing to burthen Luther in this behalfe When you say Though the fathers in the Councells of Nice Ephesus Chalcedon had alleadged no direct and euident place against Arius Nestorius Eutyches yet the Christian people were bound to beleeue them grounding them selues onelie vpon the catholike and vniuersall faith of the Churches before them it is boldly and bluntlie spoken These godly and catholike fathers assembled in Councel against those heritikes confuted them by the authoritie of Gods word and as it were cut the throte of their heresies with the sworde of the spirit This was onelie the weapon then vsed and with this they preuayled The councels and fathers confuted all Heretikes by the scriptures as likwise haue all other godlie councels euer done against all heretikes and enemies of the trueth For in Religion there is no trueth but grounded vppon scriptures no errour or heresie but repugnant to scriptures no heretikes but refuted by scriptures They dealt not against the heretikes as you imagine omitting scriptures and grounding vpon the faith of Churches
conscience tolde you that if you opposed your selfe against this trueth therein should you offer iniurie to your Pope and Pope-catholike brethren whome the same so specially doth concerne You saie I know not what Antichrist is Contrae Sander pa. 6. in principio against whome I write and that sometime I make Antichrist to be the wholl Catholike and vniuersall Church wherof the Pope is head which to be a pregnant vntrueth he that looketh one the place may see Haue I saied the Pope is head of the Chatholike vniuersall Church or the Catholike vniuersall Church is Antichrist what will you be ashamed hereafter to write that in the first entrance write thus vntruelie without shame and yet hauing your selfe auouched so notorious an vntruth you dare make mention of Lucians true historie which booke as may seeme you haue not onelie read ouer with diligence and delight but also translated into English propounded vnto your selfe as worthie of your imitaion For to giue you that praise that of due belongeth vnto you Lucian if he liued could hardlie coyne more passing vntruthes or scoffe more kindelie at Christ and his gospell then you haue done A greater reason was he saith for that he abhorred to deale with heretiks pag. 5. who passe al other in pride and ignorance and of all heretikes he maketh vs of England to be the worst Indeede true it is that heretikes for the most part are obstinate past amendment therefore a great wearines vexation of minde is it to maintaine contentions and disputes with them whereof in the end small profit doth redound But this complaint of hereticall wilfulnes nothing toucheth vs who by Gods grace are far from al kinde of heresie and hold no other doctrine then that which the Prophets and Apostles and Iesus Christ him selfe haue taught vs which is plainly contained in the bookes of canonicall scripture from which if labouring to disswade vs you cannot preuaile no maruell is it And in defending the same we are content to be esteemed of you contentious proude ignorant and as you list We are not so much in loue of your society nor seeke your fauour and commendation so greatlie that we will ioine in vnitie with you against the Lord his trueth and Church If you thinke we are proud tell vs wherein our pride consisteth If in that we will not yeald vnto you nor giue ouer maintenance of the Gospell pardon vs Master Rainolds modestie in the Lord is an excellent vertue but the modestie that betraieth the trueth of God is accursed Other pride I doubt not we are as cleare from as your selfe or anie of your fellowes And for ignorance we may thinke it was some spice of pride in you to obiect it vnto vs who for anie thing that appeereth haue no cause to brag of such knowledge or to chalenge more to your selfe then you may safely graunt to an other For tell vs what learning is wherein it consisteth and howe it maie be gotten Vnles you haue some speciall meanes and as it were some secret waie to attaine vnto it which others haue not I see not why we should thinke that you haue gotten a greater measure of learning and wisdome then others who haue vsed as great indeauour as your selfe And what the matter should be I know not that you are sodenlie become so learned and that we haue lost all learning But were you as learned as euer anie was or could be your learning shall not be hable to hurte the cause that we defend your learning shall in the end deceiue you and you that now boaste of your knowledge shall then be ashamed of your ignorance To knowe Christ out of his worde is true knowledge sound learning and perfect wisdome Certaine examples you rehearse of our ignorant assertions onelie thereby to make our cause seeme odious to the simple but the reasons of our assertions you pretermit which is your common sleight continuallie to tell your readers that such and such opinions we holde and not to shew the maner nor to remember or answere our reasons Wherein I desire the reader to consider how vntruelie Master Rainolds hath charged me with a wicked heresie that in this man he maie beholde the conscience of a Papist He setteth downe for one of my sayings that Christ is not begotten of the substance of his father a slaunder moste manifest in a matter of greatest moment I haue not writen thus no I neuer thought thus I abhorre with my hart all such blasphemy against the Person of our sauiour Christ But in the meane time what hath this slaunderer deserued Let the reader equallie iudge betweene him and me and by triall hereof esteeme more indifferentlie of the rest of his malice Now the greatest cause of all that made him so loth pag. 7. was he saith because he found in our doctrine no staie or certentie which yet if it were true should haue ministred vnto him greater will and courage forsomuch as the doctrine that standeth vpon no certaine staie is easilie disprooued and ouerthrowen But in trueth Master Rainolds perceiuing our doctrine to be grounded vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles which maie not be remooued and knowing we will not yeald to mens doctrines and inuentions whatsoeuer differing from the holie scriptures but rest our selues whollie vpon the written word of God I thinke he was indeede somewhat discouraged as great cause was he should being sure his engines could not preuaile against the same And what greater steadfastnes in religion can be required then to holde Gods word which we professe to be the ground whereon we build our faith If you can shewe wherein we swarue from it we will not refuse your instruction But saie not nowe we are vnstaied when as you knowe we relie our selues whollie vpon the worde vnles you will denie Gods word to be a certaine rule and staie of doctrine We plant not our religion in mans iudgement vncertentie of Traditions in vaine ceremonies and deuises as you doe but in matters of faith and religion we depend vpon God whoe in the scriptures of the olde and new Testament hath deliuered to his Church one certaine vniforme and perfect doctrine to which we adde nothing from which we take nothing awaie in which we settle and ground our selues But let vs heare how Master Rainolds can prooue that the Protestants haue no certaine faith For this he hath propounded to himselfe to declare especiallie in this preface And I desire the godlie readers to marke his proofes which shall be I trust to their comfort and confirmation in the truth First he obiecteth diuersitie of iudgement amongst vs Pag. 9. concerning the Princes supremacie in matters Ecclesiasticall wherein is no such difference as he pretendeth if he listed rightlie to vnderstand the case The title of supreme head of the Church hath bene misliked by diuerse godlie and learned men and of right and properlie it onelie belongeth
then the argument to be so sure and necessarie that is drawen from authoritie of a martyr will you graunt this reason to be inuincible A marttr hath saide it therefore it is true what say you then of Cyprian the martyr of Iustinus the martyr of Irenaeus the martyr who notwitstanding their blessed martyrdome are knowne to haue maintained opinions against the trueth If martyrs then may haue their errours how may the testimonie of martyrs be alwaies irrefragable you see good readers how pithie a disputer this man doth shewe him-selfe to be If his loose rhetorike helped him not a litle better then his logike he were in verie weake and miserable case Lastlie concerning wholl Churches reformed pag. 32. what can you Master Rainolds conclude against vs In matter of discipline greate difference heretofore hath bene amongst the Churches East and West Greeke and Latine If then some such be in our reformed Churches can you thereof truelie gather that therefore they are not the Churches of Christ Tell vs what you meane if you haue any trueth or certaintie in your meaning Next Master R. reckeneth vp sundrie Popes that are amongst the Protestants in stead of one true Pope pag. 33. which I know not whereto it serueth but onelie to shewe that the protestants haue so great detestation of the Pope and his tyrannie that they cannot endure in anie professour of the Gospell anie small shadowe of such Lordelines as the Pope vsurpeth ouer the Church Your true Pope whereof you speake is as much as a true Antichrist of whome the scriptures haue foretolde The name the person the authoritie all Protestants abhorre and accurse to the prince of darknes from whence it came Againe he is in hand with generall Councels and saith it is impossible pag. 34. that euer we should once imagine how anie Councell amongest vs should be gathered His methode is according to his matter confused and disordered leaping and iumping from one pointe to another like a wilde bucke vpon the mountaines Although we haue not a Pope as you haue yet by Gods grace generall Councels maie wee haue if Christian princes that professe the gospell will iointlie take vpon them the care thereof And generall Councels haue bene assembled and helde many hundred yeares before your Pope by such a name was euer knowne or heard of in the world and so may they againe both Christianlie and generallie be held allthough your Pope with all his proude cleargie were returned from whence they came That hitherto no such Christian Councels haue bene gathered it maie be imputed to the generall troubles in all Christian countries and to the aduersaries that haue bene raised vp by your Pope and his Cardinall satrapes to hinder as much as in them laie all meanes whereby a Christian generall Councell might be gathered Howbeit if a generall Councell cannot be procured to be celebrated with quietnes there is no doubt notwithstanding but that the Lordes cause maie without it daylie more and more preuaile as it hath done heretofore in times moste persecutions To the section that followeth containing onelie a recapitulation of these former discourses pag. 34. c. I haue no nede to make any further answere Your complainte against vs for refusing all grounds of disputation pag. 38. how vaine and vntrue it is hath bene shewed The onelie true and certaine grounde of religion and of all disputation about the same which is the authoritie of God reuealed vnto vs in his holie worde we imbrace we holde we rest vpon it which forsomuch as you haue fullie tried to be against you so that you cannot thereby approoue one article of your popish faith nor disprooue anie doctrine that we maintaine against you therfore desperation driueth you indeede to refuse this grounde as insufficient and to seeke other grounds of which we haue noe warrant in Gods worde And although it please you for this cause to raile at vs and saie we are worse then the heretikes of olde time yet we know that rhe auncient godlie fathers in confuting all heretikes vsed onelie arguments drawen out of the scriptures and plainelie taught that by no other weapons an heretike can be put to flight I knowe they charge them oftentimes with the iudgement of Churches successions of Bishops determination of Councels name of Catholikes not as though this were a necessarie conuiction of it selfe but thereby the rather to induce them to beleeue the doctrine to be true which they see from the first planting thereof in the Church to haue remained Your case is nothing like seeing you haue onely the bare title without the thing and as it were the emptie casket without the treasure But for so much as you accuse â—s for casting awaie the grounds of Diuinitie I desire euerie Christian man to weigh with himselfe what ground it is wheron al your religion and Church standeth First the scripture must not be scripture in any other sense then as the Pope will expound it so that the scripture being the meaning of the scripture and the meaning of the scripture being the Popes exposition hereof it followeth that the scripture is nothing els but the Popes interpretation So likewise in Traditions Doctors Councels Churches if any thing dissent from the Popes vnderstanding and determination it is reiected abolished condemned and finally all faith all religion all Diuinitie of Papists is onelie the Popes sacred will and pleasure Now then this being their owne certaine resolution I would gladlie be enformed how by the same a man may be assured of any faith it being further also agreed and confessed among themselues that the Pope maie fall into heresie Then who seeth not that their ground being shaken their staie failing all that is builded and vpholden thereon is clean ouerthrowne If they saie the Pope falling into heresy forthwith ceaseth to be a Pope I demaund whoe they are that must iudge the Popes cause and giue sentence against him And if the Pope be obstinate and teaching heresie and therewith infecting the world will notwithstanding stoutly stand in defense of his doctrine and will keepe his chaire what shift haue you then or what can you doe against him seing he is your Pope your head your author and founder of all your faith Thus a man going with you along and comming to the end of all findeth no staie but must wander still as in an endles Labyrinth wherein he shall at last languish and perish euerlastingly That you wish we would be content to yealde to the verie scriptures themselues pag. 40. doubt you not Master Rainolds thereof but we are most redie to yealde vnto them if ye would be as willing the controuersy might haue thereby and by other good meanes an end But your conscience telleth you scripture will not serue you and therfore in a word you deny the wholl bodie of the scriptures Thinke not good reader that herein I haue spoken rashly without reason I know what I
speake and thy selfe considering the matter aduisedlie wilt saie as much For in making an olde rotten translation as I may boldlie call it being compared with the originall word of scripture although otherwise I giue to it that reuerence that the antiquity therof deserueth full of wants faultes errors ouersightes imperfections and corruptions of all sortes as in this booke hereafter god willing thou shalt perceaue to be the authenticall word of God and denying the originall faithfull text which Moses the Prophets the Apostles the Euangelists did write to be the worde of God what do they els but plainlie as it were with one dash of a penne cancel the wholl sciptures Herein maiest thou see what conscience these men make of scripture that do cast awaie the verie authenticall text and bookes of holie scripture preferring before them a homelie latine translation which besides it is such as I haue said no man can tell from whence or from whome it came And this forsooth is their scripture coined and canonized of late in the councell of Trente and neuer before and other scripture haue they none Hitherto Master Rainolds treatise hath bene generall of the English Protestants pag. 41. c. now he craueth leaue of the reader to descend and applie the same to his aduersarie whose booke he is to examine and first he noteth the fashion of Heretikes alwaies to haue bene to inuade the chiefe pastours of the Church What heretikes haue vsed commonlie to doe appertaineth nothing vnto vs we could no otherwise doe but when we espied the wolfe deuouring the flocke and Antichrist sitting in the temple of God giue warning thereof to all crie out against him and call him by his proper name the verie Antichrist of whom Saint Paul to the Thessalonians and the scriptures in other places doe mean This hath bene the iudgement of al reformed Churches from the beginning and wil be to the ending of the world And although Sanders hath taken great paines in this behalfe to prooue their Pope to be no Antichrist for then all were vtterlie lost yet how little he hath by his demonstrations preuailed the godlie reader maie easilie iudge by the answere set forth which Master Rainolds because he cannot orderlie and thorowlie disprooue carpeth at some partes thereof in the residue of this his preface But being appointed as he saith to answere the booke it had bene more for his commendation and credite of the cause to haue perticularlie refuted my wholl replie then thus to pike certaine parcels at his owne choise and to pretermit all the rest Yet let vs see what he can saie whereby it shall appeere how litle he had to saie In the first demonstration of all Pag. 44. c. D. Saunders endeuoureth to proue that the great Antichrist must be one singular man for proofe whereof he allegeth sundrie reasons which are seuerallie answered and lastlie as the chiefest that all the fathers haue spoken of Antichrist as of one man Doctor Saunders and parcel of my answere are here by Master Rainolds repeated but the principall ground thereof is omitted Whereas it is by Saunders affirmed that all the fathers haue spoken of Antichrist as of one onelie man although this be vntrue and can neuer by Saunders or anie Papist be prooued and although further it is one thing to speake of Antichrist as of one man and plainlie to saie that Antichrist is one man yet supposing this were true that Saunders meaneth notwithstanding his demonstration holdeth not being taken from the authoritie of men from whome no demonstration in diuinitie can be drawen This is the summe of this answere which Master Rainolds accuseth of Antichristian arrogancie seing the fathers write according to the apostolicall faith and tradition as he saith But how may it appeere Master Rainolds that the Apostles taught or deliuered such a faith vnto the Churches concerning Antichrist if this faith be contained in their writings tell vs in what booke in what place in what wordes If in secret tradition we admit no profe as you know from such vncertaine and blinde traditions And if you your selues oftentimes doe dissent from the fathers giue vs also the same libertie of dissenting from them vpon as good ground and iust causes as you haue anie The fathers speake diuerse times not according to the tradition faith Apostolicall but according to the common receiued opinion them selues in plain termes confessing that they speake but coniecturally if there was not in that age so full and cleare knowledge of Antichrist as at this daie no maruell maie it seeme to wise men for so much as nowe Antichrist is not onelie borne and bredde but growne to a strong man and perfectlie discerned and acknowledged by all marks essentiall to be Antichrist They forsawe him we see him they knew he should come we know he is come they feared him we haue felt him they geassed at him we can point him out with our finger finallie they might be deceiued but wee cannot vnles we will stop our eares and close our eies and suffer our selues willinglie to be abused pag. 46. c. In the second demonstration Doctor Saunders commendeth the Church of Rome by testimonies of writers auncient and later thereby to make vs beleeue that seing it hath bene so highlie praised it cannot therefore possiblie be the seate of Antichrist Here I gaue Doctor Saunders a distinction betwene the elder Romane Church and the yonger The auncient Church of Rome indeede was worthelie extolled and magnified of the fathers for constant keeping of the faith although euen then in that Church the egge was laide whereof shortlie after Antichrist was hatched the distinction M. R. raileth at with all his mighte but cannot disprooue with all his learning it being euident in al histories that after the daies of those godly fathers the Bishop of Rome was made head of the vniuersal Church wherein he was publikely proclaimed to be the Antichrist that should come afterward continually both religion learning and good life died by litle and litle in that Church as hath bene testified and complained of by infinite writers So the difference betweene that Church in former latter time is no lesse euident then betweene a mans youth and doting age if you consider all partes and properties of a true Church And yet saith Master Rainolds if it be lawfull thus to answere then shall no heresie euer be repressed forgetting fowlie that heresie must be refuted and repressed by scripture which neuer changeth but abideth for euer though Churches varie both from others and from themselues In the third demonstration Pag. 50. c. wherein Saunders affirmeth the succession of priests in the Romane Church to be the rocke against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile I denie the outwarde chaire or succession of bishops to be the immoueable inuincible Rocke wheron the Church is builded which is the sonne of God himselfe the onelie foundation
of the Church For outwarde succession is no more certaine in that Church then in others and it hath bene diuerse times broken of and discontinued by vacations and schismes for manie yeares together If then the Church had bene builded vpon this tottering rocke of externall succession at Rome it had oftentimes bene dashed and ouerthrowen but thankes be to God the Church is builded vpon a surer rocke then is the personall succession of your Popes or els of anie estate of men in the worlde and therefore whatsoeuer becommeth of your Pope or of his chaire and succession the Church falleth not but abideth and remaineth for euer Your stories written in time of Antichristes tyrannie what cause is there whie we should anie whit regarde them the authors thereof being infected with the errors of the Pope and daring not write for the moste parte otherwise then might well stand with his humor And to all histories that since the defection haue commended the faith of that Church we oppose the worde of God which plainelie conuinceth it of manifold and damnable heresies besides we could alledge sundrie writers in all ages that openlie haue reprooued the same The former distinction concerning the Romane Church pag. 25. here Master Rainolds taketh in hand to disprooue and to shewe that my paradox as he calleth it is impossible First he saith I graunted the Church of Rome to haue bene pure godlie Christian for sixe hundred yeares after Christ which forsooth I neuer graunted as he meaneth that simply and absolutelie no manner of corruption in anie parte of doctrine had taken place therin but onelie according to the state of those times and comparison of that general apostasie which afterward ensued So your conceit M. R. that this alteration should whollie be wrought within the space often or twelue years is so vaine childish that nothing can be deuised more foolish and farther of from the purpose No M. Rainolds notwithstanding Antichrist was not openlie aduanced in the Romane Church before Bonifacius the third yet was there in it no small preparation for entertayning of him before that time through corruption of doctrine and manners in that Church though it was in manie things corrupted before yet had it also great sinceritie which by little and little decaied more and more till Antichrist came and was reuealed and after Antichrist was seated there yet was not therefore all puritie lost by and by but in continuance of time it fainted and languished hauing receiued deadlie poison and no remedie being prouided Wherefore this roye of yours was indeed a vanitie of vanities fitte for such a vaine sophister as you are But now because Doctor Saunders and M. Rainolds boldelie affirme that by testimonies of stories no heresie was brought into the Romane Church or anie chaunge of doctrine euer made in the same let me put them in minde briefelie Sigisbâ—rt Gemblacensis in Chronico Ann. 1088. that Sigisberius the moncke an Historiographer mentioned by them both expresselie chargeh Gregorie the seauenth and his successours for maintaining and practizing not onely an error but an heresie also in taking vpon them authoritie to excommunicate the Emperour and other ciuill Princes This heresie hath euer since continued in that See and is at this daie by the Pope and his Popelings auouched and therefore by confession of their owne Historiographers Pag. 55. some heresie hath taken place in the Church of Rome contrarie to Doctor Saunders and Master Rainolds proude assertion That the Romane Church of later time hath not chaunged the faith which the auncient Romane Church professed Master Rainolds promiseth now to prooue by such testimonies as I must needes alowe for vpright and sufficient My selfe is the first then Caluine Luther Martyr Illyricus none of which euer dreamed of such a matter as he taketh in hand to prooue by their confession That I haue said the first Romane Church helde the purity of faith nothing concerneth the later Church in what sense I haue so saide is before declared not thereby to iustifie that Church in euerie particular doctrine custome or ceremonie but onelie that the principall and substantiall articles of Christian religion were in it maintained against the heretikes of those times Then that Caluine Luâ—â—â— c. do graunt that the primitiue Romane Church maintained and beleeued the Popes supremacie the sacrifice of the Masse reall presence and Priesthoode is moste vntrue as further in discourse of this booke shall appeere And therefore the conclusion that of these premises should ensue is like the vntimelie fruite that ere it be ripe falleth downe to the ground And as for the common place that followeth concerning the continuance of Christs vniuersall Church pag. 57. to what purpose doth it serue or what argument maie it afforde you we beleeue and confesse to the comforte of our soules that Christs Church hath continued and neuer shall faile so long as the worlde endureth and we account it a profane heresie to teach that Christs Catholike vniuersal Church hath perished from the earth at anie time For this assertion as you truelie prooue shaketh the foundations of all faith and religion But as you haue effectuallie and inuinciblie by manifolde scriptures euinced that Christs Church can neuer be rooted out and no man in the world can open his mouth against you herein so if you had also proued by like euidence of scripture that the Catholike vniuersall Church of Christ is nothing els but the outwarde succession of the Romane see then had you prooued your matters soundlie and confuted our opinion truelie and proceeded orderlie But hauing spoken much concerning the perpetuitie of Christs Church which no Christian can denie or doubt of you bring vs no text not reason to shew that Christs Church either is the Popes succession or els dependeth vpon the same For as touching externall shew and succession of Churches the scriptures haue foretolde that Antichrist shall seduce great and small Apoc. 12.61 13.16 rich and poore free and bonde and that the Church shall flie into the wildernes and there remaine of al which no word could be true if the Catholike Church were tied to the Popes Chaire and the Popes Chaire were the rocke that can not be remooued And yet notwithstanding this generall dispersion and flight of the Church vnder Antichrist the Catholike Church shall for all that continue although not in that outwarde strength and glorie in which sometimes it hath appeered and florished Now this long discourse following is visible Pag. 59. c. and the Testimonies of Melancthon Oecolampadius Caluine and Illyricus at large rehearsed to that purpose all this argueth nothing els but pitifull and grosse ignorance in this man who not knowing what he auoucheth or what he refelleth yet laieth on such loade as though with euerie blow he felled his aduersarie to the ground The militant Church of Christ to be a visihle companie who hath from the beginning of the
the Bible For proofe whereof Luther is charged to haue written contemptuouslie and contumeliouslie of the Epistle of Saint Iames which though it had beene true and could not haue beene denied yet did it nothing at all touch vs who therein agree not with Luther neither are bound to iustifie al his sayings priuat opinions no more then they wil be content to auouch what-soeuer hath beene spoken or published by any one or other famous man of their side We no more bound to defend Luther in all his sayings then they will be bound to defend whatsoeuer hath bin said by their writers Which thing if they will take vppon them to performe then let them professe it or els they offer vs the more iniurie that obiect still against vs a saying which was neuer either vttered or alowed by vs. This might suffice men of indifferent reason but our aduersaries will yet continue wrangling about nothing and will trouble the world with friuolous writings being neither ashamed nor wearied of any thing For what matter is it worthie soe much adoe and soe many wordes whether Luther euer spake so of Saint Iames epistle as Campian sayth he did or no If he had so spoken as in trueth he hath not for any thing I can vnderstand what haue they wonne what haue we lost what matter was it to multiplie words so much about Is this the controuersie between vs and them doe we striue about mens words and writings Is Luther our God or the author of our faith or our Apostle No they shall not bring vs thus from the defense of Gods trueth to skirmish with them about mens sayings we will not leaue the great questions of Religion and fall to dispute about matters of other nature condition such as this is concerning Luthers particuler iudgement of S. Iames Epistle The truth of Gods word is it for which we contend against the which if anie man haue spoken any thing let him beare the blame himselfe and let not the common cause be charged therewith So if Luther or anie other learned man of our side haue eyther interpreted the scriptures in something amisse or haue doubted of some one booke of Scripture whereof doubte also hath beene of olde in the Church of Christ we are not to defend their expositions or to approoue their iudgement and therefore in vaine do these men spend so much time and take such paynes to prooue that Luther vttered reprochfull wordes against the Epistle of Saint Iames which as though it had beene a principall matter for their aduantage not onelie the Censurer in his defense and Gregorie Martin in his discouerie haue spoken thereof but now also my new aduersarie Master Rainolds in his booke against me beginneth with the same and sayth he hath thought good to sett it downe and prosequute it somewhat more at large But I for my parte haue not thought good to spend my time and comber the reader about such vnnecessarie and impertinent discourses as these are which the aduersaries deuise and wherewith Master Rainolds hath stuffed his booke onely it shal be sufficient for answere to Master Rainolds whoe in trueth deserueth no answere playnlie and briefelie in euerie point to cleare the trueth from his cauils and slaunders for the satisfying of the godlie in this behalfe And first what a sillie argument he gathereth M. Rainolds argum that we haue left no ground of faith because Luther somwhat toucheth the credit of Saint Iames epistle for that Luther hath written somewhat hardlie of Saint Iames his Epistle that therefore the Protestants leue no one ground whereupon a Christian man may rest his faith I trust anie man of mean discretion can easilie perceiue For the iniurie done to Saint Iames Epistle by Luther should not be obiected against the Church of England which doth receiue the same as the Canonicall word of God but against Luther if he did so deserue and such as maintayne Luthers opinion herein But neither I nor any other that I knowe in our Church euer denied much lesse doth the whole Church denie that epistle to be worthely rekned among the bookes of sacred Scripture S. Iames Epistle not doubted of in the Church of England nor haue taken vpon vs to defend either Luther or any other for reiecting the same Indeed because Campian rayled vpon Luther charging him to haue disgraced that epistle with despitefull tearmes I answered that Luther had not so written of it as Campian affirmed which still I may truely holde for anie thing hath bene shewed either by any other or by Master Rainolds him selfe whoe like a profound scholler handleth this worthie matter thus at large Furthermore how doth that followe Maister Rainolds that if Luther thought Saint Iames epistle not to be Canonicall or equall in Authoritie with the epistles of Saint Paull and Peter that therefore he left no ground for a Christian mans faith to stay vppon are all the grounds of our fayth in Saint Iames epistle is all foundation of Religion ouerthrowne yf Saint Iames epistle should not be Canonicall Doe they that deny or doubt of that epistle destroy the credit of all other bookes of holie scipture God forbid that so we should thinke Diuers auncient learned men and Churches haue denyed the Epistle of S. Iames. Amongst the Auncient writers of estimation Eusebius calleth this same epistle of Saint Iames about which you make soe great adoe in playne wordes a Bastard I thinke you will not say that Luther hath written worse or more against it Euseb lib. 2. ca. 23. Ieron in catal And Saint Ierome saith It was affirmed that this epistle was published by some other vnder the name of Saint Iames whereby appeereth that many Christians in auncient tyme thought it to be in deede counterfait and yet did they not therefore ouerthrow al the foundations of our fayth Euseb lib. 7. ca. 25. Dionysius Alexandrinus writeth as Eusebius reporteth that many of his predecessours vtterly refused and reiected the booke of Reuelation Concil Laod. cap. 59. Iunil lib. 1. cap. 3. And so doth the Councell of Laodicea leue the same out of the number of Canonicall bookes Iunilius Africanus an auncient father reiecteth not only the bookes of Iudith Hester and Maccabees as they are worthy in that they are not canonicall but also of Iob Ezra and Paralipomenon which notwithstanding are canonical scriptures And neuerthelesse for al this they left some staie for Christians in the other bookes of Scripture wherein a man may finde sufficient ground to build his faith vpon Yea Ierome was not afraid to discredit the trueth of the historie written in holie Scripture concerning Dauids marrying with Abisag calling it according to the letter that is the true and natural sense Hier. epist 2. Vel. figmentū esse de mimo vel Atellanarum ludicra no better then either a poetical fiction or vnseemely iest and therefore deuiseth a proper Allegorie of Wisdome which cherisheth
and refresheth a man in his age I wil not vrge Father Ierome for his vnreuerent wordes but sure I am he hath deserued more reproofe for the same then Luther hath done for any thing euer vttered by him against S. Iames Epistle By these examples you may learne not to be so rash in your iudgement and hasty in your conclusions as you shew your felfe to be in the very beginning that because Luther denied Saint Iames epistle to be Canonical following the ensample of others hence doe gather not onely that he but we also although herein disagreeing from him and denying no one booke of Canonicall scripture neyther of the old nor new testament doe raze the foundation of faith and leaue no ground for Christians to stand vpon We leue such ground and thereupon do build our faith as ye shall neuer be hable to shake with all the force ye haue Verely your Pope and ye all that hang vpon him cannot well stand on this ground because it is too narrowe and slippery for you and therefore ye seeke larger roome in the Fathers Councells Traditions whereof you speak The grounds of Popish faith These are in deed fit groundes for your Church to be founded vpon the corruptions of Fathers the decrees of men superstitious inuentions forged traditions whereunto if you did not more leane and somewhat staye your selfes then to the bookes of holy scriptures your Church your Pope your Cardinals your monkes your friars your selues should surely lie in dust shortly But now to come to Luther whome still you chardge and me also about Saint Iames epistle I could vse as many words against you if the cause required as you haue against me handle the matter by poynts as you doe but what end or vse should there be of such kinde of writing or what profitt could arise thereby to the Church of Christ Had you clerely gayned al that for which you contend yet had you not prooued any thing at all against our Church or fayth nor yet against me but onely that Luthers writings haue beene changed and altered which because you haue so paynfully euicted I praie you take it vnto you and vse it moste to your aduantage Howbeit for all your needles and vnthriftie labour spent herein yet doth Campian still remayne chardged with that vntrueth whereof you would so fayne acquit him which you may sone perceiue if you call to remembrance what Campian in his booke obiected to Luther concerning this epistle of Saint Iames namely that he called it contentious swelling Campian Rat. 1. drye strawen and thought it not worthy an Apostolike spirite All this doth Campian auouch Luther to haue written of Saint Iames epistle Now yf Luther haue in deede thus written then haue I vniustly accused Campian of vntrueth yf otherwise then hath Campian slaundered Luther fowly To know the trueth herein I vsed all conuenient diligence in examining all the copies both Dutche and Latine that I could get and when I found in them noe such wordes but rather the cleane contrary I was perswaded as I had good cause that all this was but a forged matter and therefore sayd it was vntrue Afterwards it fell out that I light vppon an old Dutch Testament of Luthers translation with his prefaces wherein I found something like in one poynt to that which Campian had obiected the which when I had read I dissembled not but confessed it in my answere to Gregory Martin And in that preface Luther in deede writeth that Saint Iames epistle is not so worthy as are the epistles of Saint Peter and Paul but in respect of them is a strawen epistle His censure I mislike and so himselfe I thinke afterwards seeing those words in latter editions are left out Yet I trust euery indifferent reader will graunt that there is ods betweene this that Luther writeth indede and that which Campian saith he writ For it is one thing to speake simply and another thing to speake in comparison Campian sayth Luther calleth Sainte Iames Epistle strawne Luther sayth That it is in comparison of Saint Peters and Saint Pauls epistles strawne If you can by all your wisdome prooue these to be all one and will farther busie your selfe about trifles I am content to giue you the reading but I will not vouchsafe to answere any more such strawen or rather wodden replies And sure Master Rainoldes if you can write nothing to purpose and yet will needs be writing something it were better for you to sit downe and picke strawes then so to trouble your selfe and others wherein you shall purchase nothing els but commendation of a strawne writer and your booke shal be iudged more worthy to be burnt then to be answered But seeing you haue taken in hand to prosecute this matter so largelie M. Rainolds helpeth not where greatest neede is of his helpe why doe you faile in that thing wherein most of all we need your hand and helpe For this that you bring concerning strawne hath already beene confessed somuch as is true your parte had beene now farther to haue shewed that Luther likewse called the same epistle contentious swollen drie not worthie an Apostolicall spirit as he is accused by Campian in the same place But for proofe hereof you can bring forth nothing and therefore you confesse that Campian layd more to Luthers charge concerning this Epistle then was true so that if in one poore word you haue a little auouched the credite of your Iesuite for whome you fight yet in three or foure other you haue condemned him which you slylie passe ouer notwithstanding as though Campian had neuer spoken so or you had nothing to do therwith Indeed I graunt it maketh smale matter what Campian hath lyed of Luther but you that take vppon you to defend him may not thinke you haue performed your duty if of much that he hath said you be able to iustify his saying in one litle point in three points haue failed Wherefore either cease to quarell still about this one word or shew your proofes for the rest also or acknowledge your lewd and miserable wrangling as in deed you must howsoeuer the matter standeth concerning Luther in this behalfe For what if Luther had plainly and constantly affirmed of Saint Iames Epistle as much as Campian hath obiected though vntrulie Is this a cause sufficient why you should make all these outcryes generally against all Protestants why then may not we by like reason complayne of all Papists for that which Cardinall Caietane hath written both of other bookes of holie scripture and namelie of this same Epistle whereof we speake was not Caietane a piller of your Church a peere of the court of Roome the Popes Legate in Germanie against Luther Doth not this famous Cardinall of Roome set downe in playne wordes that the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrewes doth gather insufficient arguments to prooue Christ to be the sonne of God that the second and
further if Saint Augustine himselfe had bene of your opinion he would not haue giuen this admonition to preferre some before some but would haue straitly and precisely charged that no difference should be made but all receiued alike being al of like authoritie As for Daniel albeit some parte of him be written in the Chaldey tongue yet was it vnderstood of the Church being then in captiuitie vnder the Babylonians and that tongue is but a diuerse Dialect from the Hebrew and differeth littel from it My second reason Pag. 21. you say is of more force and if I prooue it you promise to be of my iudgement Let vs then set downe the reason first and see the proofes afterward I sayd betwene thosde bookes Apocryphes of the old Testament and Saint Iames epistle there was this difference that they were refused of the wholl Church and so was not Saint Iames wherfore we had reason to reiecte them and not this By the wholl Church I meant not onely the primitiue Church of Christians as you supposed but the Church of the Iewes before Christ which neuer allowed those bookes for Canonicall as your selues confesse which is an inuincible argument against them For had they bene Canonical that Church would not nor ought not to haue reiected them and other Church there was none then to allowe them So by your iudgement it must be thought that diuerse bookes of Canonicall scripture were neuer receiued for many yeares in any Church which howe absurde it is euery man seeth The Apostle writeth that vnto the Iewes were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3.2 whereby is meant his word But these bookes the Iewes neuer receiued and therefore they are of another sorte then those that containe the oracles of God And that the Iewes did not amisse in reiecting them it may be vnderstoode in that they were neuer reprooued by Christ or his Apostles for the same Their false expositions of scripture are often tymes noted and their errours confuted but they are neuer found fault with for refusing these bookes of scripture whereof if they had bene guilty they should not haue escaped reprehension This argument you deale not with but expound my words of the primitiue Church whereas I spake specially of the Church before Christ For though the Catholike Church neuer thought these bookes to be Canonicall as that word is properlie taken yet it vsed in some places to read them for instruction of manners Hieron praef in Solom not for confirmation of faith as S. Ierome teacheth but the olde Church of the Iewes neuer vouchsafed them so much honour as to read them publikelie And that the Catholike Church receiued not these bookes for Canonicall though it read them you haue alreadie heard the witnes of Saint Ierome who also in another place writing expressely of the Canonicall bookes Hieron in prologo Galeats excludeth these out of the Canon and calleth them Apochryphall Hereunto might I adde many testimonies of Councels and writers both olde and newe wherein appeareth what iudgement the Catholike Church had of these bookes Gregory the great whoe in your opinion was the head of the Catholike Church being Bishop of Rome Writers old and new esteeme those bookes for Apocryphall and therefore one that by likelyhood should not be ignorant of the Churches iudgement calleth the bookes of Macchabees not Canonicall yet set forth to the edification of the Church Greg. in Iob. li. 19. cap. 16. Thus for 600. yeares after Christ you see these bookes were not esteemed in the catholike Church for Canonicall which also must be thought of the rest whereof we speake seeing there is one and the same iudgement of thē all And that this iudgement hath euer since continually remayned in the Church is prooued by a c. 49. in Graeco Veronensi Damascene by b De sacram in prol li. 1. cap. 7. Hugo S. victoris by c in Leu. li. 14. cap. 1. Radulphus by d in prol in li. Apocryp Lyrane by e in prol Iosu Hugo Cardinalis and many moe whoe playnly doe affirme those bookes in the olde Testament that the Church of England now accounteth Apocryphall to be so and not as you would haue them taken canonicall Yea since your Tridentine assembly Arias Montanus a man of your owne side though not so absurd corrupt in iudgement as moste of you in his Hebrew Bible interlined is not affrayd thus to write of the same bookes and that not in a corner but in the very forefront and principal leafe of the booke There are added sayth he in this edition the bookes written in Greeke Bibilia Montani 1584. which the catholike Church following the canon of the Hebrews reckneth among the Apochryphall Thus it is euident that these bookes haue beene and are refused by the catholike Church and that our Church iudgeing them Apochrypall consenteth with the iudgement of the catholike Church and yours in receiuing them for canonicall haue not herein a catholike iudgement Now for Saint Iames epistle where you demaund how it may appeere that it was not refused by the wholl Church I would know whether you will say it was indeed refused by the wholl Church or no if you will so say then you shall as much discredite the authoritie thereof S. Iames epistle was neuer reiected by the wholl Church but by some particuler Churches onely as euer Luther or anie Protestant hath done For as the wholl Church neuer receiued anie booke for canonical but that which was truelie Canonicall so the wholl Church hath neuer refused any as Apocryphall but such as were indeed Apocryphall If then the wholl Church of Christ hath refused Saint Iames Epistle it will necessarilie follow that S. Iames Epistle is not canonicall But that the wholl Church euer refused it is vntrue as maybe prooued by the testimonies of writers and Histories of the Church Euse l. 2. c. 23. Eusebius that was the greatest aduersarie of it and did most sharplie censure it yet in the same place confesseth that both that and the rest were receiued and published in moste Churches Wherfore when you saie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that for this part you must credit me vpon my word herein you bewray either great ignorance or desire to quarrell The difference then which I put betweene the Apocryphall bookes of the olde testament and these bookes of the newe that they were reiected by the Church wholie these not so is fullie prooued whereupon it followeth that the Church of England had greater reason to refuse them then these and was therein led by learning knowledge not by fansie and opinion as you saie What learning or what diuinitie is your Church led by first to esteem of these alike then to alowe for Canonicall such bookes as you confesse and can not denie to haue beene refused by the wholl Church Where you say my reasons make moste against my selfe pag. 23. I
but they prooued their faith to be grounded vppon the scriptures So Cyprian a wise and Catholike Bishop writeth that in controuersies of Religion we must haue recourse to the origine of trueth Cypria de vnit Eccles in Epist ad Pompei whereby he meaneth the scriptures and that the cause of heresie is for that the head is not sought which he declareth further adding that the doctrine of the heauenlie Master is not kept And therefore if those fathers had obiected nothing but the common beliefe of the Churches against those heretikes they had taken a wrong course and should neuer thus haue stopped their mouthes But they had a surer waie to conuince heretikes then you haue whoe being of all heretikes the greatest would take awaie all means of confuting heretikes that so your selues might not be espied or not controlled As for Heluidius Ambrose Epist 81. 79. Hieron cont Heluid who denied the blessed virgine to haue remained a virgine afterward the fathers Ierome and Ambrose alleadged against him not tradition onely but the scriptures especiallie although what Saint Basill hath written of this wholl matter you maie reade in his sermon of the Natiuitie wherein he is not affraied plainlie to affirme that after she had borne our sauiour Christ Basil de Christi â—tiuit whither she married againe or remained a virgine still belongeth longeth nothing to the mysterie of faith Againe you imagine a third sense of Luthers wordes Pag. 51. by supposing a thing impossible that if all Churches and fathers teach against Scripture Luther with Scripture then Luther maie thinke him-selfe a better man then they al. What Luthers meaning was you haue heard and therefore it skilleth not what you suppose further Indeed M. R. as you saie the Church falleth not from Christ to Apostasie but this is true as well of the Church in the olde Testament as in the newe yet as the visible Churches of the Iewes fell awaie from God and became open enemies vnto our sauiour Christ so it might come to passe since Christ that the particular Churches and congregations did corrupte the doctrine of the Gosepll and slid into that Apostasie which the Scriptures foresaid should ouerspread the Churches afterward 1. Tim. 4.1 2. Thes 2.3 But the Catholike Church which is the number of Gods elect can no more fall awaie from Christe into Apostasie then the course of heauen can be chaunged For it standeth vpon Christ the rocke and hell gates shall not be hable to cast it downe Here againe you come in with Luthers opinion of the sacrament pag. 52. wherein as he dissented from vs the truth verie much so your popish Transsubstantiation then which was neuer a more impious and absurd heresie maintained in the Church he vtterlie abhorred And what though herein Luther somthing swarued from the truth might he not therefore being in other causes assured thereof out of the word of God reiect the opinions of such as dissented from the same By this reason no man in defense of Gods trueth may chalenge or bid defiance to the aduersaries thereof seeing they haue no priuiledge or Charter graunted to them but that them selues maie also be deceiued Luther was an excellent man and a worthie seruante of Christ whose Ministerie especiallie it pleased the Lord to vse in reuealing to these times that sonne of perdition whoe sitteth in the Temple of God and aduaunceth him selfe aboue God yet was Luther a man and therefore no maruaile if he were not exempted altogether from ignorance and infirmitie And what miserable peruersnes is it in you that being not able to maintaine your owne heresies against Luther will thinke to escape in the iudgement of men from beeing condemned because Luther him selfe in one pointe of doctrine erred Maie no man conuince error but such a one as is free from erring at all him selfe the scriptures are left vnto vs to be our rule of trueth by them must all doctrine be squared and directed they sit in the hiest seate of indgement to giue sentence in euerie cause With them did Luther cut downe your errours of them haue we learned to thinke of the sacrament otherwise then Luther did to them doe we submit our selues in euerie thing we teach and are contented that our wholl Religion be tried by them so that if you or anie other can shewe wherein we disagree from them we are readie and willing to be reformed But one error of Luther cannot serue to excuse infinite errors in the popish Church Thus haue you my answere as plainlie as I could deuise in this matter which though you haue handled at large as became a man of your learning leasure and discretion yet in the end you cast it awaie from you as not worthy to haue any time bestowed about it Now therfore I trust herafter you wil be better occupied CHAPTER 4. Of Priesthod and of the sacrifice continued after Christ SEeing you will needes be called accounted Priests that in the proper sense pag. 56. and signification of this word I require no pardon at your hands for terming you as I did For if Christ be the onelie Priest of the new Testament and his sacrifice neuer to be repeated as we are plainlie taught by the word of God what Priests can you be but Baalites and what sacrificers but Antichristian shewe your order your Author your institution otherwise we must esteeme and speake of you Heb. 5.4 The Popish priest hoode was not ordainied by Christ but is contrarie to the Priesthood of Christ and therefore worthie to be contemned detested of al faithfull Christians as such a generation deserueth It is not lawfull for any to take honour to him-selfe but he that is called of God as Aaron If you can prooue that God hath called you it is meet you be receiued reuerenced as the ordinaunce of God in all functions deserueth but this can you neuer doe and therefore both your name your profession is of al the godly to be detested as a venemous plant neuer planted by the heauenlie father Mat. 15.13 Two waies you haue chosen by which you will prooue your selues lawfull priests principally you say by mine owne words secondarily by deduction out of the scriptures Let vs consider of both these arguments in order and so it shall appeare in the end that your Priesthood was hatched of an ill egge pag. 57. And here you declare euidentlie to the world in the verie begininng your pitifull ignorance M. R. affirmeth that we denie Melchisedech to haue bene a Priest how vntruelie all the world caÌ„ witnes Gen. 14.18 Psal 110.4 Heb. 7.1 not knowing against whom you fight For was it euer of vs doubted that Melchisedech was a Priest and offered sacrifice doth not the scripture teach the same moste expreslie and that in manie places yet you saie you could neuer obtaine so much of our brethren which argueth that God
hath smitten you with marueilous senslesnes and as it were suddenlie bereaued you of your vnderstanding Thought you anie so simple as to beleeue you that we denie Melchis to haue bene a Priest to haue done the office of a Priest which consisteth principally in making outward sacrifice Bestowed you so litlte time in reading the writings of those you call our brethren that you know not what their iudgement was herein or coulde you finde in your hart at aduenture thus to reporte of our brethren in a matter whereof you were ignorant what they taught Take heed Master Rainolds you maie abuse the ignorance of some but God wil be reuenged of you for your vntrueth As for your reason that if Melchisedech sacrificed that was in bread and wine because there is no mention made in the scripture of any other sacrifice I maruaile you see not the loosenes of this conclusion M. Rainolds thinketh Melchisedech could not make sacrifice vnles it were when he mette Abraham with bread wine For how is the head and body of this argument ioyned together Melchisedech was a Priest therefore he sacrifided in bread and wine Of sacrificing in bread and wine there is no word in the scripture which onelie recordeth that Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine whereby is noted that Melchisedech presented Abraham with victuales Gen. 14.18 when he returned from pursuite slaughter of the kings which is so clere in the text that it is confessed by your owne Champion Andradius Is this then an excellent proofe that Melchisedech sacrificed in bread and wine Andrad Defens Concil Trident. lbi 4. because he releeued Abraham his seruants with breade and wine And that seeing the Hebrew worde which the holie ghost vsed neuer signifieth to sacrifice in any one place of the scripture but onelie to bring forth as all men knowe that haue but a litle taste in the Hebrew toung Hetsi in the Hebrue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek and proferens in the latine Vulgar edition it selfe But if he sacrificed not thus then saith M. Rainolds his sacrifice is not mentioned in scripture And what if the scripture hath not particularlie set downe what sacrifice Melchisedech offered was it not sufficient to declare that he was a Priest vnlesse it were also added what manner of sacrifice he offered will you not beleeue the scriptures testifying that Melchisedech was a Priest vnlesse you vnderstand what sacrifice he made How manie Priests doth the scripture speake of and yet omitteth their kinde and manner of sacrifice Can you then reason they were no Priests because it is not expresslie noted in what things they offered their sacrifice Furthermore was not Melchisedech a King also and yet we reade not any where in scriptures what Kinglie dueties were performed by him vnles you will acknowledge this to be a token of his roiall dignitie that he releeued Abraham and his men with prouision which though it be no proper marke of a King seeing it may be done by others also that be no kings yet doth it rather shew vnto vs a Kinglie estate in him as it is alleadged by learned men then a priestly For to bring forth bread and wine that is meate drinke for the sustenance of a multitude must rather be thought a princelie magnificence then a priestly sacrifice Seeing then it is as necessarie for vs to beleeue that Melchisedech was a King as that he was a priest because he was a figure of Christ not onelie concerning his preisthoode but also his Kingdome M. R. argument prooueth Melch. to be no king then muste you as wel note vnto vs what princelie acte of his the scripture reporteth as you demaunde of vs what sacrifice he offered For if this prooueth not he was a King then to vse your owne words there is no syllable in the scriptures of any kingly deede that euer he did and so by your profound and inuincible reason as you call it we muste be forced contrarie to plaine scriptures to denie he was a king For that he was a preist besides he is so called in the scriptures may also further appeare vnto vs by his doings in that he blessed Ahraham which dutie belonged to the priest as well as to offer sacrifice Thus your goodlie argument whereof you bragg so much if it be of such inuincible force as you pretende though it may put a sacrifice in Melchisedechs hand yet it taketh the kingly crowne from his heade Wherefore you see if you can see any thing that your proofe whereupon you leane wil not one lie faile you if you presse it too much but also breake in peeces hurt your selues You see therefore how litle cause you had to charge my fellowes and masters pag. 58.59 as you name them with stubbernnesse who neuer denyed nor doubted but that Melchisedech was a very priest and executed the office of a priest which chieflie consisteth in sacrifice and oblation as the Apostle teacheth Heb. 5.1 Then your fellowes masters must needs be stubbernly set in maintenance of falshoode if they either taught you thus to write or will commende you for writing thus beyond all compasse of modestie and trueth But now as though Melchisedechs sacrifice could haue beene no other saue that which you dreame of you gather of my acknowledgeing him to haue offered sacrifice that therefore he did it in breade and wine which is an absurd and senslesse kinde of gathering meete for such a petty proctor of the Popes sacrifice as Master Rainolds is The scriptures testifie that Melchisedech was a priest and this both I and all my fellowes and masters euer confessed That the sacrifice which Melchisedech offered was bread wine the scriptures no where giue vs to vnderstand therefore we beleeue it not you can neuer prooue it You alleage the testimonie of Moses thus Melchisedech rex Salem Gen. 14. proferens panem vinum erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi benedixit ei Melchisedech king of Salem bringing forth breade wine for he was a Preist of the moste highe god blessed him that is Abraham you must haue a diuine power of working miracles before you can prooue hereof that Melchisedech offered bread and wine in sacrifice Melchisedech brought forth bread wine 〈◊〉 he offered sacrifice in bread and wine Vpon such loose arguments hangeâ—h the popish Priesthod and sacrifice seeing your owne translation saith no more but that he brought forth bread and wine and that was as I shewed before for an other purpose then to offer sacrifice vnlesse with the same mouth wherewith you saide euen now that we denie Melchisedech to haue made sacrifice you will also further say that to bring forth bread and wine is to offer sacrifice whereas no man seeth not that this may be done manie waies and for manie other vses then for this of sacrifice Wherefoe your reason Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine
a weakenes of your braine which causeth you to vtter such idle talke All Protestants not onelie I confesse that Melchisedech was a Priest that he offered sacrifice doth it follow therefore M. R. that the sacrifice was in bread wine as you pretend whome then do I forsake with whome doe I ioyne what fantasie is this that troubleth your head so much In this taking you beginne to throw out arguments Pag 63. which must needs be full simplie and miserably made Howbeit sooner may you deuise manie formall syllogismes for your facrifice then make one sound reason in diuinity for confirmation thereof Thus you haue framed your argument with your owne hands A Sillogisme of M. R. examined answered That Christ did and appointed to be done that may ought to be done But Christ at his last supper offered sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech and appointed the Apostles and priests to doe the same Ergo the Apostles priests may ought to offer sacrifice This syllogisme seemeth to be terriblye compounded and to prooue inuincibly the sacrifice of the Masse doutlesse Master Rainolds is persuaded he shall herewith fray vs all away But be not dismaied good Reader the light driueth darkenesse before it and trueth cannot be vanquished with an armie of false arguments be they neuer so cunningly framed much lesse with such slender sophismes as these Your Assumption hath two partes they both are false whereof the conclusion following cannot be hable to looke the trueth in the face For where you say I haue acknowledged the former part I acknowledge no such thing nor euer did Two graund and capitall vntrueths in the assumption of M. R. Syllogisme Christ at his last supper offered no sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech Christ appointed not the Apostles nor any els to offer the same Neither of these parts shall you prooue whilst you liue though you liue the last on the earth For what sacrifice offered Christ at his supper and what was the effect thereof was this a sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech then was it not the same he offered on the Crosse for that was not of Melchisedechs order being not in bread and wine as you will haue it but the verie bodie of Iesus Christ But your Church maintaineth that the sacrifice which Christ offered at his supper was the same that he offered on the Crosse Thus handsomelie your dreames hang togeather Againe if Christ at his supper offered such a sacrifice as was prefigured by Melchisedech which you affirme then must it followe that Christ fulfilled that figure perfectlie and so the same sacrifice nead no more to be offered whereof ensueth the desolation of your masmōgers whose occupation onelie and whollie standeth in renewing the sacrifice of the masse Then would I demaund what vertue and effect that sacrifice had which you teach to haue bene offered by Christ at his supper Did Christ thereby fullie appease the wrath of his father Did he fullie redeme mankinde Or did he these things but yet so slenderly insufficiently that there needed another sacrifice after namelie his owne death vpon the Crosse Answere plainlie as becommeth a diuine yea a Christian yea a reasonable man A true Syllogisme opposed against M. Ram. false hereticall Syllogisme And because you framed an argument for me as you say I will doe as much for you and thus I frame you another If Christ offered are all externall sacrifice of him selfe at his supper in bread wine then did Christ fully redeeme mankinde by a sacrifice made in bread and wine But Christ redeemed not the world by a sacrifice made in bread wine but by the sacrifice of his owne bodie vpon the crosse Ergo Christ offered no such sacrifice in bread and wine at his supper The partes are plaine need no further proofe And where you say that seeing Christ was prefigured by Aaron Melchisedech therefore he offered a sacrifice both in bloody maner as Aaron did and in vnbloodie as did Melchisedech I see you labour to put life into the dead carcase of your argument but all in vaine For it cannot be shewed either by scriptures or els by anie ancient fathers of the Church that Christ offered any reall sacrifice but onelie in bloody maner Heb. 10.14 Wherefore the Apostle so often repeateth the word Once excluding thereby all other maners of offering this sacrifice but one By one oblation saith the Apostle hath he made perfect for euer those that are sanctified Tell vs what maner of oblation that was bloody or vnbloodie bloodie I trust you will confesse and therefore no vnbloodie was necessary which neither could haue holpen seeing without shedding of blood there is not anie remission of sinnes Heb. 9.22 Whereby also may appeare that though the sacrifice of the masse be gainfull to such Popish Priests as M. R. his companions are yet in trueth being vnbloodie it is vtterlie vnfitte and vnhable to purchase remission of sins Such marchandize is lightlie to be valued as it deserueth But to answere a litle further concerning Melchisedech the similitude between him and Christ consisteth not in offering vnbloodie sacrifice In what respects Melchisedech was a figure of Christ as you vntruelie and wickedlie imagine but as the Apostle teacheth in that Melchisedech was both a king and a priest and is sette forth vnto vs in the scripture as eternall and more excellent then Abraham and the Leuitical priests In these respects was he a figure of Christ the eternal king and priest farre excelling al the priests of the Leuiticall order Because these thinges make nothing for your sacrifice you deuise a matter that was not to prooue a thing that is not and so build one lie vpon another the vnbloody sacrifice of Christ vpon the vnbloodie sacrifice of Melchisedech But this is the iust iudgement of the Lord vpon you that seing you haue troden vnder your feet the blood of the euerlasting Testament you should be giuē ouer to effectual illusions to embrace an vnbloodie sacrifice which is the deuise of your owne braine for the true glorius sacrifice of Christ vpō the crosse This former argument of M.R. hath begotten another like to it selfe Pag. 64. or rather more monstrous Thus it standeth An other Syllogisme of M. Rain like to the former answered They whoe may ought to offer sacrifice as did first Melch. afterward Christ are truely properlie sacerdotes But priests of the new Testament may ought to offer sacrifice in such sort ergo they are truly properly sacerdotes priests The Minor is the same with the conclusiō of your other argument as euidently false as the word of god is clearlie vndoutedlie true For if your priests offer sacrifice as Melchisedech and Christ did then are they priests of Melch. order not priests onely but kings For so was he the figure so is
Saint Bernard It sufficeth to me for all righteousnes to haue him alone mercifull to me to whome alone I haue sinned All that he hath decreed not to impute to me is as though it had not bene at all Hominis iustitia indulgen tia Dei Sermon 61. Not to sinne is Gods iustice mans iustice is the mercifulnes of God In another sermon vpon the same booke If saith he the mercies of God are from euerlasting and for euer I also will sing the mercies of God for euer Shall I sing myne owne righteousnes Lord I will remember thy righteousnes onely For that is mine also For thou art made vnto me of God righteousnes Neede I feare lest that one be not sufficient for vs both It is not a short cloke which as the Prophet saith cannot couer two Thy righteousnes is an euerlasting righteousnes What is longer then eternitie It will couer both thee me largelie being a large and euerlasting righteousnes And in me it couereth the multitude of sinnes in thee O Lord what els but the treasures of piety the riches of goodnes Here S. Bernard teacheth vs two pointes against the Papistes one that our righteousnes whereby we are iustified before god is the righteousnes of Christ imputed to vs an other that we are saued not by the goodnes and desert of our workes but by couering and forgiuing of our sinnes Epist 190. Thus in an other place saith he to like purpose A man was indetted and a man made paiment For if one saith he died for al therfore all are dead Vt satisfactio vnius omnibus imputetur sicut ommum peccata vnus ille portauit that the satisfaction of one might be imputed to all as he alone bare the sinnes of all Againe in this same epistle he saith Therfore where reconciliation is there is remission of sinnes and what is that els but iustification If remission of our sinnes be our iustification then can not the Popish doctrine be allowed which teacheth that we are iustified and saued by our merites Yet further in an other place the same good father Ad. milit tem pli cap. 11. He that hath taken awaie the desert of sinne by giuing vnto vs his righteousnes he hath paied the debt of death and restored life For so death being dead life returneth as sinne being taken awaie righteousnes commeth againe Furthermore death is abandoned by Christs death and Christes righteousnes is imputed vnto vs. Mors in Christi morte fugatur Christi nobis iustitia imputatur Thus plainlie doth Saint Bernard teach imputed iustice which our Papists now a daies make a mock at but to the destruction of their owne soules One other place more out of S. Bernard wherein he writeth moste sweetlie and comfortablie that the testimony of a good conscience consisteth in three things For first of all it is necessarie to beleeue that thou canst not haue remission of thy sinnes but thorough the mercifulnes of God In. Annuntiat Marie ser 1 Secondlie that thou canst haue no good worke at all vnles he also giue it Lastly that thou canst deserue eternall life by no workes but also it must be giuen vnto thee freely And of this last pointe thus he addeth Now concerning eternall life we knowe that the sufferings of this life are not worthie the glory to come no not if one man should suffer all For mans merites are not such that for them eternall life is due by right or that God should doe any iniurie vnles he sholulde giue it For to omit that all merites are the giftes of God and so man for them is rather made debter to God then God to man what are all our merits to so great glorie Quid sunt me rita omnia ad tantam gloriā Thus notably doth S. Bernard approoue the verity of our faith doctrine concerning the cause and meanes of our saluation and treadeth downe and stampeth vnder his feete all Pharisaical and Papisticall merites And forsomuch as M.R. hath a special grace more then any of his fellowes to obiecte one Protestant against an other and with such oppositions hath replenished his booke I may be bolde to put him in minde what one of his graund masters hath taught touching this principal controuersie of our iustification and saluation Pighius against the Papists in the matter of iustification teacheth the verie same that we do I meane Alberte Pighius who notwithstanding he were a captaine Papiste and hath written much in maintenance of Popishe religion yet in this matter hath giuen al papistes the slippe hath subscribed to our doctrine Out of his long discourse I wil set downe onelie this sentence And thereof is it that our righteousnes is placed in Christes obedience Pighius Cōtrouers 2. because the same is imputed to vs being incorporate into him as though it were our owne so that by it we are accounted righteous And as once Iacob being not the first borne by natiuitie hyding him-selfe vnder his brothers garment hauing put on his coate which smelled most sweetlie did insinuate him selfe to his father that vnder an other mans person he might receaue the blessing of the first borne so also it is necessarie that we lie hid vnder the pretious purenes of Christ our eldest brother that we sauour of his sweete smel that our sins be buried couered with his perfection that we thus offer our selues to our most louing father that we may obtaine of him the blessing of righteousnes Herein as Pighius agreeth with the truth with vs so hath he much offended his own friends for thus leauing them in the plaine field Tapper the wise Deane of Louaine writeth bitterlie against him for his opinion herein and saieth he learned it by reading Caluines Institutions Which perhaps was true seeing of him also he learned much more You see Master Rainolds our doctring iustified both by the scriptures of God and by the testimonies of moste learned and godlie fathers and by consent of as learned a Papist as your Church hath in these later times bred anie Now then peruse ouer againe your wholl tale and weigh it in a true balance and you shall finde it lighter then anie fether Fiftlie you obiect that I vnderstand not our owne doctrine and here according to your maner Pag. 110. c. you wander vp and downe as a man that had lost his waie who though he knowe not whether to goe yet wil be going still It pitieth me to see your miserable follie and blindnes wherinto you are willingly fallen But thus wil the lord deale with such as wilfully giue ouer the knowne truth Where I saie that we must necessarilie suffer with Christ if we will be glorified with Christ this seely sophister asketh how this standeth with our doctrine of onelie faith as though there were anie likenes of contradiction at all betweene these two sayings For knowe you what is meant by onelie
indulgentia and gratious or sauing indulgence is the effecte of this satisfaction Although their meaing was nothing so corrupte as yours yea for the moste parte was sincere yet the maner of doctrine is vnsound in that our satisfaction is required as necessarie whereas Christ hath already made a ful satisfaction for vs and by occasion hereof it grewe in time to be an opinion receiued of the moste that these satisfactions did in some part appease the wrath of almightie God and deserue reward which is contraie to the Gospell of Iesus Christ Where is now that contradiction M. Rainolds which you imagined looke better what you saie or els we may worthelie thinke your dealing is verie childish vndiscrete nothing seemelie for a sober man or learned diuine But litle hope is there of more honest dealing at your hands who as may seeme Pag. 127. haue hardened your face against the truth set your selfe wilfullie in the chaire of scorners and slaunderers Foule slaunders and blasphemies vttered by M.R. against the trueth of Christes gospell For your railing at our doctrine of onelie faith is too impudent as though it leaft no place for bewailing of sinnes for fasting for praying for watching for giuing almes for doing good workes yea you call onelie faith onelie fansie and imagination You were a verie euill scholler in our schole who in all the time you taried amongst vs and had the charge also of a Church committed vnto you did no better learne the doctrine of iustification by faith alone then thus vntrulie and blasphemouslie to reporte of it Doth faith exclude good workes because it alone doth receiue embrace Iesus Christ our sauiour and redeemer is the faith of Christians whereby alone Christ is apprehended and applied vnto them no better then a vaine imagination and fansie Repente M. Rainolds of these spitefull and malitious slaunders against the eternall trueth of Christes Gospel or be assured your portion shall be with infidels and renagates in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone for euer Now that you bring against me to prooue vs to be Ministers of Antichrist pag. 128. by the same reason that we prooue you to be priests of Antichrist let vs in a word consider the force of it I saie that seeing of Christs priesthoode there be two parts the one to offer a sacrifice once for all the other to make intercession for vs the Papists ouerthrowe both in that they teach that Christ is offered dailie that there be innumerable Mediatours Master Rainolds saieth If they be Antichrists for offering sacrifice we also are Antichrists for praying for so much as the one belongeth to his Priesthood as well as the other A blinde and witles cauill They pretend to offer a sacrifice no lesse then Christ himselfe to make attonement betwixt god man An ignorant vnlearned obiection of M.R. refuted This sacrifice is offered alreadie by Christ and neuer must nor can be offered againe and therefore they are indeed Antichrists in denying the onelie absolute sacrifice of Christ Againe in appointing so manie Mediatours by whose intercession they may be brought into Gods fauour they doe open iniurie to the other part of his priesthood which is to offer praiers for vs that by the worthines acceptation thereof we may be reconciled with God Doe we praie in this maner that for the vertue and merits of our praiers God would be gratious vnto vs and to others Noe but onelie for the merites of Christ where as you praie to be heard of God not onelie for Christes sake but also for the worthines and merits of a thousand Saincts and so bereaue our sauiour Christ of these two principal offices belonging vnto him onelie as he is our Priest Had you but a graine of true diuinitie in you as bigg as a mustard seed you could not thus groslie be abused with such absurd and peeuish sophistication CHAP. 7. Of M. Iewels chalenge IT much offendeth you Pag. 129. c. M. Rainolds that I will seeme to vpholde the chalenge which that learned and godly Bishop of Sarisbury M. Iewell did once make against your side But as the authour thereof while he liued maintained the same most truelie worthelie against your betters so I haue no cause to be afraid of anie thing that can be alleadged in disproofe of it by you or your companions who may not rightlie be compared with D. Harding and such others as then toke part with him against the Bishop And you may be ashamed to make mention of that chalenge which you haue so long agoe giuen ouer as a desperat cause wherein the chiefest aduersarie could not make shewe of proofe without vsing the testimonies of forged counterfeite writers as Amphilochius Clemens Abdias Hippolytus and such others whereof no more accounte is to be made then of fables and shameles forgeries Such were the chiefest proofes which D. Harding was able to bring and whatsoeuer he brought hath bene fullie answered in the Replie by the Bishop himselfe which booke as yet though it hath bene in some parts nipped at by diuers yet throughlie confuted was it neuer What you can doe in this case maie easilie be geassed God knoweth full litle haue you done to any purpose as shall appeare Your beginning is of an other matter Pag. 130. c. For this question of Peters being at Rome M. Iewell made not anie parte of his chalenge knowing well enough that this might easelie be prooued by testimonie of fathers a greate manie And this was I not ignorant of neither when I said that no Papist can prooue that Peter indeede was at Rome For albeit I know that diuerse haue so written since the Apostles times yet can I not receaue this as a sufficient proofe neither yet ought you there being against it so manie reasons out of scripture All Popish religion hangeth vpon a twine threed of Perers being sitting at Rome which can not be prooued nay rather is disprooued by the scriptures whereof euerie one hath more weight then all the testimonies of fathers alledged You know and can not denie that your wholl Church religion is built vpon Peters sitting at Rome which being a matter of such consequence as that the wholl is vpholden and sustained theruppon so as if it shake all is in danger if it fal al is cleane ouerthrowen it ought to be made manifest to al Christians that Peter was at Rome by greater proofe and warrant then is in the writings of men which being as good as anie of that nature can be afforded is not of sufficient strength to stay the conscience desirous to be soundlie and perfectly resolued in points of faith and religion but now further being by sundry testimonies of holie scriptures vtterly discredited it must be thought that they haue small conscience of truth or regard of their euerlasting estate that hang the saluation of their souls vpon so
vncertaine and rotten a stay The first reporter of Peters being at Rome was Papias a man of mean credit authority in the Church of God Euseb lib. 3. ca. 39. and as Eusebius writeth of him a father of diuerse fables a fit father of your faith Of him Hegesippus receaued this and of Hegesippus others as in writing histories the latter follow those that went before so that this wholl matter is grounded vppon Papias word for which your pope hath good cause to giue him thankes Now the scriptures in many places weigh so strongly on the other side that if manie a thousand such as Papias should tell vs Peter was at Rome their reporte were not to be trusted Peter promised to remaine with the Iewes Gal. 2.9 and be their Apostle and Paul assigneth vnto him the Apostleship of the circumcision Gal. 2.8 If Peter were Bishop of Rome how was this promise kept Saint Paul writeth an epistle to the Romanes wherin he saluteth many persons by name but of Saint Peter he maketh no mention and from Rome he writeth manie epistles at sundrie times and sendeth salutations to the Churches from many faithful but of Saint Peter in none he speaketh euer a word Doubtles it was because Saint Peter was not there Genebr Chreâ—â— nol l. 3. saecu 1. And if he had bene Bishop as your men affirme twentie fiue yeares almost it may be thought straunge how it could come to passe that when Saint Paull writ to Rome and came him selfe to Rome and taried at Rome writing from thence so manie epistles S. Peter should euer be absent for his charge Other arguments might I vse against this common opinion of Peters sitting and dying at Rome But as you lose all if you can not prooue him to haue bene Bishop there so though you could prooue it and we should of necessitie confesse it yet had you gained nothing at all For though it must nedes follow if Peter were not Bishop of Rome that all your religion is false flowing from that head yet being graunted that Peter had bene Bishop there it maketh neither hotte nor colde for proofe of anie point in question betweene vs. pag. 133. Liui. decad 4. lib. 5. Of this therfore no more now The largenes of the chalenge containing in number seauen and twentie articles of controuersie you labour to extenuate by an old historie recorded in Liuie of Titus Falminius host who by diuerse maners of dressing and preparing one onely kinde of meate furnished his table with great varietie of dishes And would you beare vs downe Master Rainolds that this multitude of articles is but of one matter drawne forth into sundrie partes by skilful varying and mincing the same If anie will looke vpon them he shall soone be hable to controll you The first of Priuate masse the second of receiuing in one kinde the third of common praiers in an vnknowen tongue the fourth of the Popes supremacy the fift of the reall presence the seuenth of eleuation the eight of Adoration the ninthe of Hanging the Sacrament vnder a Canopy the tenth of Accidents without subiect the fourtenth of worshiping Images the fiftenth of reading the scriptures in the vulgar tongue the seauententh of the sacrifice of the masse can you denie that these controuersies being the arguments of seuerall articles are diuerse and differing one from an other And are not these waightie pointes generall heads principall questions great misteries and keies as Master Iewel calleth them of your religion some of the other articles I graunt haue more affinitie together yet not so great except in one or two but that they maie in reason and nature be distinguished and stand each by them selues without necessarie support or defense from others And what though there had bene a nearer respect betweene them might they not therefore be propounded and handled seuerally The manner of your owne schooles and controuersie lectures prooue the contrarie wherin euerie question according to the subiect matter is deuided into sundrie articles and euerie article hath a special treatise Your tale therefore of the Calcidian hoste who entertained the Romane Captaine with one onely kinde of meat dressed diuersly commendeth the cunning of that cooke but serueth nothing to your purpose though you set it out with as great shew as you can Three articles you acknowledge to be of weight pag. 138. The primacy of the Pope thereall presence and the sacrifice wherein you haue vttered your iudgement of the rest that they are not of such weight as your Church would haue them to be esteemed And of these three you might with as good reason except the two latter so make the first onely a matter of weight For that indeede is the substantiall point in mainteance wherof all your labours are bestowed Otherwise were it not for defense of your Popes wicked vnreasonable Antichristian monarchy you could easily agree with vs for these two all the rest I doubt not But what thinke you then M. R. of priuat Masse Is it a thing of no weight as here you would haue it accounted there is not I suppose any thing in your Church more vsed or better liked Your halfe communion your latine seruice your Images your keeping the scriptures in a tongue vnknowen to the people and other such heads of your Romish religion are they of no weight are they trifles are they not worth the striuing for Then let your men giue ouer all defense of them let priuate masses be abolished let the communion be administred in bothe kindes according to Christs institution let the publike praiers be said in the tongue that euery country vseth let Images be burned and Idolatrie forbidden let it be lawfull for the people of all countries to read the scriptures in their owne language let there be no controuersie about the other articles For while you stand so stifly in maintenance of all these and others you cannot truely saie and beare vs in hand they are not of waight in your account That Master Iewell promised to giue ouer and subscribe Pag. 140. if anie of those articles could be prooued by scriptures councels or Doctors within 600. yeares after Christ it was not because he meant euer to subscribe to your doctrine or was vnstaied in his religion but of a most assured knowledge and resolute persuasion that you were vtterlie destitute in this behalfe of all truth and antiquitie as indeed you are Otherwise you maie remember that our religion is grounded onelie vpon the holy scriptures of God and therefore though you brought against vs writers and fathers neuer so manie for these matters as you can bring not one of credite and age yet will we neuer subscribe vnto you hauing once subscribed to the certaine trueth of God reuealed vnto vs in his holie perfect written word by which al sentences opinions and writings of men whatsoeuer must be examined Now commeth M. Rainolds to auouch the truth of these
the blood of the new testament and this blood is the new testament in my blood If it may be lawfull for you to alter and expound the words at your pleasure then can you help your selfes wel enough but your exposition must be squared according to the wordes not the words framed to your exposition Againe pag. 240. you say where Beza correcteth Saint Luke in the latter part of the sentence I raile at the first so that betweene Beza and me S. Luke hath neuer a word right wisely considered doubties The words are right your exposition is fond and wicked The cupp you make to be the blood of Christ whoe as yet was not crucified nor his blood shed If your doctrine be true Christes blood was shed alreadie and that reallie els it could not be in the cup reallie The papists teache that Christs blood was reallie in the cup before his passion But if Christs blood was shed sitting at the table whoe was he M.R. that shed it whoe made the wound whoe opened his side who thrust his weapon in his heart whoe pearced his hands and feete This must you tell if you maintaine that his blood was then reallie shed and powred forth into the cuppe But by the cuppe M.R. is ment the wine in the cuppe which is the newe testament that is a sacrament of the newe testament in Christs blood shed for vs on the crosse This is a true and plaine sense agreeable to all analogie of faith standing with the words themselues followed of the auncient fathers When at length will you make an end of this railing it is to vnseemelie to lothsome pag. 241. to odious Indeed M.R. it must needes appeare a great absurditie to all learned godly Christians whoe know rightlie esteeme the price of our redemption that to be shed for our sinnes which was in the cup. Christs blood was shed for our sinnes which neuer came in the cup but remained in his bodie vntil the time of his death And if Christs blood was in the cuppe when he gaue the cuppe to his Apostles then must it follow necessarilie that his bodie then was without blood it being shedde already and contained in the cup. In the cuppe was onelie wine a sacrament of his blood which he gaue in the same to his Apostles to drincke whereof he drancke him selfe and so the scriptures expressely call it wine If this were the thing that was shedde for your sinnes then was true and naturall wine the price of your redemption then are you saued by wine then haue you no part in Christs blood But the true Church beleeueth her sinnes to be washed away not by that which was really contained in the cuppe but by the true blood of Christ which issued out of his body nailed on the crosse and wounded with a speare Your absurditie therefore needeth not to be further discouered it is so openlie blasphemous against the blood of Iesus Christ which was shed once not in the cup but on the crosse for our redemption If you vrge S. Lukes words as they stand in grammaticall construction I answere that as the cup is called Christs blood Christs testament that is by a figure the sacrament of his blood and testament so is it also said to be shed for vs by a figure sacramentallie But all men of skill and iudgement maie soone see that in these wordes there is some change of grammaticall disposition vsuall in the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists Your discourse about Tautologies in the scriptures is altogether vaine and friuolous To S. Basils testimonie you aunswere much in words and nothing in matter pag. 244. For what cause haue you thus to reproch Beza for his translation of these words seing you cannot denie but S. Basil hath reported that text of S. Luke euen as Beza hath translated the same and you confesse that Saint Basil hath truelie deliuered the sense thereof so all that you haue said or can say spitefullie against Beza must appertaine to Saint Basil no lesse Basil in Ethic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whome yet you will not seeme to touch But the thing truelie and indifferentlie considered Beza is no more to be accused then S. Basil you tell vs of heretikes a long tale which is no better then waste paper Vse it your selfe or bestowe it at your pleasure Of such badde stuffe base account is to be made Whereas I spake a fewe words concerning figuratiue speaches pag. 251. which the aduersaries cannot abide to heare of in the sacrament I haue as it were opened at vnawares a flood-gate to M. Rainolds flowing vtterance Quâ data porta ruit The streame is so strong and runneth so violentlie carying all manner of baggage with it that vaine it were to resist it Let it therefore passe downe and doe what mischiefe it can great harme I trust it shall not doe Thus much you must confesse that in the sacrament figures are found and yet when we oppose against your monster of reall presence a most true and euident answere that the wordes were figuratiuelie spoken and must figuratiuelie be expounded you rage aboue all measure But quiet your selfe Master Rainolds and somewhat staie your intemperate affection neuer shall you prooue while papistrie hath a man liuing to speake in defense of it either by scripture or auncient writer that these words must figuratiuelie be vnderstoode This is my blood this cuppe is the new Testament in my blood more then these This cup is shed for you Leaue your babling Figuratiue speaches in the verie words of the supper by the Aduersaries confession and speake to purpose prooue this if you can Wherefore finding in the Euangelistes wordes such manifest figures what reason haue you to condemne vs for vsing the same being a moste common and familiar kinde of speach Because it standeth not with your reall presence Let your reall presence hardlie shift for it selfe we are not bound for cause and respect thereof to wrest the scriptures to forge monstrous interpretations to change the sacrament into a reall sacrifice of Christ which heathenish kinde of doctrine neuer anie but Antichrist and his ministers maintained The scriptures the olde fathers the auncient Church of Christ taught and beleeued otherwise as hath bene shewed and prooued inuinciblie to your faces Your pages following filled with rouing testimonies I pretermitt your contumelies being no lawfull arguments require no answere CHAP. 11. Concerning the translation of the English Bibles MAster Martins boke of Discouerie is aunswered long since from head to foote in euerie part pag. 262. you haue the answere amongst you saie to it what you can with truth and learning To bragge of your fellowes booke which being throughlie and soundlie disprooued you cannot with all your skill maintaine is a childish vanitie to acknowledge no Replie which you cannot but knowe or to make light account of it whereunto you cannot truelie reioine is wilfulnes and
against your doctrines then the latine translation Which though M. Rainolds here closelie denieth yet in examples euerie where maie be seene and some I will sett downe partlie for M. Rainolds sake and partlie to shew I haue no neede of his excuse from a lie In the 14. Chapter of S. Iohns gospell ver 26. where our sauiour Christ telleth his Apostles The holie ghost shall bring into your remembrance whatsoeuer I haue said to you the Remish translators haue made him thus to speake shall suggest vnto you all things whatsoeuer I shall saie to you according to the latine vulgare that it might be more easilie supposed whatsoeuer the Church should afterwardes determine is from inspiration of the holie ghost Ephesians Chapter 2. vers 10. the Apostle in the Greeke writeth that we are created in Christ vnto good workes you translate after your latine in good workes This corruption is aduantage to your doctrine of good workes In the same epistle Chapter 5. vers 32. you translate this is a great sacrament to make men think that the scriptures affirme mariage to be a sacrament of the Church whereas if you had truelie translated it according to the Greeke This is a great mysterie the occasion of that surmise had bene remoued In the epist to the Pihl. Chap. 1. v. 27. the greeke word which signifieth a signe or token or proofe is in your latine vulgare translated a cause and this translation do you keepe the rather thereby to induce your readers to beleeue that as the malitious dealing of wicked aduersaries against the godlie maie truelie be said to be the cause of their perdition so likewise the patience of the godlie is a cause of their saluation whereas the Apostle onelie saieth in this place that the raging of the enemies against the Church is a manifest argument of their condemnation and the constant suffering of the godly is a certaine signe and testimony of their saluation who seeth not herein what cause you had to like better of the latine translation then of the originall text Luke Chap. 10. v. 35. the words are in the Greeke whatsoeuer thou spendest more which you translate whatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate This corruption maketh some shewe for your workes of supererogation Luke Chap. 1. v. 48. the blessed virgine saith God hath looked on the lowe estate of his handmaid you translate the humilitie of his handmaid This corruption helpeth your doctrine of merites So an other corruption in the same Chapter v. 28. tending to the same purpose where you haue translated Haile full of grace the Greeke and originall texte hath onelie Haile thou freelie beloued In the Epistle to the Hebrewes chap. 13. v. 16. you translate with such hostes god is promerited which is both a fonde and false translation the Greeke words being with such sacrifices God is delighted meaning almes and distribution In the second Ep. of S. Peter Chap. 1. v. 15. you haue strangely translated the Apostles words I will doe my diligence you to haue often after my decease also that you may keepe a memorie of these thinges and vpon this disordered translation you haue made a long note of Peters care and protection of the Church after his death whereas the Apostle in his owne wordes saith no more but that he would endeuour dailie that they also might haue remembrance of those things after his departure A pretie sleight in translating for aduantage where the Apostle saieth he would endeuour that they might remember those thinges after his decease to make him saie that he would haue them in remembrance after his decease and then of this false translation to note what a pastorall care S. Peter hath for the Church after he was deceased In the epistle of S. Paule to the Romanes chap. 11. v. 6. the common translator hath left out this whol sentence together But if it be of workes it is no more grace or els were worke no more worke and these wordes haue you also in your English translation cleane omitted as though they were no parte of scripture being the Apostles vndouted words no lesse then the other that went before What cause was there of this dealing but onelie to smother that cleere opposition between merite and grace which the Apostle hath in his owne words declared if he might be suffered to speake all A number such places could I alledge where the vulgar translation differing and swaruing from the vndoubted originall text is by you followed because it carieth some sound and shewe of your opinions and errors Manie excuses may you make for your selues your translatours haue in their preface handsomely laid out their excuses which I doubt not shal be weied and examined throughlie but soone may anie man perceiue what cause indeede moued you to be so friendlie to the translation and soe harde to the text because the texte doth plainlie discouer your nakednes the translation bringeth some small ragges to hide it Before you answere my arguments alledged for defense of the Hebrewe and Greeke texte pag. 285. you set downe certaine words of mine wherein I seeme you say to auouch that onelie to be the worde of God which is written in the language wherein first the holie ghost by the Prophets and Apostles vttered it No cauill so simple which M.R. will not vse My words are plaine Master Rainolds my meaning cannot seeme ambiguous you seeke not for truth but for a cauill The word of God I know maie be vttered in other languages then wherein first it was by writing deliuered to the Church and translations agreeing with the originall texte are the word of God For Gods worde is not the language but the doctrine Howbeit translations set forthe by sundrie persons are so farre forth onelie the word of God as they faithfully expresse the meaning of the Authenticall text the which being written by the Prophets and Apostles chosen instruments for that purpose is wholly and vndoubtedlie the worde of God Then it may worthelie be wondered at in you whoe taking vpon you to translate the new testament into englishe haue not translated the text of the Apostles and Euangelists but the translation of S. Ierome or some other you know not whome which translation in verie manie places is corrupte and therefore in those places cannot be the word of God Religion and reason would haue required that in translating the scriptures you should haue followed the originall fountaines Absurd to translate a translation of Scriptures rather then the fountaines yea although the latine translation hadde bene much perfecter and purer then it is how much more ought you to haue soe done seing it be wrayeth soe manifest and manifold corruptions as it doeth But your reasons pag. 287. whereby you labour to iustifie your doing in this behalfe must be examined M.R. reasons why they might translate according to a translation answered Our Sauiour the Euangilists Apostles you say cited places of the old testament
these men that modestie of minde that was in Augustine He was readie to be taught of all they will neuer learne but alwaies teach that they know not Thus hath Viues wtitten of you Master R. and such absurd and sensles fellowes as you that against reason and truth will defend your translations although differing neuer so much from the originall tongues because you are too stout and want modestie And for the Iewes thus much may be answered that howsoeuer they mislike and hate our religion yet the text of holy scripture they haue euermore and yet still doe keepe most religiouslie and carefullie Which may appeare for that there be Ioan. Isaac Contra Lindan lib. 2. pa. 77. as Ioannes Isaac a learned Iewe writeth aboue two hundred arguments against the Iewish opinions more euident and expresse in the Hebrew text of the old testament then they be in the latine translation And so likewise saith Andradius Andrad lib. 4. Defens Trident that they which holylie and religiouslie handle the Hebrew text finde therein farre more not able testimonies of Christ then in the Latine and Greeke copies which also Saint Ierome long since hath witnessed Hier. epist 74. ad Marcell saying that when he of purpose compared the Hebrew text with a Greeke translation to see whether the Iewes had not chaunged some thing in the Hebrew bookes through enuie that they bare to Christ he found therein much more for confirmation of Christian faith which could not haue beene so if the Iewes had of malice to Christ corrupted their Bibles as now is by our aduersaries vntruly surmised What madnes then should driue them to corrupt the text to no hindrance of our religion to no furtherance of theirs who doubteth but if they had meant such a thing they would haue practised their skill in those places especiallie that doe moste directlie concerne the Gospell of Christ which being otherwise your coniecture of the Iewes dealing about the Hebrew text is foolish and false You declame against the ignorance and reprobate minde of the Iewes you set forth the promises made to the Church of hauing alwaies the truth And thinke you that this maketh anie thing for you Do these promises of gods spirit and truth made to the Church belong onely to the latine Church are they included onelie in the latine translation What shall become then in your iudgement of so manie Churches in Greece in Armenie in Arabie in all places of the world that haue no skill of your latine Bibles Haue they no spirit no scripture no truth doth your Tridentine decree appertaine vnto them also of vsing onelie the latine text in sermons in lectures in expositions in disputations what meane you to talke in this manner You say God hath promised the Church that she shall be a faithfull and perpetuall obseruer of his word and testament that is according to your new commentarie that the Church shal lose the pure fountains of the Hebrew text but shal keepe a pure translation for euer And see you not the vanity of this deuise Confessed you not euen now that in Damasus daies all the latine translations were corrupt wherupon S. Ierome was intreated to take vpon him a labour of correcting them all Was not the promise whereof you speake made to the Church M.R. dreams hang not handsomelie together before S. Hierome set forth his correction and yet the Churches latine translations were as your selfe confesse in his time full of diuersities and corruptions Then if the Bibles in latine were so much corrupted before S. Hierome by your own confession notwithstanding the promise that God made the Church of keeping his word and testament can you by this argument prooue that by force of this promise the latine Bibles haue not bene corrupted since Saint Ieromes time and the Hebrew haue August epist 58. ad quaest 2. S. Augustine saith it came to passe by Gods special prouidence that the Iewes being so continuallie tossed to and fro and still continuing their hatred against our sauiour Christ yet kept the holy scriptures that the truth of Christs Gospel might so much the more be approoued amongst all men because it receiued so sure weightie testimonies of the most malitious enemies And to this purpose he applieth the verse of the Psalme Lord kil them not lest they forget thy lawe but scatter them Furthermore al that you can say against the malice falshoode and ignorance of the Iewes nothing toucheth the new testament for corruption whereof in the originall Greeke I maruaile what you can deuise seeing it was kept not in the custody of Iewes or paganes but of moste Godly and learned Christians Yet doe you reprooue it also as well as the Hebrew of the olde testament what reason haue you M. Rainolds so to doe was it also corrupted since S. Ieromes time as you said of the other The commentaries and writings of the Greeke fathers wil easily conuince you if so you say For the text that we haue is the same which they followed expounded and set downe in their writings except there be in some fewe places some small difference of reading If the latine Church had any promise to keepe Gods truth and testament in a latine translation will you denie that the Greeke Church had not the same promis to keepe it in the originall text while you seeme to auouch the truth of gods promis toward the latine Church as though you cared nothing how the Lord dealt with others so he kept touch and couenant with yourselues you make him by your argument to be vnfaithful toward the Church of Greece and all other Churches els in the world Thus are you driuen into absurdities and contradictions as needes you must when you mainetaine willfullie such false assertions as these That Caluine affirmeth the Romane Church to haue bene more constant Pag. 300. and lesse giuen to nouelties then the East Churches whereby she obtained greater fame and credit then the rest nothing concerneth this matter For though it be graunted the Grecians were more factious for the most part and wauering then the Romanes yet might they retaine the original text of scripture as faithfullie as they No people so froward so malitious so presumptuous so contentious so hard to be brought vnder the obedience of gods lawes as the Iewes and yet for all this peruerse disposition in them it is moste certaine that they had euermore and haue still the bookes of scripture in highest reuerence The Iewes alwaies most dilingent in keeping their Bibles from corruption and keepe them with greatest diligence so as they would not alter one letter in them for all the world And notwithstanding the Romanes greater constancie and staiednes then the Grecians yet were the latine Bibles in S. Hieromes time more corrupt for the new testament then the Greeke fountaines were Which maie be vnderstood vndoubtedlie thereof for that in anie controuersie about the latine translation they alwaies
mei plaga ipsi that is For the transgression of my people was he plagued Your selfe confesse there is agreement in the sense as indeed euerie one maie see yet by and by as a man without memorie or reason you saie the sense is inuerted greatlie altered Something would you gladlie saie but nothing to purpose can you saie The sense in the Hebrew now extant agreeing so fullie with the translation of S. Ierome which you hold as authenticall and consonant to the veritie of the auncient Hebrew Bibles how can you probablie charge the Iewes with corruption of this place there being no difference and therefore no corruption in the sense by your owne confession If they corrupted the text it was because they would corrupt the sense but here the sense runneth as pure and clear in the Hebrew as in the Latine therefore this text is not corrupted by the Iewes What Luther hath written of the Iewes and Rabbines endeauour in this behalfe maketh nothing for your aduantage Yet as though it had bene by plaine demonstration declared that the bibles are corrupted by them M.R. taketh vpon him now to shew the sorts and manners of their corruption And two he noteth Pag. 314. the first is by plaine alteration of points letters and syllables the second by deuiding words which by the Prophets were ioyned together And that you maie knowe he hath plentifull store and varietie of examples Sernetus is alledged neither Iewe nor Rabbine whoe by diuiding a texte of the Apostle in the Greeke corrupted the sense Thus trimlie can M. R. prooue the matter he goeth about although he speake neuer a word to the question The controuersie is whether the Iewes haue thus corrupted the Hebrew Bibles M.R. alledgeth an example wherein Seruetus of late thus corrupteth the Greek Testament No man now can saie but he hath wel performed his parte prooued inuincibly both manifest corruption in the Bibles and shewed also the manners thereof More perhaps anon will come to his hands for as yet nothing hath he found pag. 316. * M.R. saith he could note sundrie other particular errors in the Hebrew but that he wanteth a peece of that insolent vaine which manie of his aduersaries haue If he wanted nothing els he need not greatlie to complaine but doubtles much greater want hath he of truth and learning then insolencie One thing here he confesseth which the Reader maie remember M. Rain hath made a notable confession against himselfe that howsoeuer some grosse errors haue crept into the fountaines and originals yet commonlie and for the most parte the text is true and sincere Thus M.R. hath voluntarilie protested for the Hebrewe and Greeke text And are there no grosse errors in your latine translation or not so manie as in the fountaines it shall be prooued there are not onelie grosser faults in yoâ—â— translation but also moe manifest corruptions then you can imagine in the text In that you demaund pag 317. what reason I haue to thinke the Hebrew text so pure I answere the care which God hath for the truth of his worde and the diligence of them to whose custodie the same was committed Against this reason you argue but without a good argument That diuerse bookes of scripture haue perished is not denied But the Canon of scripture being after the captiuitie gathered by Ezra and other Prophets and deliuered to the Church that since that time anie parcell hath bene lost you cannot prooue And those that are lost of which you recken some in some you are deceiued they are wanting without anie losse or decaie of necessarie doctrine for the Church in those times wherein they were not extant And that the Iewes haue bene more diligent to keepe their Bibles from corruption then Christians haue bene to keepe their translations sincere who can doubt considering that in S. Ieromes daies the common translations were moste faultie as himselfe is a witnesse but the Hebrew text remained true sincere incorrupt and was a rule to follow in reforming the translations vsed in the Church And your selfe euen now confessed of your owne good accord that the Hebrewe text was for the moste parte and commonlie voide of all corruption which being true sheweth a wonderfull prouidence of the Lord watching ouer the bookes of his heauenlie word to defend them from such infections as otherwise through negligence and malice of men they were subiect vnto Now if the Iewes were either so negligent or so malitious as you imagine and the Christians so carefull for preseruation of the Bible how then came it to passe that in the Hebrew copies was found so great truth sinceritie in the common translations such notorious errors corruptions Andrad Defens Concil Trident. lib. 4. and that for so many hundred yeares after Christ Andradius a doctor of your owne schools a great master in your Romane synagogue hath tolde you alreadie that you haue herein vnaduisedlie foolishlie deemed that therfore more credit is to be giuen to the latin edition then to the Hebrewe bookes for that these were corrupted through the treacherie of the Iewes saith you cannot either note the time or describe the authors of that hainous fact or assigne the place or shew such other circumstances which might conuict the Iewes of this sacrilege that therfore the whol matter hangeth vpon bare suspicioÌ„ for which we ought not to charge in this manner the holie bookes of the hebrewes so auncient so commended by our elders so renoumed by testimonies of al ages pag. 320. The likenes of some Hebrew letters betweene themselues hath beene a cause I graunt of some corruption in the Bible but that not greate and such as hath hapned of negligence rather then purpose and may easelie both be espied and amended and nothing so grosse or common as in your latine Bibles may be seen Is it reason thinke you that for as much as some letters haue bene mistaken in the Hebrew therefore the wholl text should be condemned Is there not such mistaking of letter for letter word for word in the latine vulgare translation who knoweth not there is shall we then vse your argument against the translation which you haue deuised against the fountaine There is no reason to the contrarie For if diligence hath bene bestowed in purging and reforming such errors of the translation More reason had it bene for the Councel of Trent to haue taken order that the fountaines might be clensed if there be in them anie fault then the latine translation why may not the same be done in restoring the originall text to the naturall truth and sinceritie The errors rising vpon the similitude of letters and words may in the Hebrew as wel as any other language be corrected That in these examples by you alledged out of the Psalmes 100. v. 3. 59. v. 10. any such errour of mistaking hath bene committed in the text would haue bene by
and two with Pe. Wherefore you see how litle proofe of corruption this reason maketh whatsoeuer you in your ignorance esteeme of it That which Master Rainolds hetherto hath saide as though it were greatly to purpose Pag. 333. and worthie to be remembred he gathereth now into certaine conclusions and as the smith he beateth stil vpon the same anuill I haue alreadie answered enoughe to the wholl If any thing further be offered in this repetition it shal be hand led First it is neither Iudaical nor iniurious to the Church to thinke more reuerentlie of the Hebrew fountaines then the latine translation as hath beene shewed Yea absurde and vnlearned is it to preferre the translation before the text vpon certaine I know not what blinde surmises Secondlie if the heresie of the Arrians corrupted the Latine Bibles as you imagine whereupon they needed such correction and reformation by Saint Ierome how came it to passe that the Greeke translation of the seuentie and the Greeke of the new testament was not by that meanes much more corrupted for so much as that heresie preuailed much more in the Greeke then in the latine Churches why notwithstanding this heresie doe the fathers appeale to the Greeke fountaines of the new testamēt by them amend their translations The Arrians would haue corrupted the spring rather then a streame and Saint Ierome had more cause in respect of them to suspecte the Greeke then the latine Whereby it is plaine that your geasse of the latine translations being troubled and corrupted by the Arrians is vaine and nothing but a geasse at all aduenture That you say the Canon of the scripture in those daies was not by generall authoritie confirmed and receiued though it be greate vntrueth yet for as much as it pertaineth not directly to the matter I will not stand vpon it Two authorities M. R. alleadgeth out of the commentaries of S. Hierome vpon the epistle to the Galathians The Apostle in the 3. Chap. citeth two testimonies out of Deuteronomie not altogether according to euerie word in the Hebrewe text Saint Ierome among other reasons hereof vseth that for one that the Iewes perhaps haue changed something in their originals If the Apostle had alwaies bound him-selfe to the wordes in rehearsing authorities out of the olde testament this reason had beene of waight but seeing the Apostle Saint Paul and other Apostles vse not preciselie to recite the words of the text but the sence Saint Ierome had no cause to suspecte such a matter in these places For compare the 〈…〉 Prophets and Apostles wordes together and no difference in sense shall ye finde Deuteronomie Chap. 27. v. 26. the words stand thus in the Hebrewe Accursed is whosoeuer performeth not the wordes of this lawe to doe them The Apostle to the Galat. chap. 3. v. 10. alledgeth them thus Accursed is euerie one that abideth not in all things that are written in the booke of the lawe to doe them Here you haue moe words I graunt but what diuersitie is there in the sense againe Deuter. Chap. 21. v. 23. the wordes are these Accursed of God is he that is hanged Saint Paul Galat. Chap. 3. v. 13. alledgeth the words thus Accursed is euery one that is hanged on a tree in wordes a litle alteration in matter meaning none at all That the Hebrewe was corrupted either before S. Ierome or since Pag. 336. in such manner as you pretend when wil you prooue vnto vs M. R hetherto nothing haue you done as plainlie appeareth now are you spent almoste so that litle more maie be looked for at your hands Concerning points prickes distinctions resemblance of letters malice of the Rabbines and such like coniectures I haue before answered And lastlie touching the confession of some Protestants hath bene declared it maketh litle to your purpose Here M.R. answereth a question which reasonablie is demaunded Pag. 339. namelie when these corruptions came into the Hebrewe Bibles that is whether before Christs time or betweene that and S. Ieromes time or since He answereth as one nothing affraid that the Hebrewe was corrupted before Christ more after Christ vntill S. Ieromes age and moste from S. Ierome since These parts are handled by Master R. seuerallie First that the Bible was corrupted before the time of our sauiour Christ what cause haue we to thinke especiallie seeing our sauiour Christ neuer once chargeth the Iewes with any such corruption M. Rainolds saith it might be that Christ obiected the same vnto them although not recorded in the Testament Remember then that this be put amonge the traditions vnwritten of your Church and so you neede not to seeke for other answere as you doe Yet our sauiour Christ when he saith ye haue hearde it saide thou shalt loue thy neighboure Mat. 5.43 and hate thine enemie accuseth not the Scribes and Pharisies for corrupting the letter of the text by adding therunto the second member but for gathering out of the text wicked doctrine that for so much as we are commaunded to loue our neighbour that is as they expounded it our friende therefore we are licensed to hate our enemie This false exposition of the scripture not corruption of the text doth Christ correct For that in wicked Manasses daies diuerse books were loste I haue before answered If Christ reprooue not the Iewes therefore no maruell seeing that losse was not through their negligence but many hundred yeares before yet maintenance of open corruption in the text had deserued in them sharpe reproofe although them selues had not bene the first authores of that corruption S. Augustine in manie places by occasion speaketh of difference betweene the Hebrewe text and the translation of the 70. interpreters which he much esteemed euen as you do now your latine translation Yet in this diuersity doth he not at anytime accuse the Hebrew of corruption but rather imagineth some mysterie in the Septuagints translation Which plainlie prooueth that the Church beleeued not the Hebrew to be corrupted then Yea S. Augustine maketh it a matter not onelie of great absurditie August de Ciuit lib. 15. c. 13. but also notable impietie to say that the Iewes could conspire together in such sorte as that they might though neuer so peeuishlie and malitiouslie bent corrupt the bookes of Scripture being so manie and so generallie spred abroad That more corruption crept into the Bibles after Christ Pag. 340 you prooue by testimonie of Iustinus Martyr in his disputation with Tryphon wherein he alledgeth three examples of notable corruption committed by the Iewes A place of Iustinus Martyr answered A short answere may serue Iustinus spake of suspicion more then knowledge as being not verie skilful in the Hebrewe brewe tongue if we diligentlie examine the places it wil sone appeere that no such matter can be proued The first is out of Esdras Ch. 6 The words are these Esdras spake vnto the people this pascha is our sauiour
and refuge c. Now in the hebrew no such wordes are found no truelie nor neuer were which I proue because they are not in your latine translation And this against you is an argument strong enough that maintaine your latine text to be the authentical word of God If anie thing want it wanteth as much in your latine Bibles as in the Hebrew and so no more corruption here in the Hebrew text then in the latine Againe the Greeke now extant hath them not whatsoeuer can be said no more shal be proued against the veritie and synceritie of the hebrew fountaines then of the latine translation in this behalfe so no aduantage shal redownde to your opinion and defense The second place out of Ieremie the 11. Chap. v. 19. is by your owne confession void of corruption in the hebrew bibles now extant Your argument for reall presence out of this place is singular The Prophet you saie calleth Christs naturall bodie vppon the Crosse by the name of bread That is vntrue he speaketh not of Christs bodie nor of the Crosse nor of reall presence in the sacrament And was Christs naturall bodie hanging on the Crosse nothing but bread was bread crucified for you Els how maketh this for your reall presence A straunge presence a goodlie religion a wonderfull argument The last place in the 95. psalme v. 10. is no otherwise in the hebrew now then not onelie in the Greeke but in the vulgar latine and Saint Ieromes translation also The wordes a ligno From the woode your owne fellowes haue confessed not to be of the hebrew veritie but of Christian deuotion Then is it plaine enough that whatsoeuer Iustinus supposed the hebrew text was not corrupted And so your argument from Iustinus authoritie is sufficientlie cleared and it is shewed that these three examples proue nothing against the Hebrew originall text now extant That from S. Ieromes age errors corruptions haue stil encreased multiplied Pag. 345. you affirme to be very probable This was something faintlie and doubtfullie spoken That it maie seeme vnto you probable is not sufficient to cause you cast awaie the Hebrew texte and take in stead thereof a latine translation which to be since S. Ieromes time shamefullie corrupted is not onelie probable but verie certaine and euident as shal appeere So although it could be prooued not onelie by probable coniectures but by cleare and substantiall demonstrations that the Hebrewe Bibles were somewhere corrupted yet for al that no reason haue our aduersaries to make greater account of their latine translation then of the Hebrew fountaine seeing it may and shall effectuall◠be declared that the same vulgare latine translation which by them is preferred to the rome of the authentical written word of God before the Hebrew and Greeke originals is full of grosse faults errours corruptions Where I demaund how the Church can saie she hath kept faithfullie the word of god if she haue lost the originall text thereof Master Rainolds answereth she hath conserued the scriptures faithfullie although not in this or that language But why in the Latine language more then in the Hebrewe Greeke or anie other hath she conserued the scriptures what thinke you of the Greeke Church Did shee lose the worde of God in her owne tongue and kept it in the latine And must she nowe al other Churces in the world fetch their text of scripture out of the latine translation must onelie latine among them be vsed in sermons lectures disputations and all other such exercises as your fathers of Trent in their late meeting haue appointed Or graunt you them rather no vse of the scriptures at all nor iudge them Christians because they will not be obedient to your Pope whatsoeuer you saie no reason can you shewe whie the Church should keepe the word of God and Testament of Christ her spouse in an other tongue rather then that wherein it was written and deliuered vnto her whie in the latine more then in some other language and speciallie the Greeke seing that Church euer was larger in number and circuite then the latine and now not anie latine Church at all in the world remaining That which followeth in certaine pages is nothing els but rouing talke not worthy the reading where no argument is framed nor reason vsed no aunswere can be required Gregorie Martin hath his answere long agoe pag. 355. his Discouerie is disprooued and his obiections refelled throughly orderly and learnedly It wil be too greate and troublesome a worke for you to maintaine that quarel better it is to leaue it to some other that can doe more therein then your selfe if anie such be amongst you As for that notable corruption of great moment and importance by him obiected out of the 22. Psal v. 17. read the answere Verie like a letter was mistaken in the writing and printing as maie fall out in bookes set forth with greatest diligence and conscience soe Genebrard your Hebrew professor at Paris imputeth not the corruption of this place to wilfull malice in the Iewes but to chaunce Genebrard in Psalm 21. by reason the two letters were soe like and prooueth by testimonie of learned Iewes that the best and truest copies had Caaru Caaru they digged not Caari as a Lion Caari and that when Caari is written it must be redde Caaru Who euer denied but some fault by this meanes might come into the Bibles Fortuiò casis such as in your translation are plentifullie found is this a reason then of moment importance to prooue the Hebrew Bibles soe full of corruption errours that they must be cast away the latine translation Canonized for authenticall scripture and receiued in their place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and much worse Consider now peruse the summe of your wholl discourse Verie fewe places can the aduersaries finde in the hebrew text that maie probablie be once suspected of corruption Let vs graunt that these by you hetherto rehearsed are indeede corruptions which yet is plainelie false and not anywaies to be graunted but let vs for your cause suppose such a thing Tell vs I pray you how many corruptions haue you found score them vp and let vs know the number with al your skil labour conference yet were you not able to obiect ten places out of the Hebrew Bibles which you might probablie charge with corruption A manifest proofe and certaine argument of rare and notable puritie in them far aboue not onelie the diuerse translations of olde time but also your vulgare latine edition which you notwithstanding boldly but moste vntrulie maintaine to be sounder and purer then the Greeke text in the new testament and the Hebrew in the olde Let vs therefore somewhat examine your latine Bibles whether in them such corruptions may not be found as you haue charged the originall text withall whereby it shall appeere that there are in your Bibles of
we therefore conuaie thus cunninglie into the text of scripture whatsoeuer we imagine fitlie to agree therewith The Hebrew hath no such saying nor the Chaldee nor yet the Greeke it is therefore a manifest corruption of your translator In the first of Kinges 1. Reg. 2.28 the 2. Chap. 28. vers your translator hath notablie falsified the text in putting Salomon once for Ioab and againe by and by for Absolom telling the storie thus And a messenger came to Salomon that Ioab had declined after Adonia and had not declined after Salomon Which is an absurd translation hauing no coherence with the storie and plainlie striuing against the text For thus the words should haue bene translated There came tydinges to Ioab for Ioab had declined after Adonia but had not declined after Absolom He that looketh on the place shall streight espie a foull fault in your translation In the 22. Chap. 26. verse of this booke Filium Amelech Ioas is called by your translator the sonne of Amelech for the Kings sonne by taking the word that signifieth in Hebrewe a King Hammelech for the proper name of a man The booke of Iob is a pretious parte of holie scripture as it hath bene alwaies esteemed in the Church of God and therfore great pitie is it to see the same so miserablie mangled by your translator as any of skill may perceiue it to be if he list to take a litle paines in conferring the true fountaine your translation together In the 1. Chap. v. 21. these words are added to the text Iob. 1.21 As it pleased the Lord so is it come to passe A godlie saying who can denie but that may not excuse your bookes from corruption vnles it can be shewed to be a part of the text which I am sure it cannot In the 3. Chapter and last verse the holy man saith Iob. 3.26 I had no peace I had no quietnes I had no rest yet trouble is come meaning that he liued in continual awe of God looked narroulie to al his waies fearing lest at any time he should prouoke the Lord to bring vpon him some greeuous iudgement and that now notwithstanding this endeuour care trouble miserie was fallen vpon him But your translator hath made him speake otherwise Haue I not dissembled haue I not kept silence Nonne dissimulauâ— c. haue I not bene quiet This translation accordeth not with the wordes and much lesse with the sense In the fift Chap. 5. verse Eliphaz saith Iob. 5. that the hungrie shal eate vp the haruest of the vngodlie and take it from amonge the thornes but in your translation he saith ipsum rapiâ—t armatus the armed man shall take him awaie which is an other thing though it be a true thing And in the verse that followeth v. 6 whereas Eliphaz saith that affliction and miserie commeth not out of the dust your translator hath put an other speach in his mouth Nihil in terâ—â— sine causa fit Nothing is done vpon the earth without a cause Againe in the. 7. verse he saith v. 7 Man is borne to trauaile euen as the sparkes flie vpwarde your translator saith Man is borne to labour and the birde to flie anis ad volatum turning the sparkes which the Hebrewe termeth the sonnes of the coles into a birde In the. 6. Chap. 1. v. Iob wisheth that his griefe were perfectlie weighed Iob. 6.1 your translator hath added hereto wordes of his owne applying a speach to Iob which whether he would acknowledge may well be douted I would my sinnes were waighed wherby I haue deserued wrath v. 16 In the. 16. verse of this Chapter Iob compareth his friends whoe had forsaken him to brookes that passe swiftlie awaie which brookes he saith are blackishe with yce and wherein the snow is hidde Of these wordes your translator hath framed a proper sentence or prouerbe They that feare the yce the snow shal fall vpon them Qui timent pruinaÌ„ â—rruet super eos nix Iob. 9.12 In the 9. Chapter he shewing at large the wonderfull and omnipotent power of God saith in the 12. verse If he take any thing by violence awaie who shall make him restore it againe The author of your translation not marking well the wordes hath turned them thus Si repente ininterroget quis respondebit If he aske suddenlie who shall answere him And in the. 13. Chap. 4. verse where Iob calleth his friends Phisitions of no value your translator nameth them Cultores peruersorum dogmatum Iob. 14.4 embracers of peruerse doctrines In the 4. verse of the. 14. Chap. Iob saith who can bring a cleane thing out of filthines not one your translation hath these wordes who can make a cleane thing that is conceiued of vncleane seed is it not thou whoe art alone In the 31. Chap. of this booke 19. v. he saith Iob. 31.19 Si despexi pretereuntem eô quôd non habuerit indumentum If I haue seene any perish for want of clothing c. which to be the true reading is confessed by your owne Masters and prooued by the Hebrew text But your translation maketh Iob thus to speake If I haue despised him that passed by for because hee had no garment Which wordes carie with them an other sense then the former wil admit And though in your last editions some of your reformers haue in stead of him that passed by placed in the text him that perished yet this salue hath not made the wounde wholl For first you keepe still the worde despising in steade of seeing and further that your vulgare translation ought not to be corrected in that other word as of late it hath bene by whose authoritie and iudgement soeuer may be knowne by Aquinas and Saint Gregorie and many moe whoe in their commentaries vpon this booke haue sett downe the wordes in such sorte as I haue rehearsed out of your translation If this be a fault as you haue graunted in correcting it in some parte then haue your latine Bibles beene faultie this thousand yeares together and if you may now by comparing your vulgare latine with the Hebrew reforme this corruption though it be of so long continuance whie may you not as well in all other places where your translation doth plainely disagree from the Hebrew as it doth in a thousand fyle it and make it as euen as you can with the Authenticall text In the 33. v. 6. Elihu saith to Iob Iob. 33.6 for that he had wished to haue God answere him beholde I wil be according to thy word for God This to be the true meaning the wordes do shew themselues and therfore it was a maruel that your translator would turne them thus Ecce mesicut te fecit Deus Behold euen me hath God made as thee And in the 25. v. where Elihu declaring how God dealeth with his children in punishing them
towards God indued with greater grace and spirit more voide of partialitie and affection then they Otherwise if you compare him with other translators although I knowe herein your iudgement is altogether partiall yet as this reason may aduance him to higher estimation then other translators so must it cast him down as much and more beneath the writers them selues in that they being chosen instruments of God for that purpose were moste plentifullie indued and assisted with al graces of the holie Ghost which can not be auouched of that translator how excellent otherwise soeuer he were Other surmises and geasses of corruptions in the originall texte more then in the translation as they are by you oft repeated by sundry impertinent testimonies of our writers idlelie enlarged so shal they neuer be trulie and substantiallie prooued whereby it might appeere that the latine translation is more to be alowed and esteemed generallie then the Greeke text To oppose some of our new translators against your olde pag. 375. c. were verelie an easie matter but thus should we slippe awaie from the question and fall to other discourses wherin the controuersie lieth not If we should attribute as much learning and diligence to your translator as such a man could haue and vse yet would you confesse I trust he were still far inferior to the Prophets Apostles and Euangelists whose writings remaine and are the holy canonicall scriptures of God These writinges do we oppose against your translation and these doe you wickedlie and shamfullie dishonour in preferring the translation of such a man before them This you are not hable either reasonably to defend or colourablie to excuse and therefore you runne another waie as though you chased your enemie whereas feare causeth your felfe to flie All this talke of Erasmus Luther Zuinglius Oecolampadius Castalion Caluine Beza and their translations is from the purpose We make no such account of anie of them as you doe of yours to allowe and receiue whatsoeuer they haue translated without examining their translations by the text we prefer whome we know to haue dealt in that worke moste faithfullie and if we find by skill and triall some ouersight in the translation as in the best some may be found we cleaue to the originall text of scripture and not after your preposterous manner to the corrupt translation Now of all translations set forth by Protestants of all countries sure I am you cannot shewe any so repugnant to the veritie of the Hebrewe and Greeke fountaines as I can shew and as it hath bene shewed that yours is That Luthers and Bezaes and the other seuerall translations haue bene by some in certaine places reprooued is true But what kinde of argument call you this because some errours haue bene noted in this or that translation therefore to conclude the wholl translation is nought or worse then yours Emserus a papist you say hath gathered out of Luthers translation fourteene hundred foule lies If I saide that this in him were a foule lie I should say truelie Luthers translation hath bene sufficientlie commended and maintained by men of greater wisdome and learning then Emserus That Zuinglius also misliked Luthers translation in some parts and Beza the Basill translation and that of Castalion and Molinaeus Calaines and Bezaes translations which matters are by you at large rehearsed as thouge they made somewhat to purpose I graunte and giue you leaue to make thereof what you can But if this seeme in your iudgement a thing so odious and slanderous to our translatious that thus they haue bene seuerallie charged by some what may we thinke and saie of you that not content to accuse our translations though far better then anie you haue of such impietie dare affirme the originall bookes them selues now extant to be so full of grosse and notorious corruptions which you shall neuer prooue that your vulgar translation knowne to be moste corrupt is purer then they what soeuer hath bene saied by any against our translations is in no respect of like hainousnes to this seeing that not onlie the bookes of scripture were written and set foorth at the first moste purelie but the meanes also haue euermore bene as great to keepe and continue them in the same puritie as anie translation whatsoeuer Your iudgement of our English Bibles is answerable to that spirit where with you are poffessed and of the abundance whereof you write Nothing els they are you saie but corrupt gutters flowing from corrupte and stinking lakes M. R. contumelies against the English translations of the scriptures the best containing wicked horrible and ethnicall errors A slaunder most wicked horrible ethnicall of all men to be detested neuer shal you prooue any word hereof true Gregorie Martine hath labored herein and performed nothing your skill is onelie in open railing other deed of moment can you do none against vs. If you finde faulte with vs for correcting our Bibles shew vs if you can that either it is vnlawfull to translate the Bible into our owne tongue or els after is hath bene translated to reforme the translation in such places wherein some errors haue escaped or to translate it ouer againe No translation of the scripture can at the first be so perfecte and sincere but it may be afterwardes amended as God shall reuele to his Church the faultes thereof Otherwise if it were any fault to amend a fault why hath your Councell of Trident taken order for the correction of your latine translation and for a better edition thereof to be published then heretofore hath bene yea why hath Pope Pius reformed your Psalters Breuiaries Offices and such other bookes as are with you in greatest vse and estimation If this seemed requisite why maie not we looke to our translations like wise amend the imperfefections set forth better But your griefe is that we haue translated the scriptures at all although I trust you will not now condemne the thing plainlie seeing your selues at length haue giuen vs an English translation of the new testament which if you thinke to be so absolute as it shall neuer neede any reformation your iudgement is to be pitied rather then confuted Twoe reasons are alledged pag. 387. whie you maie not translate the new testament after the Greeke The reasons why the Rhemists haue not translated the new testamenâ— according to the greeke first because you thinke your latine Testament to be truer then the common Greeke copies now extant Thus you tell vs what you thinke but reason or proofe of this so absurd a thought haue you none Let me answere you as Saint Ierome answereth Heluidius the heretike in this point Hâ—eron aduer Heluid tibi stultissimè persuasisti Graecos codices esse falsatos Thou hast perswaded thy self most foolishlie that the Greeke bookes of the new testamente are falsified and why may you not as well thinke that the latine testament is corrupt as the Greeke what argument
haue you more for the one then the other But your seconde reason is more absurde wherein you professe that although you had the true originals yet could you not make in these daies a better translation Wherefore could you not the thinge is not harde if you had simple and willing mindes But now may we see by this your protestation that whatsoeuer you speake against the corruption of the originall bookes in respecte where of you will seeme to preferre your common translation before them yet although you had as true originals as euer were or could be wished notwitstanding you woulde still make more account of your translation then of them That wherefoeuer we find faulte with your translation some one of our owne brethren standeth with you in defense of your translation is vntrue I haue shewed examples enowe of grosse and manifest corruptions in the translation of the olde testament which none our brethren as you call them euer went about to excuse Valla Erasmus Beza haue noted manie in your translation of the newe althoug I graunt that both Erasmus doth instlie reprooue Valla and Beza hath worthelie reprooued Erasmus in some places of their reprehensions And so maie it fall out to those that take paines in correcting a booke ful of corruptions as your latine translation is sometime to finde a fault where none is the latter corrector to dissent from the former Your Tridentine decree which you commend being set forth by so manie excellent godlie learned men as you saie were impietie to compare all the scattered synagogues of Lutherans with them hath bene tried and examined by more godlie and learned men then euer were in that synagogue assembled wherein neither godlines nor learning but Antichristian tyrannie preuailed One example I alledged of corruption in your latine Testament pag. 391. c. and that I might haue gathered manie moe is euident by that which hath bene declared before In the 1. Cor. 15. v. 54. these wordes are wanting in your translation when this corruptible hath put on incorruption which yet are found in all greeke copies now extant and were not onelie in the olde greeke testaments as appeereth by S. Chrysostome but also euen in the auncient latine translations thereof and that by your owne coâ—â—ession Hereunto you make long and friuolous answeres by distinctions of points First you saie there is no losse of anie parte of doctrine for the same thing is set downe in the next lines before A proper reason which giueth libertie to scrape out of the scriptures whatsoeuer is in other places repeated Secondlie you adde that some reason you haue to thinke that percel repeated not to be of the text As good haue you to thinke that these wordes when this mortall shall put on immortalitie are not of the text seing they are sett downe in the lines immediatlie going before Thirdlie that it was in some greeke copies as you reade Perhaps so but what then seing doubtles the moste and best read it other wise Fourthlie you thinke more reason to correct Chrysostome by Ierome then Ierome by Chrysostome Yet maie it seeme otherwise to indifferent men that Chrysostome and the Church of Constantinople had as true copies and as great varictie of bookes as Ierome could haue anie For where should Ierome seeke for true and faithfull copies of the new Testament but in the Greeke Church and in which more then in that and whoe liker to haue the truest then Chrysostome I think therefore no man of discretion can otherwise iudge but that it is much more likelie S. Chrysostomes reading to be true then S. Ieromes if they diffent especiallie other latine translations agreing wiht that text which S. Chrysostome followed And Saint Hierome manie times in his Epistles and treatisies reprehendeth the common latine reading The vulgare translation of the new testament reprooued indiuerse places by S. Ierome euen the same that is nowe currant in your latine testaments Whereby maie appeere that the same was not in his iugdement euerie where so entire as you affirme That Saint Chrysostome maketh against vs and approoueth your reading I wonder with what face you could auouch Let anie man read S. Chrysostome in Greeke and if he finde not the text in him set down as our Greeke testaments reade it both in the first and second place I am content to yeald the wholl to Master Rainolds And so likewise readeth Oecumenius this place I graunt S. Ambrose hath it onelie in the first place yet other latine fathers reade it according to the veritie of the Greeke as your selfe confesse which as much as I maintaine Fiftlie you thinke it enough for defense of your translation that the same wordes are added in the margent which is but a poore shift when you haue thrust the text of scripture out of his due and proper seate to giue it some roome in a corner And yet your English translation hath discharged it of that place also and wipte it cleane awaie both out of text and margent That not here onelie pag. 399. c. but in other manifolde places also you keepe the errors of the latine translation contrarie to the trueth of the Greeke copies is a thing that hath bene plentifullie prooued by manie and therefore to saie so was no bragge Aria Montanus how good a priest soeuer he be doubtles is not of your iudgement concerning the Hebrewe and greeke originals of scripture and therefore cannot alowe that wicked decree of the Tridentine Councell wherein the corrupt translation is confirmed and established for the Canonical word of God by general consent commaundement the true originall Canon of scriptures being there reiected and disgraced Now then whether in this and such other respects I had not iust cause to call you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iniurious to the Bible I referre to the iudgement of all godlie and wise readers For what greater iniurie or contumelie can be offered to the holie Bible then not onelie to approoue a translation that is full of corruptions in all partes thereof for the authenticall Bible and word of god but also to cast away the originall Bible it selfe as corrupte and to giue no further credit vnto it then it agreeth with your translation And therefore that you malitiouslie auouch of vs that we haue no Bibles maie moste truelie be saide of you that you haue willinglie refused the fountaines of Gods moste pure and blessed word and haue not amongst you in publike regarde and authoritie the true Bibles indeed which you haue wickedlie both contemned and condemned Your repetitions to the end of this Chapter full of outragious vntruthes and slaunders require no answere in this place you haue bene fullie answered before and the wholl world can testifie to Gods glorie and your confusion that not one tittle of Gods worde and scriptures is by vs denied CHAP. 14. Wherin Master R. laboreth to prooue that it is the verie waie to Atheisme and infidelitie
to leaue the ordinarie translation of the Bible and to appeale to the Hebrew Greeke and such new diuerse translations as the Protestans haue made THis absurd Chapter M. R. pag. 406. c. beginneth with Castalion translating long sentences out of the preface of his Bible to King Edwarde the Sixt wherein how vntrulie it is obiected vnto him that he thinketh the Messias promised in the law not to be come as yet and that he would haue euery man left to his owne priuate iudgement I will not loose time to declare Let Castalion say and write what he list and let M. R. alledge at his pleasure store of testimonies out of such authors whoe can denie him libertie so to do or who can thinke him worthie answere therein when he hath so done As Saint Ierome being vrged with Tertullians opinion answered De Tertulliano nihilamplius dico quà m Ecclesia hominem non fuisse That he was not a man of the Church so will answere no more about Castalion but that he was a man not sound in some points of the Catholike faith and religion of Christ as by his dealings and writings hath appeered and therefore we make no greate account of him nor haue regard what assertions he held what counsell he gaue what can be rehearsed out of his workes Al this was vainely brought in and no lesse vaine is it that you talke of neglecting all antiquity suspending our religion vpon the onelie testament translated after the new guise where you saie is found more varietie then there are conlours in the rainebowe Doe we neglect antiquitie or you rather For which is more auncient Master Rainolds the Hebrewe and Greeke or the Latine and doe not you suspend your religion vpon the testament translated that haue noe scripture in your Church but onelie a translation of which I maie trulie saie that greater imperfections and moe corruptions are found therein then in all our English translations together can be espied we depend not vpon anie translation English or Latine or of other language no otherwise then the same agreeth with the originall text but your wholl Church indeed is hanged vpon the latine translation onelie which how bad it is hath partlie bene shewed alreadie and if need require shall much more be discouered That you aske which Hebrewe which Greeke I meane are you so ignorant not to knowe the Hebrewe Bible and greeke testament How manie Hebrews how manie greeks haue you vnles you meane certaine editions of the greeke testament wherein is found small varietie of anie moment pag. 411. To prooue that the departing from the latine translation is the verie introduction to Apostasie you propound one example of the heretikes in Germanie called Antinomi whoe holde M. Rai chargeth vs with the heresie of the Antinomies most vntruelie as Sleidan writeth that how wickedlie soeuer a man liueth yet if he beleeue the gospell he shall be iustified and this you saie is the verie conclusion of the Protestants common doctrine of iustification by faith What need you M. Rainolds in this place thus falselie and malitiouslie to slaunder vs Doe we teach any such doctrine as this in our Church doe we giue libertie of licentious life to the professors of the gospel doth iustification by faith inferre this wicked and detestable conclusion your conscience can tell you that you speake vntrulie If hope of repentance be left for such slaunderers and blaspehmers God giue you repentance otherwise I doubt not the Lord will auenge in time such reproches against his holie religion Let vs now consider your proceeding against these men First pag 411. fathers and councells are by them you saie not regarded which I graunt may well be that such wicked men will regard neither fathers nor Councells but this can not be vnderstood of vs who haue the fathers and the Councells in such reuerence and regard as meet is we should Then Saint Iames is also by them reiected as contrarie to Saint Paull They that reiecte Saint Iames be they Antinomi or whoesoeuer let them answere for it them selues this appertaineth not vnto vs but hereof hath bene saide enough before Thirdelie the epistle to the Hebrews is denyed by Beza and Caluine to be Saint Paule What then is it denyed therefore to be holy scripture And for Illyricus he is fo far from denying this Epistle to be Canonicall scripture that he thinketh the same to be written by Saint Paul himselfe and to be amonst excellent and necessarie part of the Scripture as you maie reade in his preface vpon that epistle Fourthlie Saint Peters place is brought in which helpeth litle 2. pet 1.20 whether we read the wordes by good workes according to the latine translation or leaue them out according to the greeke veritie That our calling election is confirmed by good workes maketh nothing against iustification by faith Will you saie we are elected and called by our workes that is grosse herefie worsse then Pelagianisme But Saint Peter biddeth vs to make our vocation and election sure by good workes and yet you know your selues and graunt that our vocation and election is wrought without anie meanes of good workes because we are elected before the world and before our vocation our workes were onelie wicked what maketh all this then for merite of good workes that they are testimonies and arguments of our election and effectuall vocation 1 Pet. 1 2◠Fiftlie an other pregnant place is brought out of the first of Saint Peter against which no exception can be made whereby you say is prooued first that we haue free wil which I graunt we haue after we are regenerate Secondlie that we purifie our selues from sinne as though we denied that after grace receaued we ought and in some measure might labour against the sinnes and corruptions of our soule Thirdlie that good workes are necessarily required of Christian men this indede confuteth those heretikes of whome you speake but maketh nothing against vs who thinke teach and continuallie preach that good workes are necessarie for al Christians otherwise they shall neuer see the kingdome of god so that we are as far from that damnable heresie of the Anabaptists and Antinomies as heauen is from earth Further you proceede to a place of Saint Paul Phil. 1. v. 28 where anie man of knowledge maie soone perceaue that your translator was deceaued fouly when he translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cause the word signifying not a cause but a plaine declaration or proofe And this is the manifest meaning of Saint Paul in that place that as the malice and rage of the wicked enemies of the Church is an argument of their condemnation so the patience of the godly in suffering such afflictions is an euident proofe that they are the children of god and therefore shal inherit eternal life Not Beza therfore but you and your translator haue altered the text and peruerted the sense of this scripture As for
your other argument our of Luke 7. v. 47. of the woman to whom many sinnes were remitted it hath bene answered so fullie and truelie by sundry learned writers that I might whollie passe it ouer A chieâ—â— place of the papistes for merite of workes answere and expounded Onelie this in briefe I saie to stoppe your rayling mouth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because is often times vsed for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore that so in this place it must be of necessitie expounded may appeere by an inuincible reason which your selues cannot denie For that woman being so deeplie drowned in deadly sinne how could her loue deserue the grace of God and remission of her sins doth your scholasticall Theologie maintaine that a sinnefull creature lying in state of condemnation can by loue merit pardon of his sins Tel vs plainly if this be your doctrine your religion your diuinity If then this be moste false and impossible confesse that the loue of that sinnfull and miserable woman was not be cause of forgiuenes of her sinnes but the effecte following and not going before the same This doctrine is true and Catholike the contrarie wicked and hereticall and therefore no cause had you to raile so mightely at Beza and vs for translating expounding this word as we do as the proportion of faith circumstance of the place moste vndoubtedlie and necessarilie requireth For our sauiour Christ sheweth the cause of hir so great loue to be the forgiuenes of the great and manie sinnes They to whome litle is forgiuen loue a litle they to whome much is forgiuen loue much She had much forgiuen therefore she loued much And this the Fathers also acknowledge to be the true and naturall seuse of the place although you abuse their names to the contrarie S. Gregorie as he is also by Thomas alledged Grâ—g 〈◊〉 83. â—â— Luangell writeth thus The debt being forgiuen to both the Pharisie is demaunded who should more loue him that forgaue the debt You see that Gregorie expoundeth this of the loue that followed the forgiuenes of the dâ—bt And so likewise Saint Ambrose vpon this place Ambros is Luc. 7. Because saith he there is nothing which we can worthelie render vnto God woe be vnto me if I loue not I dare saie Peter rendered not and therefore he loued more c. Let vs therefore render loue for debt charitie for reward thankes for the prise of his bloode Thus Saint Ambrose planlie she weth that this loue in that woman did spring from remission of her sinnes Câ—nus l. 12. c. 12. as it must in vs also proceed from the same fountaine I could also put you in minde what Canus a schooleman of yours hath written of this place cleane ouerthrowing your opinion as if he had of purpose deuised a shift for you Notwithstanding that the fathers sometime write our sinnes are washed a waie by teares of repentaunce I graunte wherebie they meane no other thing but that by our earnest sorowe and repentance we receiue a sure testimonie to our soules of the remission of our sinnes Your discourse about Musculus exposition I pretermit with al your monstrous reproches blaspemies of Lucianical onely faith c. except the deuil him selfe stood by them and suggested to them such construction c. fitter for you to vtter then me to rehearse or answere pag. 428. This wholl matter againe M.R. laieth out in particular distinctions wherunto hath bene answered enough alreadle and more then nedd but onelie in respect of that intolerable and outragious Importunity which this cauiller hath vsed If this be an vnlawfull shift in expounding of scripture to trie and correct the translation according to the Hebrew and Greeke fountaines then haue all the auncient fathers of the Church exercized continuallie wicked shifts whoe both appeall them selues to the authenticall fountaines and counsell all others to doe the same far otherwise then your fathers of Treâ— haue done or will suffer others to doe whotie their faith wholly to a bare translation and giue no creditt to the Canonicall fountaines wherin they haue not only vse de damnable and miserable shift but at once haue rased out the wholl scriptures from beginning toending Grat. dist 9. vt veter S. Augustine saith the bookes of the olde Testament must be examined by the Hebrew and the new by the Greeke veritie Saint Ambrose saith Ambrosade incarn cap. 8. The authoritie of the Greeke bookes of the new Testament is greater S. Ierome is euery where of the same minde In the new Testament saith he if there arise anie question among the Latines Hier. ad sonn Fret and there be difference in the copies we repaire to the fountaines of the Greeke tongue wherein the new Testament was written and so likewise in the olde In his preface vpon the fiue bokes of Moses he esteemeth it an absurde and impossible thing that the latine copies should be purer then the Greeke and the Greeke then the Hebrew Againe in a nother place he saith if trueth is to be sought in a Euang. ad Damas whie reiurne we not to the Greeke orignal speaking of the new Testament And such sayings hath he manie alwaies preferring the Hebrew Greeke before al translations in the world But all this by M.R. simple verdite was but a shift in him and al the auncient learned godlie fathers For it is the high waie to Atheisme in his opinion to do as they did and as they haue also taught vs to doe Zuinglius exposition of loue for faith pag. 429. I will not maintaine It may seeme more curious then necessarie In the text is no difficultie if the simplicitie of truth maie be receiued As for Tertullians complaint of certaine heretickes that either refused or mangled or corrupted the scriptures it toucheth vs no whit at al who acknoweledge the wholl bodie of scriptures and are so far of from wilfull corruption thereof that of purpose we would not alter one letter in the Bible to winne the wholl worlde Therefore we litle regard your furious and senseles railing against vs where with you haue stuffed all partes of your booke that neuer was scorpion fuller of poison then it is of venemous and stinging reproches Leauing the Greek you returne againe to the Hebrew Pag. 431. against which you haue deuised pretie reasons to prooue there is no holde in it against contentious heretikes The blasphemie of which assertion M. Rain saith that in the Hebrew text of scripture there is no holde I dout not euerie reasonable man at the first will espie and abhorre For seeing it pleased the Lord of all tongues of men vnder heauen to chuse that tongue wherein to write his word oracles that his Church might haue a most perfecte and certaine rule of religion shall this Papist come and controll the wisdome of God for so doing and say that of the Hebrew litle holde can be
then to edifie the Church of Christ The Rhemish English translation moste foolishe and new fangled For whoe hath euer heard or read such wordes and phrases as they haue vsed and affected in their translation whereas they might haue retained as well the common and knowen manner of speaking that their translation set forth in English might haue bene vnderstood of English men But they of purpose haue so framed the same that the English is in many places as obscure in wordes as the latine which thing is in all translations a foule fault but in translating of scripture moste intollerable And what reason should be hereof but that men either should contemne or not vnderstand the scripture which yet they will seeme to translate for the benefite of the Church Vnaccustomed nouelties of words and phrases in the Rhemish translation if you require examples take but the booke and reade a litle and soone shall you see strange affectation of nouelties in wordes and speaches throughout their whol translation There shal you finde The a Matt. 1.17 transmigration of Babylon b Mat. 13.28 The enemie man c Luc. 13.3 vnles you haue penance d Mat. 6.11 Giue vs to daie our supersubstantiall breade e Luc. 10.35 whatsoeuer thou shalt supererogat f Rom 13.13 Not in chamberings and impudicities g Gal. 1.14.24 an emulator of the traditions of my fathers I expugned the faith h Gal. 4. â—7 They emulate you not well that you might emulate them i 1. Pet. 2.5 Be ye also your selues superedified k phil 4.10 Once at length you haue reflorished to care for me l Iud 4. Denying the onelie dominator and our Lord m Ephe. 1 14. to the redemption of acquisition n Ephes 6.12 against the spirituals of wickednes in the celestials o Marc. 5.22 the Archisynagogue p Gal. 5.21 Ebrieties commessations q Apoc. 1.10 the dominicall daie r 1. Cor. 10.11 But they are written to our correption Å¿ phil 2.20 That in the name of Iesus euerr kneebowe of the celestials terrestrials and infernals t Phil. 2.7 But he exinanited himselfe u Hebr. 13.16 For with such hostes God is promerited x Heb. 13.1 Let the charitie of the fraternitie abide in you y 1. Tim. 6.20 O Timothie keepe the depositum z Hebr. 2.17 that he might repropitiate the sinnes of the people a Matt. 27.59 wrapt it in sindon and laid it in a monument b Ioan. 6.45 All shall be docible of God c Ioan. 5.2 Vpon probatica a pond d Ioan. 8 46. which of you shall argue me of sinne e Ioan. 15.25 they hated me gratis f Ioan. 18.1 beyond the Torrent Cedron g Ioan. 19.14 It was the parasceue of pasche These and such like are the goodlie flowers of their translation besides the obscuritie and ambiguitie of sentences by reason of leuing out the verbs and other wordes in the English translation which maie in latine more easily be vnderstood Yet haue they dealt something reasonablie in adding a Dictionarie to their translation if it had bene somewhat larger Hereby the reader maie iudge but better by reading the translation it selfe whether I haue not truelie said of it that it is a strange translation indeed and such a one as hard it were to finde the like But Master Rainolds answereth that we rather delight in such noueltie then they seing they retaine the ancient words Masse Priest c. and we refuse them hereof hath bene spoken before And as for certaine names of persons and places which some of our interpreters doe reduce to the Hebrewe sound they cannot much trouble the reader and they are rather vsed in bookes then speach Your accusation Master Rainolds of greater noueltie in articles of faith amongst vs is false and concerning the bookes of Iudith Machabees and the rest of that sorte we haue spoken sufficient before your other railing I omitt What cause haue we to be affraide of your translation pag. 459. c. If you translate the word of God that is it which we haue translated and printed and published so often I wish indeed for my part that your translation might be printed alone and all men suffered to haue and read it that so by comparing it with ours and with the originall text and by considering the wholl shape of it they might the more abhorre your irreligious and profane handling the Testament of Christ Your Annotations ioyned with your translation are deuilish indeede and daungerous for all Christians to read and therefore the godlie wisdome of magistrates cannot suffer such bookes openly to be solde You speake your pleasure of Master Iewells dealing with Hardinges bookes but falselie all men knowing the contrarie and so further you proceede in blasphemous railing against the truth of Christs gospell which now in England is professed calling it an Atheisticall gospell Such new termes of blasphemie haue you deuised and vsed manie so as we maie perceiue that you haue profited wel in your schoole of Apostasie and are nowe come to the highest forme and chaire of scorners Pag. 464. c. Where the Rhemish translators woulde seeme so preciselie to translate the latine translation as making the same account of it that we doe of the Greeke I thought to admonish the reader that this thing is not by them so truelie and exactlie performed euerie where as it is constanlie pretended but that these translators sometime leaue their translation which they translate and follow the greeke rather then it Two examples hereof I noted of which Master Rainolds speaketh much and more then enough amplifying that in ten pages which might haue bene comprised in as manie lines such leasure and pleasure hath he to runne at large as a wanton whelpe that can not be kept from ranging abroad nor brought to follow the marke I purpose not to runne after him for then should I be as ill occupied as he but keeping my purpose and manner I will come to the matter in question The first example is in the 12. Chapter of Saint Paules epistle to the Romans the 19. verse where the Apostle forbiddeth vs to reuenge our selues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so much as vengeance belongeth to the Lord. Non vosmet ipsos defendeâ—tes The common translator hath expressed it otherwise as though the Apostle would not haue vs to defend our selues making defense â—f our selues and reuengement all one which yet are two diuerse things in them selues Our Rhemists in this place followe not their olde translator but the Apostles Greeke text and thus they haue translated it not reuenging your selues my dearest Whoe seeth not that here they haue left the latine worde and followed the Greeke which differeth from the latine Now Master Rainolds to prooue himselfe a notable Grammarian telleth vs the latine agreeth with the Greeke and
the English with the latine and all is right For he affirmeth and by some vnfitt examples would prooue that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to defend and Defendo signifieth to reuenge alledging also some Dictionaries for his opinion But to make a short replie let M. R. bring vs foorth any one example out of good author Greeke or Latine wherein the wordes are so vsed as he teacheth then shal we easilie yeald in this case By implication and consequence I graunt the one word maie perhaps be vsed sometime for the other but I appeale to all learned Grecians and Latinists in the worlde whether it be not true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properlie signifieth onelie to reuenge and not to defend and so likewise Defendo to defend and not to reuenge Therefore to translate the one for the other as it is altogether vnproper so is it moste daungerous in the scriptures because thereof may followe errors in iudgement and practise of life And it appeereth that Thomas of Aquine tooke the word Defendentes in the proper signification expounding it by Christs precept that if we be striken on the one cheeke we must be so farre of from defending our selues that we must be willing rather to turne the other also to him that smote vs and by Christs example who being buffeted on the face defended not him selfe Yet after he sheweth that some defense is lawfull by example of Saint Paule who procured him selfe to be defended from the Iewes that laie in waite for him Thus we maie see that your Saint Thomas vsed the worde simplie and properlie and thereby was faine to seeke some newe exposition which he nedd not to haue done had he bene as good a grammarian as you Master Rainolds are The other example is in S. Matthewe pag. 470. c. the 4. Chapter 16. verse wherein you haue also followed the Greeke rather then the latine translating not according to moste of your latine Testaments which I haue seene the people that walked in darknes but after the Greeke the people that sat in darknes A small matter in it felfe I graunt yet great enough to shew that you haue not so preciselie followed the latine translation as you would seeme which also in other places appeereth by comparing your translation with that For in the verie first Chapter of S. Matthew the 19. ver you haue omitted these wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vir cius Her husband which your latine bookes haue truelie translated according to the greeke Wherof reason it were that you should be accountable for what cause you haue remooued those wordes cleane out of the text if they were not rather left out by ouersight For I trust you are not ashamed that Ioseph should be called the husband of the blessed virgine Marie Againe in the 13. to the Rom. v. 9. instauratur you translate is comprised by no grammar I am sure nor dictionary I think The sense I graunt is true and well agreeth with the Greeke but the latine worde is left If you listed not to translate is renewed or repared as the word signifieth you might haue kept the worde and according to your new found manner of translating and speaking haue translated instaurated Such examples are there in your translation manie moe if we should peruse the wholl which is not necessarie Neither haue I much blamed your translation in this respect Master Rainolds for not iumping alwaies with your latine as you haue vntruelie tould your reader but for leauing the Greeke and following the latine translating onely a bare I wil not speake as you doe a bald translation and for translating it after such a fashion as neuer scripture was translated nor any other booke I suppose and for applying the text moste absurdlie and violentlie to some colourable maintenance of your Antichristian Church and religion CHAP. 16. Of the faults found in the Annotations of the new testament FRom the translation which how vaine and childish it is hath bene declared now let vs proceed with you to the Annotations which are meet handmaides for such a maistres But before you come to speake of the particular faults that were found therein you discourse of many matters according to your common custome idlely and railingly whereunto it booteth not to make answere and therefore passing ouer what you haue written of M. Iewell M. Horne c. of Tower and Tiburne disputation of the Churches stabilitie of M. Foxes monuments of Luthers iudgement concerning the sacramentaries I will come to examine your defense of those faults that were noted and that as brieflie as I can reserning these causes to the large confutation of those Annotations which in conuenient time through Gods goodnes wil be I hope performed to Gods glorie defense of the trueth and disproofe of popishlies and heresies Three kindes of faults were obserued the first of errours in matters historicall the second of false conclusions and arguments the third of certaine blaspemies against the holie Apostle In the first order were reckened certaine traditions pag. 484. c. which hauing no ground in Gods word nor much differing from mere fables are in your Rhemish Annotations notwithstanding gloriouslie auouched as behouefull for all Christians to beleeue And first of the wisemen that came from the East to visite our sauiour Christ three things are affirmed first that they were kings secondlie that they were three Popish traditions full of fables and vanities and lastlie that their names were Gaspar Melchior and Baltasar as now commonlie they are called For the first Master R. demaundeth a reason why I should thinke they were no kinges himselfe not hable to shew any why he should saie they were kings But if reason may rule him for which he calleth as though he would yeelde vnto it if it were giuen him three reasons will I propounde wherebie I am mooued not to beleeue that these men were kings First because the Euangelist calleth them by noe such names The wise me that came to worshippe Christ said to be kinges against reason which yet he would not haue omitted if the truth had bene according to your tradition considering how this would haue made for the honour of Christ that so soone as he was borne kings should haue sought him far and done vnto him homage and worship And when you maintaine your opinion by this argument for that it is honorable to the person of our sauiour Christ that so we should thinke of them you charge therein the holy Euangelist for omitting somewhat that might haue greatlie aduanced the honor of Christ if he had truelie and fullie reported the same Secondlie it is not credible that Herods would haue admitted into his kingdome and chiefe Citie three Kings with their troupes especiallie there being enemity betwixt him and the kinges of Persia neither could they haue so secretlie come to our sauiour Christ and escaped out of the countrie againe but that being kings and therefore
Saint Lukes preface before his gospell cannot by anie meanes excuse the second booke of Machabees from being Apocryphall wherein the Author craueth pardon for his so slender writing of that historie There is no likenes of comparison at all betweene the Euangelists endeauour to learne and write the certaine truth and that authors confession of his infirmitie and imperfection in writing his booke One thing it is to enquire the truth with all diligence and so hauing found the same to set it forth in writing moste exactlie an other hauing written a booke to desire the readers fauour and forgiuenes in respect of the writers simplicitie and vnskillfulnes The first detracteth nothing from the wisdome maiesty of Gods spirit to search the truâ—h by all such meanes as by which the same maie be learned the other argueth a conscience acknowledgement of wants in writing which cannot be applied to the holie Ghost whoe whatsoeuer he taketh in hand moste wiselie and excellentlie performeth the same Doth Saint Luke anie where excuse his want of vtterance his rude slender and vnlearned manner of writing Nothing lesse nay he protesteth in the same preface that he hath attained to the exacte knowledge of euerie thing and that he writeth a moste certaine and vndoubted trueth so farre of is he from crauing pardon of anie man which the simple writer of that booke of Machabees in regard of his owne weaknes and vnhabilitie thought it expedient for him to doe Your places out of the Apostle are friuolous bewraying your grosse ignorance S. Paul saith that in some part he had written boldelie to the Romanes 〈…〉 15. What then did he therefore craue pardon for his so bolde writing vnto them Doth he not shew immediatlie the cause of this boldnes to be for that he was a minister of Iesus Christ among the gentiles That he faith he was conuersant among the Corinthians in weakenes in feare and trembling 1. Cor. 2.3 what concerneth this the writings that he published to the Church The greatnes of the Lords worke in hand made him to tremble but for his writings he feared not the iudgement of man nor euer submitted them to mans discretion That he desireth them to beare with his follie c. 2. Co. 11.1.17 he speaketh not to excuse anie follie in him selfe who had alwaies moste wiselie and grauelie behaued himselfe towards the Corinthians but to reprooue rather the singular arrogancie and follie of the false Apostles whoe being in no respecte comparable to the Apostle yet bragged immoderatlie and preferred themselues before him This is another case Master Rainolds vnlike to that whereof we spake Men of good will pag. 505. Luc. 2.14 to whome the Angell wisheth well are by our newe diuines of Rhemes expounded for men indued with free will And thus saith Master Rainolds was it taught in the old gospell But what gospell he meaneth it were a good thing to vnderstand For S. Lukes gospell teacheth no such thing which yet sure I am is the olde and true gospell of Christ E ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which worde S. Luke in that place hath vsed neuer signifieth free will but fauour and good wil which one beareth towards another S. Augustine was by ignorance of the Greeke tongue deceiued and anie man maie soone perceiue that the Angell speaketh of Gods loue towards mankind which then moste notablie appeered when the Sonne of God was borne of a woman For our papists to gather hereof mans free will is too childish and absurde abuse of holie scripture Christ preached out of Peters shippe Luc. 5.3 and therefore our Rhemists make an argument that the wholl Church is Peters shipp If such allegories may goe for sound proofes then will it be easie not onlie for the Pope to prooue his primacie but for all other heretikes that euer were to iustifie their detestable opinions what-soeuer That by Peters ship the fathers haue taught the Church of Christ to be resembled no man denieth but they conclude not nor applie their allegorie so far as you doe to prooue that as Peter was owner of that ship so he and his successors are gouernours of the wholl Church Such allegories as this of yours may please fooles in their merie conceits but wise men will esteeme them no better then they deserue Barnabas laid downe the price of his land at the Apostles feete pag. 510. Act 4.37 where upon our Rhemists make a long annotation of reuerence due to sacred persons either Prophets Apostles or Popes Whoe can otherwise thinke but that hereof they meant to make an argumente for kissing of the Popes feet least anie thing concerning the Pope should want due confirmation yet Master Rainolds calleth this and the rest merie conclusions and complaineth of mockers Indeed such merie conclusions haue you deuised manie in your Annotations fitter a great deal to bring your wholl Religion into derision then to edifie in true faith Thus haue you long and yet still would you mocke the world but your mockeries are well espied the Lord be praised for it The Queenes Eunuch of Aethiopia came to Ierusalem to worshipp ergo pilgremages to holie places are acceptable to God pag. 512. Act. 8.27 This reason why it should not be allowed Master R. saieth he cannot gesse and desiereth me if I haue anie hid imagination to impart it vnto him which I am verie well content to doe The cause that mooued this noble man of Aethiopia to trauaile so farre was for that in Iudea onelie was the visible Church of God and in Ierusalem stood the Temple wherein onelie sacrifices might be offered to God Which being so necessarie was it for him to repaire thither for the exercise of his religion in the Church of God and place particularlie thereunto appointed by the Lord. This can you not applie to Rome or Ierusalem now or anie other place in the world and therefore manifest dissimilitude and inequality is there betweene this Eunuches iourneying to Ierusalem for so godlie and necessarie causes and popish pilgremages to places abroade for noe cause but onelie for idle and wandering superstition Concerning putting of our cappes pag. 515. Phil. 2.10 and making curtesie at the name of Iesus Master Rainolds is verie earnest and concludeth in the end that I am an Atheist and make no account of Christ for denying that seeing we yeald this honour of capp and curtesie to the letters name seale and seat of the Prince If this be a true argument Master Rainolds as you in your vehemencie would haue it seeme how commeth it to passe that Gods name amongst you is not honoured with like reuerence of capp and knee whensoeuer it is heard will you put of your capp when the Prince is named and wil you make curtesie at the Popes name at his triple crowne or crosse and will you neuer once stirre your cappes or bowe your knees when God is named Is this your Religion is
this your fashion Then let me conclude against you as you haue done against me that you are by your owne argument very Atheists such as make no account of God himselfe For otherwise this conclusion of yours that I am such a one for not honouring the name of Iesus in such sort is falssie though moste maliciouslie deuised That Iewes and Infidels haue abhorred the name of Iesus I graunt but no more the name of Iesus then the name of Christ seeing Iesus is Christ and Christ hath as much deserued to be hated of them as Iesus Christes name may a thousand times be heard amongst you and noe man mooueth capp or knee Iesus is noe sooner sounded but euerie man by and by putteth of his capp and scrapeth on the ground with his foot and yet not alwaies and in all places but in the Church and speciallie at reading of the Gospell This may breede a more dangerous opinion then it can remooue anie that Iesus is better then is Christ and more worthie of reuerence which is wicked to imagine Now Master Rainolds hauing in particular made some seelie defense pag. 516. 〈◊〉 as you haue heard for certaine of their annotations vpon the new Testament noted as notorious absurd and ridiculous conclusions because he knoweth the matter is not yet sufficienly answered addeth in the and a further proofe and confirmation of the arguments by example of the scripture it selfe wherein diuerse reasons may be found and namelie touching the resurrection which if they be examined according to philosophy and humane wisdome will followe no better then theirs haue done but may be thought as improbable weake as any that they haue made This discourse doth Master Rainolds in manie wordes prosecute with great superfluitie of speach and many opprobrious termes after his olde manner But when he hath talked his pleasure at full an answere in one word shall ouerthrow all that he hath builded and as it were cutt in sunder the threed of all that he hath sewed thus loselie together Whatsoeuer is affirmed or denied in scripture although it be moste contrarie to mans reason yet is it true and certaine and must without contradiction be beleeued because the Lord whose word is truth hath said it The resurrection of the flesh cannot I graunt be prooued by philosophicall reasons and arguments but Gods word hath set down this for a principle of our faith that our bodies shall rise againe and whatsoeuer reason iudgeth thereof faith maketh no doubte but so it shall be But now Master Rainolds what maketh this for your former collections because we must beleeue Christ and his Apostles in all that they teach though naturall reason will not so easilie yeald must we therefore allowe whatsoeuer our nouices of Rhemes haue fondlie without authoritie of Gods worde concluded in their Annotations for maintenance of Popish heresie This forsooth is your argument if you ment to make any argument at all if you thought not to driue your speach to this conclusion then haue you ranged at randon all this while and spoken neuer a word to that purpose to the which you shoulde haue directed your talke CHAP. 17. Of certaine blasphemies contained in the Annotations HEtherto hath appeered with what conscience and spirit you haue translated and expounded sundrie places of the new Testament wresting writhing moste violently the text of holie scripture to confirmation of your Popish errours and absurdities pag. 52◠Wherein I doubt not but whosoeuer shall consider with himselfe aduisedlie your manner of collection your argument your application of scripture and shall examine a litle how your conclusion followeth vpon your proofes with out all coherence or consequence of reason must needes greatlie mislike your wholl Religion that is builded vpon so weake so tickle so ruinous a foundation For vnles it be graunted that of euery thing may be concluded any thing and that the word of God may be made appliable to all purposes opinions and doctrines it is impossible that these and such like arguments of yours as you haue in your annotations gathered vpon the wordes of scripture should haue in them such strength and trueth as Diuinitie and religion requireth But further when your blasphemous audacitie in controlling the word of God shall be perceaued it must of necessitie breede in all such as feare God and reuerence his worde a far greater alienation of minde from you and from all your damnable doctrine Examples of such blasphemies some I alledged whereof now Master Rainolds in his last Chapter intreateth and with his accustomed boldnes of defending anie thing laboureth to iustifie the same The Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrewes intreating at large of Christes priesthood pag. 529. Sec. compareth Christ with Melchisedech and by this argument prooueth that Christ is a priest for euer because he is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech which he confirmeth by testimonie of Moses and Dauid In all which treatise the Apostle although he fullie sheweth what resemblance was betwene Melchisedech and Christ yet he maketh not anie mention of the masse nor of the vnbloodie sacrifice of Christes bodie and blood in bread and wine nor of anie such matter as by the papists hath beene imagined Which because our Rhemists vnderstoode to be greatlie preiudiciall to their sacrifice of the Masse they haue moste shamefullie and blasphemouslie behaued themselues in handling this scripture as to anie that compareth their annotations with the text it selfe maie easily apperee For they haue plainlie written in their annotations that all that the Apostle hath alledged concerning the eternitie of Christes person and his perpetuall intercession for vs and euerlasting effect of his death prooueth not that in proper signification his priesthood is perpetuall Hebr. 7.17 Whereof what other thing can possiblie be collected but that the Apostle hath not by sufficient reasons prooued that thing which he tooke in hand to prooue that Iesus Christ is a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech For these men boldelie affirme that all this prooueth not that in proper signification Christs priesthood is perpetuall then the Apostle in proper signification hath prooued nothing lesse then that which he went about to prooue concerning Christes euerlasting priesthood wherein all our saluation consisteth hath but vsed a sleight to make men beleeue a thing which either he coulde not prooue or at lest hath not effectuallie prooued Our papists wil haue the principall respect of resemblance betweene Christ and Melchisedech to stand in offering bread and wine whereof forsooth must arise a perpetuall sacrifice to be continued in the Church Nowe hereof the Apostle hath not spoken so much as one word nor giuen the least signification of such a matter What other thing is it then but plaine blasphemie for maintenance of an idolatrous sacrifice to charge the Apostle that he hath not prooued Christs priesthood to be perpetual which yet he hath by moste necessarie and substantiall arguments