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
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
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
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
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
Thirdlie you descant vpon Bene habet It is well pa. 30. but so simplie and fondlie that euerie one may see you are a trifler It is well I said that Campian could not charge Luther for denying a booke which neuer anie Church denied but for denying such a one as had beene heretofore by some Churches denied And although I seeke not herein to defende either Luther or those auncient Churches that refused the same yet is Luthers offence not so hainous as it should haue bene if this had first proceeded of him-selfe without example of other Churches If you will burthen vs with refusall of S. Luke his Gospell the knowne trueth wil easilie acquit vs of that accusation But nothing can be so falslie surmized that you will not finde in your heartes to burthen vs withall As for Atheisme I doubte not but your owne conscience doth tell you our doctrine is farre from it which when you forsooke I wil not saie how neere you approched to Atheisme in yealding to the strawne opinions at Rome but I am assured you went from Christ to followe Antichrist and of a minister of the Gospel became an open enemie of the Gospel If you repent not it had bin better for you neuer to haue bene borne Those forefathers of whome I spake haue giuen such a blowe to your great fathers of Rome pag. 13.32 as you and your companions shall not be hable to heale his wound And though he liue still and breath yet is he scarse hable to stand on his feete and carieth vpon him that marke that shall dailie more and more discouer him to the Saints of God Aerius Vigilantius Iouinianus if they taught anie thing against the trueth of Gods word let them be esteemed as they deserue We laie the grounds of our religion not vpon the writings or opinions of men be they good or badde learned or vnlearned Catholikes or Heretikes but vpon the written word of the eternall God and therefore we praie not as you doe nor offer sacrifice for the dead we worship not nor inuocate Saints we thinke the honourable estate of mariage is pleasing to the Lord as well as single life For thus haue the Prophets the Apostles the Lord him-selfe taught vs As for Marcion Cerdon the rest we abhorre them with all their damnable herisies because the word of God condemneth them the more is your fault in saying they are our fathers But you haue drawen since your departure so hard a skin ouer your conscience Foule vntrueths affirmed of vs by M. R. as you feare not to vtter anie vntrueth be it neuer so desperate You say we matche S. Luke and the Apocalyps with the booke of Iudith and that we saie most plainlie we are not bound to admit those and all the forenamed bookes but may refuse them which for shame of the world you would neuer haue written but that like an Atheist your pen is a readie instrument to publish anie vntrueth The booke of Iudith in dede admit we not and that is no blasphemie prooue it if you can But what should I require you M. Rainolds to prooue anie thing that haue taken vppon you to saie al things and prooue nothing You reason as if you had made a fraie with reason Pag. 33.34 that we are like those olde brutish heretikes called Alogi who denied the Apocalyps of Saint Iohn because we saie we know as certainelie the scriptures to be scriptures and euerie booke thereof as we know the sunne to be the sunne which is as contrarie to those Alogi as the light is to darkenes But who euer doubted of the sunne you saie that it is the sunne of Saint Iames epistle Luther doubteth and the Lutherans wherfore you saie I condemne them for the veriest sottes that euer liued Not so Master Rainolds if you could see For though we are as fullie persuaded of the one as of the other yet doth it not follow that the clearnes of this truth appeereth alike vnto all We must be persuaded assurede of many things that are not seene no lesse then of those things that we see with our eies but to such onelie as it is reueiled vnto Know you not as vndoubtedly there is a God as you know there is a sunne If not to you yet to all Godlie the knowledge of the one is no lesse certaine then of the other though we cannot beholde god with our eies as we may seethe sunne Wil you then conclude that al are stocks and stones which cannot perceiue this so cleare and euident a trueth Doe not your selues thinke all those bookes for which you contend with vs to be as truelie canonicall as that the sunne shineth you will not I am sure say otherwise Doe you then besides an infinite number of auncient writers condemne those of your side for stockes and sottes that denied them To omit the rest of whome I spake before Sixt. biblioth lib. l. Driedo de Catal serip li. 1. c. 4. ad difficult 11. was Sixtus Senensis a sotte for denying your bookes of Hester was Dryedo a sotte for denying Baruch Thus must it be or els your argument is too childish I will not saie sottish Here is brought an argument for Traditions such a one as M. R. diuinitie could afford Pag. 35. It cannot he saith be prooued by scriptures that S. Mat. S. Marke S. Luke S. Iohn his gospell S. Paules Ep. are Canonical scripture that is penned by diuine inspiration then we must beleeue some what which by scripture cannot be prooued so tradition is established I would your other traditions were of this sorte then should we sooner agree But betweene this and the rest of your infinite traditions there is no likenes For this is grounded vpon the word written the rest haue no footing on that ground Although it is not expreslie set downe in thus many words S. Matthewes gospell is Canonicall How we knowe the gospell of S. Matthew S. Marke c. to be canonicall scriptures so likewise of the rest yet that we cannot otherwise come to the certain knowledge beliefe thereof but by reporte is a vaine foolish phantasie For the historie it selfe and doctrine therein contained doe plainlie shewe conuince the booke to be Canonical that is written by diuine inspiration so as although the Churches commendation and testimonie of it may confirme our iudgement in beleeuing the same yet our faith is builded vpon the written word it selfe And so your other argument falleth of faith by hearing and hearing by the word of God Rom. 10.17 For when we heare the doctrine of these bookes preached vnto vs we beleeue the same in euerie point whereof it must needs follow that the bookes are Canonicall containing so heauenlie and spirituall doctrine as the like can not be written of anie but the spirit of God onelie so being enforced to alowe and imbrace by faith the doctrine of those bookes how can we but
euen a verie scomme of auncient new errours or as it were a bodie consisting of rottennes and corruption Their free will their merite of workes their purgatorie their sacrifice for quick and dead their transsubstantiation their Popes Supremacie their superstitious fastes their worshipping of Images their praying vnto Saincts their praying for the dead their satisfaction forgiuenes by workes of penance whereof Master Rainolds hath now taken in hand to speake and other manie moe the like points of false doctrine they can as soone proue out of the scripiures as they can drawe a fountaine of water out of a flinte And therefore although for a fashion in defense of some of these they pretend scriptures yet being easilie beaten from them they fall at last to raile on them as not containing sufficient doctrine and rather wil be tried and iudged by the writings of fathers at whose hands albeit they finde not such reliefe as they would make men beleeue in no one controuersie betwene vs them as hath bene oftentimes plainlie prooued notwithstanding by reason of the fathers manifold ouersightes and slips the corruptions that dailie increased in the Church they maie bring somewhat such as it is for their maintenance wherefore that we will not admitte the fathers for iudges in matters of Religion but holde them hard to the triall of the Scriptures which they cannot abide this doth put them out of patience driueth them into vehement passions But let them mend themselues where they can they shall neuer gett at our handes more then this to receiue that which the scripture deliuereth to reiect that which the scripture reprooueth to read the fathers with indifferent and free iudgement waying all their doctrine in the balance of gods word and thereby either alowing or refusing the same This we must doe or els of fathers we make Gods of mens writings we make canonical scriptures of doctors opinions we make articles of faith And herein we doe no otherwise then we are taught both by scriptures and fathers to doe as hath beene shewed a thousand times This shal be your answere more you are not to looke for of me neither in this question of penance nor in anie other and though it be your griefe to haue your nose held to this grindstone yet shall the trueth thus be cleared from your mistes God shall haue the glorie Where I haue said Pag. 87. True repentance wherin it consisteth that repentance consisteth in inward sorowe for our sinnes and amendement of life not in outward penalties and chastisments of our bodies M. Rainolds graunteth the former part but denyeth the latter Ioyne them both together saith he the◠greatlie please God Though he labour with all his force to smother the truth and keepe it from shining forth yet is he constrained to confesse that no externall chastisment of the bodie or rigorous maner of discipline whatsoeuer we can submitt our selues vnto profiteth any thing without the inward griefe of minde conceiued for our sins Wherein as he hath giuen a right sentence agreably to gods word so hath he marked with a black cole the superstition of the Romish sectaries whose whol repentance is nothing els but a voluntarie affliction of their bodies by abstaining frō meats by whipping their carcases by putting on rough apparrel by lying hard and such other outward exercises of which the Apostle generallie pronounceth 1. Tim. 4.8 they profit but a litle Then he must confesse that Repentance standeth not in outward penance as they tearme it but in the inward sorowe of the soule For this alone pleaseth God turneth awaie his wrath from vs although we doe not ioyne therewith externall penance but externall penance is nothing worth vnles we haue an inward sorowe Seeing then true repentance maie stand without that painful and extreame punishing of the body I cōclude by necessarie consequence of reason that it is not anie parte of true repentance although sometime it hath a profitable vse for the furthering and practizing of repentance If you graunt this as you must then we shall agree in this matter For I denie not but some outward penalties maie be vsed and doe please God not of them selues but because they helpe as meanes in true repentance As for example he that offendeth in eating or drinking too much must not thinke tha he hath sufficientlie repented of his sinne if he punish him selfe by fasting neuer so much vnles he be also inwardlie sorowfull for the same and purpose euer after to liue soberlie which affection if it be wanting though a man fast all his life long yet he hath not truelie repented But the godlie Christian whoe hath perhappes oftended in surfeting or dronkennesse and is trulie sorowfull therefore hath repented though he fast not euerie Fridaie from morning to night but vseth a sober and moderate diet euerie day Neuertheles if he prescribe vnto himselfe without superstition of satisfaction or merite some abstinence for a time that thereby he may be further estraunged from that vice whoe will denie but this is well and Christianlike done And this was commaunded by God in publike and priuate fastes and practised by the godlie as wee read in the scriptures Thus may you see what an idle head you haue that alleadge so many testimonies of scripture to prooue a thing which no man euer hath denied I perceiue your leisure is great but you should haue more discretion to vse it well In a plaine case wherein we need not your helpe you bring plentie of scriptures in a matter of controuersie and debate which beggeth reliefe at your hands you passe by as though you heard not which yet I impute not to want of compassion but of habilitie We dispute not whether the children of God haue vsed and ought to vse sometimes outward punishing and afflicting of their bodies for this we do willinglie confesse but whether this outward affliction be a proper part of repentance and whether it satisfieth for sinnes The first is an error the second is an heresie or rather blasphemy These things you should haue prooued for these we denie the other being not denied required no proofe The Apostles place was rightly alleadged Pag. 90. Colos 2 23. you cannot tel how to shift it from you He condemneth the superstition of such as put holines in outward things and namelie in punishing of the bodie which Ambrose calleth vexing of the body Oecumenius not regarding the body whether this belong to you let all the world iudge seeing you make it a part of repentance and think to deserue therby a great recompense at the hands of almightie God But because you perceaue the edge of this scripture to be sharper then you would you seeke to blunt it some what and therefore saie it is obscure whereas nothing could be spoken more plainlie if the light of your vnderstanding were not dammed vp The reason which I brought against the workes of satisfaction pag.
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
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
or protestants or Zuinglians or Sacramentaries whereof no dout there was great cause in this manner to aduertise the reader You call vs indeede at your pleasure by such names as your maliciouse and railing spirites can inuent sometime by one and sometime by another Christians and Catholikes you will not haue vs named reseruing that denomination to your selues to whome notwithstanding of al professors of Christian religion the same doth least appertaine For our partes soe long as we are sure that the doctrine which we follow is the eternall word of God and gospell of his sonne Christ as we are by Gods grace most sure seeing it is plainlie set downe in the holie scriptures of the olde and new Testament we care not what you thinke of vs or what you speake of vs or by what names you reproche vs. If you blaspheme the doctrine of Christ and call it heresie not fearing or sparing the Lord himselfe it is no wonder if you reuile vs with all opprobrious names that can possiblie be deuised We tell you notwithstanding that if a Christian be he that beleeueth in Christ according to his word if Catholikes be they that professe the vniuersall faith of Christ we are truelie Christians and Catholikes beleeuing soe and professing so Lutheranes we are not Zuinglianes we are not Caluinists we are not because we mantaine not anie priuate or proper doctrine of Luther or Zuinglius or Caluine no more then the faithfull ought in the primitiue Church to haue bene called Paulines or Petrines or Athanasians or by the name of anie other such minister of Christ Be ye called diuersly Franciscanes Benedictines Dominicanes Iesuites and whatsoeuer other title ye can take vp we are not greeued at the multitude and varietie of your names who being in truth almost anie thing rather then Christians delight in any name rather then in the name of Christians But to vs this one name is sufficient and such as are equiualent therewith we are content with it we desire no other As for the name of Protestants if you thinke it belongeth not to vs giue it them whose it is being not a name of Schisme or sect it may as well be vsed as the name of Catholikes and for distinction sake onelie being begon first at the diet of Argsburgh we are enforced to vse it Lastlie Master Rainolds protesteth his readines to submit himselfe to the trueth pag. 92. to defend a fault or to correct it This indeed is too great indifferencie and readines whereby it appeereth you are not resolued in your selfe but can be content to applie your iudgement and trauail in defense or reproofe of anie opinion good or bad true or false Correct your faults Master Rainolds but leaue of to maintaine them I haue in this booke made them plaine enough both to your selfe and to others you cannot but see them God giue you grace to acknowledge them to be ashamed of them and as you haue promised to correcte them You knowe that in this booke you haue wrangled without measure you haue railed without shame you haue committed as foule and notorious faults in reasoning as anie man could doe your Logike is naught your diuinitie is worse and your conscience as it maie seeme is worst of all If there yet remaine in you anie drop of that simplicitie which you professe then giue ouer defense of such vntrueth reforme your iudgement and returne by repentance from whence you are fallen If you continew in willful Apostasie your blood be vpon your owne head you haue bene warned and would not harken I referre you to the Lordes iudgement who shall get glorie either by your conuersion and saluation or els by your finall hardening and condemnation The Lord hath made all things for himself yea the wicked for the daie of euill M. RAINOLDS HATH DIVIDED HIS BOOKE INTO Chapters which diuision I haue orderlie followed in mine answere The argumens of his Chapters is set downe in the table following CHAP. 1. Concerning the Epistle of S. Iames. Pag. 1. CHAP. 2. Of the Canonicall Scriptures and English Cleaergie Pag. 20. CHAP. 3. Of Luther preferring his priuate iudgement before all auncient fathers Pag. 47. CHAP. 4. Of Priesthoode and of the sacrifice continued after Christ. Pag. 58. CHAP. 5. Of penance and the value of good workes touching iustification and life eternall Pag. 92. CHAP. 6. Of reproouing the auncient fathers for their doctrine touching good workes Pag. 133. CHAP. 7. Of Master Iewels chalenge Pag. 146. CHAP. 8. Of Bezaes translating a place of scripture Act. 3. and of the Reall presence Pag. 172. CHAP. 9. Of certaine places of Saint Chrysostome touching the Reall presence Pag. 193. CHAP. 10. Of the place in S. Lukes Gospell which Bezae is charged to haue corrupted Pag. 209. CHAP. 11. Concerning the translation of the English bibles Pag. 218. CHAP. 12. Concerning the latine bible which Master Rainolds maintaineth to be more sincere then the Hebrew now extant Pag. 227. CHAP. 13. Of the newe Testament in latine and a comparison of the vulgare translator with all other of this age Pag. 32â— CHAP. 14. Wherein Master Rainolds 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 Protestants haue made Pag. 345. CHAP. 15. Of the New Testament set forth in the Colledge of Rhemes Pag. 364. CHAP. 16. Of the faultes found in the Annotations of the New Testament Pag. 377. CHAP. 17. Of certaine blasphemies contained in the Annotations Pag. 401. AN ANSWERE TO MASTER RAINOLDS REFVTATION CHAP. 1. Concerning the Epistle of S. Iames. ALThough our Aduersaries haue continuallie endeuored to abase and extenuat the authoritie of the holy Scriptures The Papistes are enemies of the scriptures in many respects by matching with them the credit of Traditions deuised by men by submitting them to the iudgement of Fathers and Councels and hanging them vpon their interpretations and moste notoriously by bringing them into captiuitie vnder the Pope so that his pleasure and determination must stand for their true sense meaning as it is confessed by them selues and knowne to the world yet will they seeme neuerthelesse to be very zealous in defense of the scriptures charge the Protestants with that impiety whereof them-seues are moste of all guiltie As this hath beene their common practise of long time thereby to make some beleeue that we contemne the Scriptures of God which of all Christians are to be had in moste high regard and reuerence and of vs alwaies haue beene esteemed no otherwise then their incomparable maiestie authority requireth being the word of the eternall God so of late Edmond Campian in his booke made this the first and principall cause of his Chalenge Camp ra 1. for that he sawe vs through dispaire as he sayeth compelled to laie hands and offer violence to the holie bookes of
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
fathers and Doctors as you report Luth. cont Regem Angl. fol. 342. vnius maiestatis aeter nae verbum Euangelium Dei verbū est super omnia c. but that he setteth against the sayings of fathers of men of Angels of Diuells the word of the onely eternall maiesty the Gospell And againe immediatly he saith The word of God is aboue all the maiesty of God maketh with me that I care not though a thousand Augustines and Cyprians stood agaynst me Gods word is of more authoritie then all men or Angels Is this to set his priuate iudgement against all the fathers is this pride is this presumption must Gods word and maiestie and Gospell yeald to the iudgement of fathers be they neuer so manie This forsooth is your modestie that though the Lord hath spoken it yet if the fathers saie anie thing against it you will not prefere your iudgement grounded on the scriptures before the auncient fathers Accursed be such modestie that doth soe great iniurie and dishonour vnto god This ciuilitie towards men is treason and blasphemie towards the lord Remember what Elihu saith Iob. 32. v. 21.22 I will not now accept the person of man neither wil I give titles to man For I may not giue titles lest my maker should take me away suddenlie If this affection was in Luther as it was what fault can you finde therin You aske of me the reason why I so busilie defend Luther I aske of you the reason why you so continuallie accuse Luther If you seeke for some reasons to accuse him I cannot want better reasons to defend him your accusations being so vntrue That you say we aduance him into the place of Christe or at least among his Apostles belike you imagine that Luther is to vs as your Pope is to you whome you more esteeme and honour then Christe and all his Apostles For saie they what they will their saying hath litle force or authoritie if it like not your holie father but his saying must preuaile whatsoeuer they saie to the contrarie You thinke it good reason I should giue ouer all defense of Luther seing he bare extreame hatred as you say against the Sacramentaries here you bring in much to that purpose which yet you know is not the matter you tooke in hand But it is alwaies the propertie of such discreet and worthie writers whatsoeuer they finde though from the cause to hale it in by some meanes in one place or other I answere in a word Luther dissented bitterlie from Zuinglius and O Ecolampadius in the matter of the sacrament as it falleth out often times that sharpe contentions may arise amongst Godlie and learned men yet it is no cause why we should not answere in Luthers behalfe when he is wrongfullie charged by you Therefore you come to scanne my defense of Luther particularlie pag. 48. and finde your selfe occupied in deuising diuers senses of Luthers words and then disputing against them First if all the fathers teach one thing and bring scriptures for them Luther the contrarie bring scriptures for him whether in this case Luther may preferre his iudgement before all the fathers This is not the case M. R. that Luther ment you must therefore proceade further yet in your suppose Next then you put case If a thousand Augustines Churches teache some doctrine citing no text for it and Luther bring some text of scripture after his sense against the same the matter is not in citing textes but in deliuering the doctrine that is approoued by the text Then leaue your childish trifling and take Luther as he meant If Augustine or Cyprian or any other father maintaine any thing against Gods word Luther or any other minister of Christ may in such case preferre his iudgement warranted by the word of God before theirs If you denie this you are not worthie to be called a Christian and yet closelie you doe denie it in that you reprooue Luther and condemne him for saying the same And where you saie I can bring no instance that euer the auncient fathers did so haue you forgotten what fell out in the Councell of Nice Socrat. l. 1. c. 11. when the fathers agreeing to dissolue the marriage of ministers were withstood by Paphnutius One man maintaining the trueth of Gods word may lawfully dissent from others although neuer so many August cont petil l. 3. c. 6. and yealded in the ende Here one Paphnutius iudgment was preferred before al the other three hundred fathers And so often times the iudgement of many hath beene corrected by one S. Aug. saith whether of Christe or of his Church or of any other thing that appertayneth to our faith and life I will not say we not to be compared to him that sayd though we but as he added If an Angell from heauen shall preach any thing besides that ye haue receiued in the legall and Euangelicall scriptures lette him be accursed If we maie accurse them how many and whosoeuer they be that teach contrary to the Propheticall and Apostolicall scriptures then may we preferre our iudgement in such cases before them Saint Augustines words you see are very sharpe but he learned thus to speake of the Apostle him selfe August epi. 19. In an other place Saint Augustine saith For all these fathers yea aboue all these the Apostle Paul offereth himselfe I flee to him I appeale to him from all writers that thinke otherwise This was S. Augustine bolde to write euen to S. Ierome and feared not any suspicion either of arrogancie or heresie for the same such accoumpte then must be made of the trueth that we must stand with it against al the world and not for reuerence of mens persons giue it ouer or betraie it or be afraid to defend it If this be so as you will not I am sure for shame or feare denie openlie then haue you nothing to burthen Luther in this behalfe When you say Though the fathers in the Councells of Nice Ephesus Chalcedon had alleadged no direct and euident place against Arius Nestorius Eutyches yet the Christian people were bound to beleeue them grounding them selues onelie vpon the catholike and vniuersall faith of the Churches before them it is boldly and bluntlie spoken These godly and catholike fathers assembled in Councel against those heritikes confuted them by the authoritie of Gods word and as it were cut the throte of their heresies with the sworde of the spirit This was onelie the weapon then vsed and with this they preuayled The councels and fathers confuted all Heretikes by the scriptures as likwise haue all other godlie councels euer done against all heretikes and enemies of the trueth For in Religion there is no trueth but grounded vppon scriptures no errour or heresie but repugnant to scriptures no heretikes but refuted by scriptures They dealt not against the heretikes as you imagine omitting scriptures and grounding vpon the faith of Churches
but they prooued their faith to be grounded vppon the scriptures So Cyprian a wise and Catholike Bishop writeth that in controuersies of Religion we must haue recourse to the origine of trueth Cypria de vnit Eccles in Epist ad Pompei whereby he meaneth the scriptures and that the cause of heresie is for that the head is not sought which he declareth further adding that the doctrine of the heauenlie Master is not kept And therefore if those fathers had obiected nothing but the common beliefe of the Churches against those heretikes they had taken a wrong course and should neuer thus haue stopped their mouthes But they had a surer waie to conuince heretikes then you haue whoe being of all heretikes the greatest would take awaie all means of confuting heretikes that so your selues might not be espied or not controlled As for Heluidius Ambrose Epist 81. 79. Hieron cont Heluid who denied the blessed virgine to haue remained a virgine afterward the fathers Ierome and Ambrose alleadged against him not tradition onely but the scriptures especiallie although what Saint Basill hath written of this wholl matter you maie reade in his sermon of the Natiuitie wherein he is not affraied plainlie to affirme that after she had borne our sauiour Christ Basil de Christi â—tiuit whither she married againe or remained a virgine still belongeth longeth nothing to the mysterie of faith Againe you imagine a third sense of Luthers wordes Pag. 51. by supposing a thing impossible that if all Churches and fathers teach against Scripture Luther with Scripture then Luther maie thinke him-selfe a better man then they al. What Luthers meaning was you haue heard and therefore it skilleth not what you suppose further Indeed M. R. as you saie the Church falleth not from Christ to Apostasie but this is true as well of the Church in the olde Testament as in the newe yet as the visible Churches of the Iewes fell awaie from God and became open enemies vnto our sauiour Christ so it might come to passe since Christ that the particular Churches and congregations did corrupte the doctrine of the Gosepll and slid into that Apostasie which the Scriptures foresaid should ouerspread the Churches afterward 1. Tim. 4.1 2. Thes 2.3 But the Catholike Church which is the number of Gods elect can no more fall awaie from Christe into Apostasie then the course of heauen can be chaunged For it standeth vpon Christ the rocke and hell gates shall not be hable to cast it downe Here againe you come in with Luthers opinion of the sacrament pag. 52. wherein as he dissented from vs the truth verie much so your popish Transsubstantiation then which was neuer a more impious and absurd heresie maintained in the Church he vtterlie abhorred And what though herein Luther somthing swarued from the truth might he not therefore being in other causes assured thereof out of the word of God reiect the opinions of such as dissented from the same By this reason no man in defense of Gods trueth may chalenge or bid defiance to the aduersaries thereof seeing they haue no priuiledge or Charter graunted to them but that them selues maie also be deceiued Luther was an excellent man and a worthie seruante of Christ whose Ministerie especiallie it pleased the Lord to vse in reuealing to these times that sonne of perdition whoe sitteth in the Temple of God and aduaunceth him selfe aboue God yet was Luther a man and therefore no maruaile if he were not exempted altogether from ignorance and infirmitie And what miserable peruersnes is it in you that being not able to maintaine your owne heresies against Luther will thinke to escape in the iudgement of men from beeing condemned because Luther him selfe in one pointe of doctrine erred Maie no man conuince error but such a one as is free from erring at all him selfe the scriptures are left vnto vs to be our rule of trueth by them must all doctrine be squared and directed they sit in the hiest seate of indgement to giue sentence in euerie cause With them did Luther cut downe your errours of them haue we learned to thinke of the sacrament otherwise then Luther did to them doe we submit our selues in euerie thing we teach and are contented that our wholl Religion be tried by them so that if you or anie other can shewe wherein we disagree from them we are readie and willing to be reformed But one error of Luther cannot serue to excuse infinite errors in the popish Church Thus haue you my answere as plainlie as I could deuise in this matter which though you haue handled at large as became a man of your learning leasure and discretion yet in the end you cast it awaie from you as not worthy to haue any time bestowed about it Now therfore I trust herafter you wil be better occupied CHAPTER 4. Of Priesthod and of the sacrifice continued after Christ SEeing you will needes be called accounted Priests that in the proper sense pag. 56. and signification of this word I require no pardon at your hands for terming you as I did For if Christ be the onelie Priest of the new Testament and his sacrifice neuer to be repeated as we are plainlie taught by the word of God what Priests can you be but Baalites and what sacrificers but Antichristian shewe your order your Author your institution otherwise we must esteeme and speake of you Heb. 5.4 The Popish priest hoode was not ordainied by Christ but is contrarie to the Priesthood of Christ and therefore worthie to be contemned detested of al faithfull Christians as such a generation deserueth It is not lawfull for any to take honour to him-selfe but he that is called of God as Aaron If you can prooue that God hath called you it is meet you be receiued reuerenced as the ordinaunce of God in all functions deserueth but this can you neuer doe and therefore both your name your profession is of al the godly to be detested as a venemous plant neuer planted by the heauenlie father Mat. 15.13 Two waies you haue chosen by which you will prooue your selues lawfull priests principally you say by mine owne words secondarily by deduction out of the scriptures Let vs consider of both these arguments in order and so it shall appeare in the end that your Priesthood was hatched of an ill egge pag. 57. And here you declare euidentlie to the world in the verie begininng your pitifull ignorance M. R. affirmeth that we denie Melchisedech to haue bene a Priest how vntruelie all the world caÌ„ witnes Gen. 14.18 Psal 110.4 Heb. 7.1 not knowing against whom you fight For was it euer of vs doubted that Melchisedech was a Priest and offered sacrifice doth not the scripture teach the same moste expreslie and that in manie places yet you saie you could neuer obtaine so much of our brethren which argueth that God
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
92. Satisfaction for sinnes wrought onely by the sacrifice of Christs death is grounded vpon the rock that neuer can be shaken euen the word of god that abideth for euer For as the redemption of mankinde is to be ascribed onelie to the sacrifice of Christes death and cannot without singular blasphemie be assigned to anie other thing so likewise is the satisfaction for sinne appropriated to the same sacrifice of Christ cannot without like blasphemie be giuen to any workes of man how excellent soeuer You make it a small matter to satisfie for sinne that teach it is in the power of man by his owne paines and penance to appease the wrath of God wherby it plainly appeareth you neither know the grieuousnes of sinne nor the iustice of god that requireth a greater punishment for sin then any man is able to suffer yea you charge the Lord himself with iniustice in that hauing laid the guiltines of our sins vpon his sonne and punished them al in him is not content with that punishment satisfaction If we do satisfie for our sinnes then hath not Christ satisfied for them but exacteth of vs a further paiment and satisfaction for the sinnes for which Christ hath once sufficientlie satisfied alreadie The prophet saith He is punished for our transgressions Esai 53.5 he is bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace is layde vpon him by his stripes are we healed And immediatlie againe he repeateth the same and sayth The Lord maketh the punishment of vs al to light vpon him Veâ— 7. 1. Ioh. 1.7 The Apostle Iohn saith The blood of Iesus Christ doth purge you from all sâ—â—ne Apoc. 1.5 And in his reuelation he saieth that Christ hath washed vs from our sins in his blood Thus are we taught in the scriptures of God to beleeue that our sinnes are forgiuen and we reconciled to God not for anie thing that we can worke or suffer but onelie for the death blood-sheading of Christ So all your satisfactions are hanged vpon the hedge and serue for nothing els but to plunge you deeper into the pitte of condemnation which you shall neuer escape so long as you trust to anie satisfaction but onelie of Christ As for your Tridentine councell which you alleadge it is but a bable A childe may soone espie the vanitie and falshood of this diuinitie that you deliuer vs here by warrant of that Councell Concil Trident sess 14. ca. 8. This it is The satisfaction which we vndertake for our sinnes is ours but yet by Christ Iesus which in effect is all one as if they had said that Christ him selfe hath not satisfied for our sinnes at all but onelie hath purchased to vs a facultie and habilitie euerie man to satisie for his owne sinnes The scriptures teach that Christ himselfe hath satiâ—fied for our sinnes 1. Pet 2.24 This is the mysterie of your satisfactions a mysterie of great impietie For the scriptures teach the cleane contrarie S. Peter saith that Christ hath borne our sins in his bodie vpon the crosse And how hath he borne them if he hath not satisfied for them did he take them vpon himselfe to returne them back to vs againe or did he not perhaps fullie satisfie for them Tell vs then how farre Christ hath satisfied and how much remaineth for vs to satisfie that we maie know how to deuide aright the satisfaction betweene Christ and vs. But accursed for euer be they that deny the satisfaction of Christe to be most perfecte and will supplie it by their owne diligence and labour Christ hath perfectlie redeemed vs therefore Christ hath perfectlie satisfied for vs. The work of Christs redemption is our satisfaction For this redemption consisteth in fully satisfying the warth of God against sinne Neither is it possible for any to satisfie for sinne but a redeemer onely For this cause was the name of Iesus giuen to our Redeemer because he saueth vs from our sinnes Matth. 1.21 And how is this saluation wrought 2. Cor. 5.21 In that he became man for vs that is our sinnes were imputed to him Heb. 10.14 and he made a sacrifice for them and by this one oblation hath consecrated for euer those that are sanctified Then is there left to vs no parte of satisfaction but when soeuer we repent of our sinnes and beleeue in the satisfaction of Iesus Christ we are clerelie acquitted of all our offenses for the merit of that perfect sacrifice which Christ offered for vs. If you denie this thinke of your selfe as you liste you haue no more parte in Iesus Christ then hath an Infidel That you rehearse out of Brentius pag. 93.9.4 and Andreas Fricius is idle and serueth onely for stuffing Brentius saith truelie we must not onelie take awaie nothing from Christ that belongeth vnto him but not giue him more then the scriptures haue taught to be due vnto him For he is iniuried and dishonoured both waies neuertheles this that you will seeme to giue him more then we is by no means to be accepted for so much as it taketh from him a thousand times more then it can pretend to bestowe vpon him For in ascribing that vertue to the sacrifice of Christ to make our workes of force to satisfie for our selues you pull awaie from it violentlie that full and perfect power of satisfying once for all of it selfe which doth truelie and properlie belong vnto it so herein you may well be compared to those wicked Iewes that made cursie to our Sauiour Christ and yet did buffet him on the face with their fists Andreas Fricius if he haue anie priuat opinion of his owne let him take it to him selfe he may not obtrude it vpon the Church without warrant of Gods word And yet out of his wordes by you rehearsed what can you gather seruing for proofe of mans merits or satisfactions What your opinion and iudgement is Pag 95 c. M. Rainolds of my learning and writings I trust you thinke I make no great account Verilie among the wholl rable of popish proctors there is none that I haue read of lesse wit and learning then your selfe What account your fellowes make of you I cannot report but if they esteeme you for one of their worthies you are more beholding to them then you haue deserued of them For alas what haue you brought thâ— in truth is worthie answere what haue you said wherein appeereth any learning more then moste common what cause haue you thus to bragge in your selfe thus to contemne others God giue you grace to see to know to examine your selfe that you maie perceiue your owne weakenes and pouertie If I should boaste of my selfe mine owne tongue would condemne me this childish profane manner I leaue to you and your companions who hunte so greedelie for the praise of learning that you despise the simplicitie of Gods trueth and Gospell Yet there is none of vs how
vnlearned soeuer you thinke we are but by the grace of God and light of his word can easilie discouer the falsehood and corruptions of your Religion Let vs now consider vpon what points you were bolde to vtter so fondlie your iudgement of me and thereby make triall of that profound learning which you take to your selfe with out cause as shall here and euerie where appeere First you charge me Pag. 98. that I vnderstand not M. Martins meaning which though it were true yet were it I trust a veniall offense But I perceiued his meaning well inough framed mine answere directlie to the same The question was whether to attribute to our sufferings the vertue of satisfying for our sins be not iniurious to the passion satisfaction of Christ I said it was and so I saie still Master Martin alleadgeth against me the words of the Apostle Saint Pauls who saieth we shal be heires with God Rom. 8.17 and follow heires with Christ if we suffer with him that we may be glorified with him Mine answere was that our suffrings are required not as causes of our saluation and eternall glorie yet to be borne of necessitie vnles we wil fall awaie from his grace and glorie Wherein now haue I swarued from M. Martins purpose His argument was you saie to prooue that good workes are not iniurious to saluation because the scripture requireth them as necessarie to saluation But why tell you not how M. Martin meant they are required as necessarie then had you disclosed your owne folly For we graunt they are necessarilie required in that sense that the Apostle teacheth and are not in that respect anie waies iniurious or derogatory to the sacrifice of Christ But this prooueth not that they satisfie for our sinnes for then should they be efficient causes of our saluation as you would haue them to be thought and then should they derogate greatlie from the merites of Christ Were you so astonied that you could not make mine answere agree to M. Martins argument or had you a pleasure thus to cauill Secondlie you say pag. 99. c. I vnderstand not S. Paule alleaged by M. Martin your selfe setting downe such an exposition of his wordes as both is contrarie to his wholl doctrine disprooued by the verie words themselues For where you saie this place of the Apostle prooueth inuinciblie that workes are the efficient causes of our saluation it shall easilie appeare that herein you doe not onelie misconstrue the Apostle but vtter blasphemie against the blood of Christ such a notable expositor are you become of the holie scriptures S. Paule saith we are ioint heyres with Christ Rom. 8.15 if so be we suffer with him that we may also be glorified with him Doth this prooue our workes or sufferings to be causes efficient of our saluation By what diuinitie by what Logick by what sophistrie wherein lieth the inuincible necessitie of this consequence doth not the Apostle himselfe conclude the contrary in the wordes immediatlie following when he saith Rom. 8.18 I account that the sufferings of this present time are not worthie of the glorie that shal be reueiled vnto vs Our sufferings are not worthie the glorie of heauen and therfore deserue it not If then there be not anie proportion at all betweene our sufferings and eternall glorie as the Apostle plainlie affirmeth how can our sufferings be causes efficient of that moste excellent glorie saluation which Christ hath purchased for vs doth he not cal it our inheritance when he saith we are the heires of god fellow heires with Christ then doth it follow most inuincibly that it is not obtained by our workes but doth belong vnto vs by the right of our adoption whereby we are made the sonnes of God Neuertheles as the father requireth obedience of his sonne to whome he leaueth his inheritance so the Lord most iustly may exact of his children to whome he hath prepared a kingdome Eternall life belongeth vnto vs by right of our adoption and is not purchased of vs by our workes all duties of seruice and obedience And as the obedience of the childe is not the cause efficient of the earthlie inheritance no more are the workes of godlines wherein the faithfull are occupied causes efficient of immortalitie and saluation When the earthlie father saith to his naturall sonne and heire thou shalt inherit my landes and goodes if so be thou wilt obeie my will can your wisdome hereof gather an inuincible argument that this obedience in the heire is the proper and efficient cause of that inheritance so when the Lord speaketh to his children in like manner I wil giue vnto you eternall life if you can be content patientlie to waite for the time of your ful deliuerance and to suffer afflictions in this life as it is necessarie for you to do who but a blinde papist wil argue hereof that these afflictions endured in the meane time are causes of eternal life which is the free gift and grace of God and yet is this M. Rainolds inuincible argument or rather inuincible sollie and ignorance Now where he maketh a comparison betweene Christes sufferings ours pag. 100. and because Christes sufferings merite eternal life No comparison betwene the merites of Christ and our good workes reasoneth that ours therfore do the same he deserueth that all the boies in the schoole should clap their hands against him as not onely disputing moste absurdlie but dishonouring our sauiour Christ intollerablie Will you match your selues with Christ your workes and your sufferings with his you make a verie vnequall moste vnreasonable comparison For is there in you that perfection of vertue and excellencie of grace that was in Christ wherby he fullie satisfied the law of God and therfore deserued worthelie the Kingdome of heauen All our righteousnes is vnperfect all our obedience is full of infirmitie whatsoeuer we can do or suffer is stained with some pollution of sinne and therfore of due can merite nothing at the hands of God much lesse the Kingdome of heauen and life euerlasting Thus your summe was not rightlie gathered as you maie see Pag. 102 Rom. 6.23 Eternall life is a free gift and therefore is not obtained by merite of good workes Thirdlie M. Rainolds saith I vnderstand not S. Paul alleadged by my selfe that eternal life is the gift of god Whereupon I gather that seing it is the free gift of God our workes are not the causes therof For if our workes were causes efficient of eternal life the Apostle would not saie that eternal life is giuen freely vnto vs by God seeing to giue freelie and to giue vpon desert cannot be verified of one thing But eternall life is a free gift 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle doth affirme expressly and therefore is not purchased by merit of our good works where is to be noted the opposition betweene eternall death and life touching
that worketh the rewarde shal be imputed according to debt ought to be vnderstoode of the debt due to the wicked worke For that debts are called sinnes in the holie Scriptures you shall often finde Then he alledgeth sundrie places to this purpose and afterwardes proceedeth thus whereupon the same Apostle in an other place saith the wages of sinne is death and he added not and saide likewise And the wages of iustice is eternall life Vitam veró ae ternam soli gratiae consig naret I thinke it should be assignaret but he saith But eternall life is the gracious gift of God to teach vs that wages which is like to debte and rewarde is a recompence of punishment and death and to assigne eternall life to grace onelie And thus determining that rewarde according to debte belongeth to the wicked in respect of their workes but not the beleeuers he goeth on forwarde and saith To confirme as it were his former saying to him that worketh not but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the wicked his faith is imputed for righteousnes the Apostle taketh a testimonie out of the psalmes and saith Cui Deus accepto sert iusti tiam sine opers bus As Dauid doth declare the blessednes of the man whome the Lord accounteth righteous without workes This is Origenes iudgement that our ill deedes deserue of due and debte punishment and condemnation but that our good deedes cannot merite the reward of eternal life so hath he discouered the inequalitie of those balances whereof you speake S. Ambrose speaking of Dauid saith that he desired to depart out of this place of pilgrimage to the common countrie of the Saints Ambros de bono mor. Cap. 2. entreating that for the pollution of his abode here his sinnes might be forgiuen before he departed out of this life For he that receaueth not here remission of his sinnes shall not be there and he shall not be there because he can not come vnto eternal life Quia vitae aeterna remissio peccatoruÌ„ est for somuch as euerlasting life is forgiuenes of sinnes In these wordes we are taught that whosoeuer wil haue eternall life must looke to receiue it not for merit of his good workes but through forgiuenes of his euill workes and this namelie he affirmeth of Dauid the holie Prophet and seruant of god with whome in godlines and good workes our Papists maie not anie waies compare Saint Ierome hath many goodlie sentences in his bookes against the Pelagians flatlie ouerthrowing the popish doctrine of iustification by merit of our workes as when he saieth Hieron ad Cte siph aduers Pe lag that before God who seeth beholdeth all things and to whom the secrets of the hart are not vnknowen no man is iust If in the sight of God no man is iust as Ierome trulie according to the holy scriptures maintaineth against the wicked Pelagians who then can trust by his iustice to be saued or how can any man otherwise be saued then by the clemencie mercie and forgiuenes of the iudge can he that saieth and confesseth I am vniust I aske pardon of my God for my sinnes saie with the same mouth I haue deserued heauen by my good deedes Againe S. Ierome saith this is the onelie perfection of men if they knowe them selues to be vnperfect And you saith Christ when you haue done all things saie we are vnprofitable seruants we haue done that we were bound to doe If he be vnprofitable who hath done all things what shall we saie of him that coulde not fulfill all things Si inutilis est qui fecit omma quid de illo dicendum est qui explâ—re non potuit Lib. 1. aduers Pelag. and he prooueth at large that neuer anie either did or could fulfill all that of due was required of him In an other booke he saieth then are we iust when we confesse our selues to be sinners and our iustice consisteth not of our owne merite but of Gods mercie the Scripture saying the iust man is an accuser of him selfe in the beginning of his speach Our righteousnes by Saint Ieromes doctrine consisteth not in the merits of our good workes but in the confession of our sinnes and mercie of the Lord. Furthermore he saith in the same booke In Deuteronomie it is plainlie shewed that we are saued not by our workes iustice but by the mercie of God when the Lord saith by Moses say not in thine heart when the Lord shall destroie them before thy face the Lord hath brought me in for my righteousnes c. If the Israëlites could not deserue the land of Canaan to be giuen vnto them for their righteousnes who can trust to receiue the land of life for his worthines This was S. Ieromes faith and this he constantlie defended against such wicked heretikes that troubled the Church of Christ then Mare Erem as our Papistes haue longe done S. Marke the Eremite hath written a booke against those that thinke they are iustified by works wherin thus he writeth Therefore the kingdome of heauen is not a rewarde of workes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the free gift of the Lord prepared for faithfull seruants S. Gregorie came after S. Augustine the space of two hundred yeares Greg. Moral lib. 2. cap. 40. yet held he the same trueth concerning this point as by his writings appeareth As if saith he a mind that is tempted and taken in the neede of his owne infirmitie should saie Grace hath begotten me in the first faith being naked Nudam me in prima fide gratia genuit â—udum eadem gratia in assuÌ„tione saluabit and the same grace shall saue me in the last daie being naked And further addeth that though a man haue some vertues yet it is best for him to cast him selfe downe to acknowledge his owne infirmitie and wantes Ad solam misericordiae speÌ„ recurrat to fâ—â—e to the onelie hope of mercy And thus writeth the same Gregorie in an other place Euerie sinner turning to God with weeping In Ezech. lib. 1. hom 7. in sins now beginneth to be iust when he beginneth to accuse that which he hath done For why should he not be iust that now is cruel by teares against his owne iniustice Therfore our iust aduocate shall defend vs to be iust in iudgement quia nosmetip sos cognosci mus accusamus imustos because we know and accuse our selues to be vniust Let vs therefore put our confidence not in our teares not in our deeds but in the allegation of our aduocate Could anie thing be spoken more directlie against the vaine damnable persuasion of Papists that thinke they shall be saued by their doings and sufferings Now let vs descend lower to S. Bernard who liued after Saint Gregorie fiue hundred yeares and see how the same doctrine hath bene continued and beleeued of the godlie Bernard 〈◊〉 Cant. serm 23. Thus writeth
causes of religiō when they dreamed of an earthlie kingdome in this world yet this opinion is contrarie to a principal article of our faith were they void of holines when they beleeued that the gospell was to be preached to the Iewes onelie which is greatlie derogatorie to the grace of God and saluation of his people Then euerie error doth not ouerthrowe all holines in the seruants of God In the primitiue Church manie holie fathers were infected with the error of Christes raigning a thousand yeares on earth who notwithstanding are worthelie accounted Saints of God Cyprian and manie godlie Byshops with him erred about the baptisme ministred by heretikes yet lost they not for all that the opinion and name of holie fathers Thus the vanitie of your chalenge appeareth in finding fault with me for calling the fathers holie whome I charged with error it being such as in them did not raze the foundation of the gospell Your argument of the Church is friuolous True it is that he that maketh a schisme in the Church and cutteth himselfe from the same cannot be saued But to erre in this point as the fathers did is neither schisme nor so dangerous to saluation as schisme Nether is it like to the errour of the Galatians altogeather For it was in the fathers only an ouersight of infirmitie by leaning somewhat too much to their owne reason and not considering the matter so deepely as they ought and yet they held not that works are to be ioined with Christ as necessary causes of our iustification and saluation but ascribing the wholl work of our redemption vnto Christ they erred a litle in applying this redemption vnto them-selues Your case is the same that was of the Galatians For as they thought to be iustified by the workes of the Law so do you as they were warned of their error so are you as they without repentance lost the benefit of Christs sacrifice so shall you Yf the fathers had bene as often plainlie admonished as you haue bene they would being holy and sincere men haue reformed their iudgement and keeping the head though they erred in some part the Lord will not impute that error vnto them for condemnation All that you alledge here out of that worthy seruant of Christ M. Luther Pag. 120. c I acknowledge for true seeing it is the verie same that the Scriptures them-selues haue taught For this is the voice and doctrine of the gospell that by faith onelie in the mediator who by his sacrifice once offered vpon the crosse hath reconciled the father vnto vs we are iustified and saued Then to liue straitlie and to do good workes with this purpose and persuasion that thereby we shall obtaine iustice or saluation is contrary to the trueth of Christs gospell and may not in anie be allowed although otherwise moste learned and godly Will you reason hereby against Luther and me because we charge the fathers with some ouersight in the trueth of this doctrine in that they thought somewhat too well of their owne deedes we must therefore repute them for wicked men and make them no better then Papists They erred not somuch as you they erred not so wilfully as you and therefore though there besome likenes betweene their error yours yet we account not of them as of you who besides that you erre in this point of iustification most damnablie haue also multiplied your errours in other articles almost left no one ground of pure religion vnshaken And therefore you greatlie deceiue your owne heart M. Rainolds when you thinke your selfe to be in the same case that the fathers were in because sometime the fathers gaue more to their works then they should haue done you trusting to be iustified and saued by the worthines and merits of your workes which the fathers did not So betwene you and them there is a great space of distance although I graunt that some things which they haue written of this matter and practized in their liues tendeth somewhat to your heresie of iustification by workes For the mysterie of iniquitie which in papistry is fullie finished began to worke in the Apostles age so continued still forward in the fathers daies vntil it came to his height and perfection in the kingdome of popery They slipt a litle you are fallen headlong into the pit they were ouerseene through infirmitie you are blinde of malice they scattered some darnell in the Lords field you haue plucked vp by the roots the good corne They haue suffred losse of this building being not agreeable to the foundation yet are saued you ouerthrow the foundation it selfe and therefore cannot in this opinion be saued The contradiction which you haue found in my wordes Pag. 124. is a knott in a rush your head is crazie I perceiue by your wandring and friuolous talke or els your wit is often verie fugitiue Although the fathers sometime doe require satisfaction by workes not onelie in respect of the Church but of God as appeareth by Saint Cyprian plainlie in sundry places and therein haue obscured the doctrine of repentance and Iustification yet they neuer meant so groslie Satisfactions in respect of God taught and practised in the primitiue time what they were as you doe that this satisfaction of theirs should be a worthie and sufficient recompense to god for their sinnes committed against his moste holie maiestie but that they ought to craue humblie for pardon at gods hands by humbling themselues be fore him in fasting and praying and punishing their bodies in this life This appeareth by the 55. epistle of Saint Cyprian as I noted Ne exoretur precib satisfactionibus who speaking of Christians committing Idolatrie saith They make intercession that Christ may not be intreated by praiers and satisfactions This godlie father ascribeth remission of sinnes to the pardon of Christ being intreated by praiers and satisfactions If remission be of pardon then is it not of satisfaction as you meane if it be obtained by praiers then is it not giuen to the worthines of our workes Againe he saieth I imbrace with readie and perfecte loue such as returne with repentance confessing their sinnes with humble and simple satisfafaction Satisfactione humili simplice What els doth he meane by this humble satisfaction but humble and earnest supplication for pardon in his booke against Demetrian he saith speaking to the heathen we exhort while there is leaue that you satisfie God And can the workes of such men make a full satisfaction vnto God No But Saint Cyprian expoundeth himselfe by by in these words Thou euen at thy howre of death and end of this temporall life intreate God for thy sinnes who is one true pardon is giuen to him that confesseth and to him that beleeueth gratious remission is graunted of Gods mercie Thus with this godlie father to satisfie God is to make humble sute and request to God for our sinnes Salutaris
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
as I can possiblie The wordes are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in latine worde for worde quem oportet quidem coelum recipere the wordes both in Greeke and latine are ambiguous as any man may see in which respecte Beza thought better to translate them thus quem oporter quidem coe locapi which in effect and true meaning is al one with the other but yet some thing plainer This worthie matter you handle by seuerall pointes as becommeth a man of such discretion First you say it is saucy and malapert for any man of purpose to restraine that pag. 172. which the holy ghost hath left at large If this be so then hath your vulgare interpreter bene ouer saucy and malapert often times Examples of such saucines I might alledge many in his translation if cause required I graunt a man cannot be too precise and religious in translating the wordes of holy scripture and that it ought to be the especiall care of a godly translator neither to restraine nor enlarge any thing as farre forth as he may performe by skill and diligence for so much as the text may afford a doctrine sometime in his original and naturall wordes which by altering in the translation is soone marred But these admitt no other sense then one therefore no matter whether a man say that heauen must receiue Christ or Christ must be receiued in heauen the meaning is all one For as for the conceite of some which you affirme may perhappes be true that Christ should receiue heauen it passeth al compasse of reason or diuinitie Howe I pray you doth Christ receiue heauen by his diuine power but the Apostle speaketh of Christs ascension as in the text appeareth and all interpreters vnderstande the wordes how then doth Christ receiue heauen in his humanitie wherein he ascended and whereof the Apostle speaketh tell vs if you can Againe why saith the Apostle vntill the time that all things are restored if he meane that Christs diuinitie receiued heauen which then receiued it no otherwise then it hath euer and shall euer receiue it for that by taking heauen should be meant the rule and gouerment of heauen which Christ at his ascension receiued this interpretation I know seemeth but absurd to your selfe and therefore you may leaue it for others to defend whome for this matter Beza hath fully answered Your second third points where in you vrge and prosecute M. Martins reprehension I omit as vn worthie of answere Beza transtated the place trulie in sense as your selfe cannot deny the cause that mooued him a litle to alter the wordes was to auoide doubtfull and ambiguous construction That Illyricus is not contented with this translation what maruel seeing he wil haue Christs body contayned in no place If you be of his iudgement you may vse his authoritie against Beza herein But where hath Caluine reprooued Bezaes translation of these wordes why haue neither you nor Gregorie Martine noted the place or set downe the reprehension you haue good cause to be ashamed of such egregious trifling pag. 175. Beza hath sufficientlie cleared his translation from charge of corruption in sense by S. Nazianzens authoritie Nazianz. de filio Conc. 2. whoe reporteth in Greeke these wordes of S. Peter euen altogether in such sorte as Beza hath expressed them in his latine translation So all you haue to say against Beza or me in this matter is for rendering a verbe deponent by a verbe passiue keeping threrein the sense moste trulie and exactly Your friuolus inuectiue against our translations and translatours I passe ouer pag. 176. M. Martine hath written of this matter so much already as your wholl Colledge of Rhemes could vtter vnto whose vnlearned and weake discourse which he calleth a discouerie a learned Doctor hath made answere long agoe Martins discouerie The answere you haue amongst you confute it if you can Otherwise in this behalfe thinke your selues fullie satisfied Here are we entred into a large treatise of Reall presence pag. 178. c. for which M. Rainolds seemeth to be verie zealous and carefull lest it should receiue some discountenaunce by the former words of S. Peter as needes it must translate them how you list so you translate them trulie For Saint Peter speaking of Christs humanitie saith that heauen must receiue him vntill the time that all things are restored Hereof it followeth Act. 3.21 that Christ as touching his humanity is not receiued or contained in the sacrament or els in any other place then heauen This is a plaine a certaine Christ ascending in his humanity into heauen hath left no place for Reall presence in the sacrament an inuincible trueth so not we haue taken from you Christs Reall presence but Christ in carying vp his bodie out of this world into heauen hath himselfe actuallie ouerthrowne your fantasticall imaginations of his bodelie and carnall presence on the earth Before you come to answere this argument according to your olde wont you speake and spend much idle talke wherein nothing asketh answere but that by conference of other places you would weaken the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Sainct Luke vseth in reporting S. Peters wordes For you saie that this prooueth Christs bodie to be contained in heauen no more then Saint Luke writing that Samaria receiued the word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 8.14 affirmeth the word of God was contained in Samaria An obiection doubtles that came from a deepe vnderstanding to make the word of God which was to be preached ouer the wholl world of like nature with a bodie which must be contained in one place If you can see anie thing you may soone see that the word receiue is otherwise taken here as also in the two other places which you alledge of receiuing children and Apostles in Christs name Saint Peter speaketh of locall receiuing or containing the other places vnderstand a receiuing of reliefe or entertainement Your reproches as they well become your person so being vsuall require no answere but are to be contemned Being come to the matter in hand pag. 183. you shewe your selfe more hotte and hastie in words then discrete or pithie in your arguments For that I said it is a contradiction to maintaine that one and the same bodie should together both be visible inuisible circumscriptible and incircumscriptible as you do moste fondlie imagine and teach of Christs body you charge me with infidelitie for denying gods omnipotency which euerie Christian professeth in the first article of the Creede Of Atheisme and infidelitie take heede your selfe M. R you haue alreadie made a dangerous step The papists to prooue their Reall presence are faine to flee to Gods omnipotencie and thus to argue god is able to make his body Reallie present in the sacrament therefore so he doth God forbid I should be guiltie of that sin wherof you do without all conscience or
not according to the Hebrew but according to the Septuagints First Master Rainolds your comparison is not equall What are ye to Christ to his Euangelists and Apostles will you be bolde to take as much vppon you as they might herein doubtles you haue not so wiselie be thought your selfe Then shew if you can a place alledged by our sauiour Christ or anie Euangelist or Apostle swaruing in sense from the Hebrew They cite not alwaies the words but they keepe most truelie the sense and meaning euer more Lastlie it is one thing to translate the scripture and an other to cite a place of scripture In citing a place it is sufficient to obserue the true meaning in translating it is necessarie to keepe the wordes as neare as maie be Our sauiour his Euangelists and Apostles were no translatours of scripture but they truelie deliuered the sense of such places as they alledged out of scripture The Apostle you say alledging a place out of the psalme Psa 19.5 Their sound is gone into all the earth followed not the Hebrew First I answere the sense is all one Rom. 10.18 whether you translate their sound or their line is gone forth secondlie Iohn Isaac can tell you Contra Lindā lib. 3. p. 148. that the hebrew word Kau must signifie not onelie a line but also as much as Kol a sound which if it be so Act. 13.41 then hath the Apostle kept the verie word The place in the Actes which S. Paul citeth out of the Prophet Habacuc hath no difference in substance The Prophet saith Behold among the Gentiles c. The Apostle citeth the place thus Habac. 1.5 Behold ye scorners Howsoeuer some diuersitie maie appeare in the wordes the purpose of the Prophet and Apostle is all one and this was the thing which the Apostles regarded in alledging authorities out of the old Testament Your third example in Saint Iames sheweth Iam. 4.6 that the Apostle cited the words of the Greeke not of the hebrew which is graunted to be oftentimes in the new Testament vsed But to alledge the sense of a place therin to follow some translation is another thing then to translate the text it selfe The Hebrew text is to this sense He mocketh the mockers and giueth grace to the meeke Pron 3.34 Saint James rehearseth the wordes thus God resisteth the proud and giueth grace to the humble The sense is not altered seeing these mockers are the proude men of this world and God mocketh them when he resisteth them But tell me now whether you think the Hebrew in these places to be corrupt or no. I think you dare not so affirme seeing your latine vulgar which you account authenticall agreeth with the Hebrew for the two last places Then what is your argument out of these examples gladly would I vnderstand if you could tell That Christ and the Apostles cited places out of the olde testament according to the Greeke Haue an eie to M.R. conclusion and it shal appeare he speaketh beside the purpose was it because the Hebrew was contaminated as you speake If it were then must you confesse your latine translation which you so much esteeme to be full of corruption Would you translate these places according to the Greeke because you finde them cited by the Apostles according to the Greeke Expound your dreame Master Rainolds your selfe and tell vs what you saw Caluine you charge for cutting the place of Iames cleane awaie Lay not the Printers fault vppon Caluine If he had meant as you surmise he would haue cut the same sentence out in Saint Peter also But there you haue it set downe in the text and expounded in the commentary Your spposes haue small weight to ground an argument vpon pag. 290. you may deuise and imagine any thing what you liste Euery canonicall booke of the olde testament is extant in the same language wherin it was written As for your bookes of Tobie Iudith Machabees it is no matter in what tongue or by whome they were set forth That S. Matthewe writ his Gospell in Hebrew is affirmed I graunt by auncient fathers but affirmed onelie not prooued and arguments there be manie to the contrarie But admit that so it were the Greeke was set forth in the Apostles daies as the same authors confesse and by them commended to the Church as the true and authenticall history written by S. Matthewe and of vs is so to be accounted As for the Hebrew of that Gospell now extant your selfe beleeue not I thinke it is the same that Saint Matthew writ if he writ anie at all in Hebrue Looke now to the force of this supposition a litle better your selfe if you haue grace to consider it aright which you saie is wanting in me you will confesse it prooueth nothing My words by you translated I acknowledge pag. 291. c. out of which three things you note First that I confesse you refuse not the fountaines but because you thinke them to be corrupt which yet is not by me any where confessed The fountaines indeed you refuse and of this refusall the reason you pretend to be that they are corrupt Yet thinke I not that so you are in trueth perswaded it being contrarie to all reason that the translation generallie should be more pure and incorrupt then the fountaine it selfe from whence it is deriued Secondlie that I affirme you thus to say because the fountaines be not so commodious for you as the translation This to be the true cause in deede any man may soone perceiue that throughlie indifferentlie considereth your dealing this in some examples I haue alreadie shewed and can more at large declare when occasion shall require Thirdlie that I tell you the fountaines are more pure and holesome then the latine edition Verilie this I beleeue and this can I prooue and this shal in the discourse following appeare whatsoeuer you haue alledged or can alledge to the contrarie In your entrie to the question you thinke to gaine credit to your vulgare translation by S. Ieromes authoritie pag. 294. who was requested by Damasus Bishop of Rome to correct the latine translation of the new Testament Hier. in prefat in nonū Test S. Ierome I reuerence Damasus I commend the worke I confesse to be godlie profitable to the Church But if Ierome or Damasus maie bring anie waight of commendation to your latine translation how much more ought we to haue in high and holie reuerence the Hebrewe and Greeke text which was written not by Ierome or anie such father of meane credite but by the Prophets by the Apostles and Euangelists not at the request of Damasus or other like Bishop but by commaundement from God and direction of the holie Ghost S. Ierome tooke paines at Damasus request in the foure Euangelists of his owne accord in manie bookes of the olde Testament but this maketh nothing for your assertion but
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
taken to binde a contentious heretike Thus it appeereth that although we had the verie same Autographall and authenticall copies which Moses and the other Prophets did write with their owne handes yet would this Seminary papist and his fellowes make lesse account of them then of their translation as being lesse hable to binde heretikes then it The reason is first the diuerse significations of euerie worde almoste which may seeme perhapes to some simple bodie to make for their translation against the Hebrew Whereunto I answere first that although the Hebrew were so vncertaine in respect of the manifold and diuerse significations of wordes as they would haue it yet were there noe cause whie the latine translation should more be allowed for the vndoubted word of God then the Greek or any other in the world They are all noe better then translations and what warrrant is there for one more then an oother but onelie in commendation of greater sinceritie and that in respecte of faithfully expressing the Hebrew Secondlie this variety of significations is not latelie begonne but was alwaies from the beginning which notwithstanding the Hebrewes could speake and write their mindes as plainlie and certainlie as anie other people and the scriptures were read and expounded in that language manie hundred yeares before anie parte of them was translated into Latine So that this reason maketh them now no lesse hable to binde heretikes then they haue euermore bene from the beginning And what tongue I praie you were the scriptures written in which the Apostle exhorteth Timothie to read that he might stoppe the mouthes of heretikes and which he saith are profitable to conuince the Aduersaries but in the Hebrewe and Greeke your latine translator was then vnborne when yet the scriptures in their original tongues were able to binde and confute all heretikes Your example out of the Psalme 55. ver 21. sheweth a plaine corruption in your translation For that Hebrew worde with these letters and prickes cannot signifie to reward as your translation hath but vpon those that haue peace with him as our translations for the moste haue according to the Hebrewe The second reason is pag. 433. that manie substantiues maie haue diuerse deriuations from diuerse verbes and one example is brought out of the 60. Psalme v. 6. To this maie be answered as to the former that if this diuersitie of deriuation cause a diuersitie of expositions it maketh no more against the Hebrew text now then euer since the hebrew was first written Thirdlie pag. 434. touching the literal sense of the hebrew words you demaund what masters we shall followe If a controuersie be about the signification of a word whome should we followe rather then the moste learned masters of that tongue they can best resolue vs that know the tongue best and as this for wordes in all other languages is the onelie waie so likewise if we doubt of some worde in hebrewe what meanes maie we vse to be instructed and satisfied but to learne of those that are moste skilful in the tongue and best know the naturall force of the words Who can denie that this is much better then as your translator oftentimes doth to call blacke white and to giue a signification of a worde which all Hebricians can tell is cleane amisse Examples hereof are in your translation plentifull as if before you knew not now by that which I haue alreadie alledged you maie vnderstand That which followeth of Caluine Beza and the rest hath nothing but a poore bragge not worth the mentioning To your question pag. 437. whether I thinke it flat Atheisme and Turkery to denie that Christ was borne of a virgine I answere no Christian can thinke otherwise but that it is indeed plaine Atheisme to denie this so principall an article of our faith Then you require what scripture I haue to prooue this veritie I answere I prooue this veritie by a plaine text of scripture in Matt. 1. v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beholde a virgine shall conceaue c. But this you saie prooueth nothing by mine owne rule by Bezaes common kinde of scanning such citations and by the protestants interpretation of this place What rule what scanning what interpretation of ours can you alledge against this moste sufficient and euident proofe Did euer Beza or I or anie other protestant speake anie thing against this trueth If you can charge anie of vs we desire no fauour at your hands But what cause or reason haue you thus to saie Because this texte is not according to the Hebrewe but the seauentie as you affirme Which to be a foule vntrueth and tending to Atheisme and Turcisme whoe seeth not For if the Angels wordes rehearsed in Saint Matthew be not agreeable to the veritie of the Prophets wordes then may Turkes Iewes Atheists and wicked heretikes indede at their pleasure not onelie dispute against this article of our faith but also condemne it and we shall not be hable to conuince them This aduantage giueth M. Rainolds vnto them when he saieth Saint Matthewes text is not framed according to the Hebrwe but the Greeke translation M. R. denieth the text of S. Matthewe touching Christ borne of a virgine to be according to the Hebrewe Thus while you labour to prooue that we in cleauing to the Hebrewe text doe open a gappe to Atheisme your selfe in denying S. Matthewes text to be fully agreeable to the Hebrewe haue opened a broade gate to all Atheists and Turkes in the world God forbidde that we should euer vtter word so much seruing for defense of Atheisme as you haue here done or els set downe in word or writing that S. Matthewes place is not according to the Hebrew If you take part with the Iewes and openlie maintaine that the Hebrew worde signifieth not a virgine but a young wench then will I answere you as the godlie fathers haue answered those wicked enemies of Christ that 〈◊〉 signifieth a young wench indeed but one that is a virgine being deriued of the roote that signifieth to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Saint Ieâ—â—â—â— writeth that this worde not onelie signifieth a young maide or virgine but more also a virgine kept hidâ— and secret by greate diligence of hee parents and further also a young virginus of tender age not an olde virgine as some be And although the word in Hebrew had signified onelie a wench yet the Angell and Euangelists expounding it of such a wench as was a virgine also this maie suffice all Christians to beleeue and holde that our sauiour Christ was borne of a true virgine let Iewes Turkes Atheists and heretikes say what they can to the contrarie Master R. is affraid lest men should thinke he studied to disgrace the Greeke Hebrew tongues pag. 435. c. which he confesseth to be great helps to the attaining of the true sense in sundrie places of scripture and sheweth what paines the Catholikes haue taken in
prooued For as the Apostle reasoneth if Christes person be perpetuall as it is and if he make for vs perpetuall intercession as he doth and if by his one sacrifice offered once he hath wrought a full and perfect redemption as he hath then is it hereof in proper signification prooued that Christs priesthood also is perpetuall and then haue these malapert papists blasphemed in denying the Apostles arguments to be good in proper signification which is in effect to take from them all credit and authoritie Let Master Rainolds deuise what cunning shift he can yet in truth neuer shall he be hable to wipe out this blot of blasphemie when the Apostle hath of purpose laboured to prooue Christs eternall priesthood and prooued it indeede most inuinciblie for these Collegiates of Rhemes to come in with their censure vpon the Apostle and to set downe in plaine termes that all this prooueth not the matter in proper signification and that the Apostle hath omitted the chiefe and proper proofe thereof This is a blasphemie against Christ and against the holy spirit of God by which the Apostle in writing was directed But what can Master Rainolds saie in excuse of this so manifest blasphemie pag. 534. He asketh first Where saie we that of all those things proposed by the Apostle it followeth not that Christs priesthood is eternall Must you againe be put in minde of your owne Annotation which your selfe haue at large rehearsed Haue you not therein expreslie in writing published All this prooueth not that in proper signification his priesthood is perpetuall And what differeth this from that which I haue affirmed of you Hath the Apostle propounded any thing concerning your pretended sacrifice If he hath shew vs where in what words after what sort If any thing at all can be shewed to this purpose as nothing indeed can and without this be shewed in your opinion the eternitie of Christs priesthood is no wais sufficientlie prooued doe you not plainlie declare your iudgement to be that it followeth not of al those thinges which the Apostle hath said that Christes priesthood is eternall yea but M.R. saith that they haue auouched the cleane contrary in saying that all the fathers gather of this deepe and diuine discourse the eternitie of his Priesthood The fathers indeed haue gathered of this discourse most truelie the eternitie of Christs Priesthood and therein they confute your wicked dannotation that saith all this prooueth not Christes Priesthood to be perpetuall They vnderstood the Apostle rightlie and they expounded his meaning faithfully Shew me now one ancient father if you can M. R. that euer saide as you saie that all this alledged by the Apostle prooueth not in proper signification that Christes priesthoode is perpetuall or els that he taught as you teach that Christ must continuallie be sacrificed in forme of bread and wine This is the point this shew vs if you can For in your Annotation no such thing is shewed and all the fathers confesse with one consent that the Apostle hath prooued soundly the eternitie of Christs Priesthood and that no other sacrifice remaineth to be offered but onelie a remembrance and sacrament of that one euerlasting sacrifice to be continued in the Church to the end of the world Secondlie it is confessed by Master Rainolds that the Apostle maketh not anie expresse mention of that oblation of bread and wine pag. 536. But what reason was there why the Apostle entreating of Christes eternall preisthood omitted the principall part thereof Consider good reader into what miserable straites these men are driuen and what absurde deuises they are enforced to forge For their best excuse is that because the Iewes beleeued not the first singular and soueraigne sacrifice of the crosse therefore he would not vrge them with this secondarie and dependente sacrifice of the Church Which in trueth is nothing els but a seelie shift to salue a desperate sore For first it is euident the Apostle writ to those that were not ignorant of Christian religion seeing they had learned alreadie the principles thereof and are exhorted by the Apostle to proceed to perfection therin Hebr. 6.1 Secondlie whereas the Apostle hath discoursed so plentifullie of the principal and soueraigne sacrifice what reason was there to keepe silence of the secondarie sacrifice as you call it Might they heare of the greater and not of the lesse Might the Apostle vrge so earnestlie vnto them the sacrifice of the crosse and might he not in a word mention the sacrifice of the Altar Coulde the one be more offensiue vnto them then the other Let all men iudge what trueth there is in this deuise Of that which followeth concerning this matter nothing deserueth answere pag. 540. saue onelie that Master Rainolds asketh of me whether Melchisedech did not sacrifice I saie no doubt Melchisedech did sacrifice for otherwise he had not bene a priest But Saint Paul saith he maketh no expresse mention thereof What then I praie you Forsooth by Master Whittakers iudgement Saint Paul omitteth some principall part of Melchisedechs priesthood Whoe euer heard a more foolish collection it was sufficient for the Apostle that Melchisedech was a priest which is confirmed by plaine testimonie of scripture to rehearse anie speciall kinde of sacrifice by him offered was nothing necessarie to the purpose in hand And therefore the Apostle hath not omitted any principall part of Melchisedechs priesthood vnles you will say it cannot be prooued necessarilie that one hath bene a priest except euerie particular sacrifice that euer was offered by him be recorded and auouched This being moste absurd see how vaine a conceite of yours this was that the Apostle hath omitted some principall parte of Melchisedechs priesthood because he hath not declared expresselie what speciall sacrifice Melchisedech offered An other example I noted out of the sixt Chapter to the Romanes pag. 543. c. in that notable place where the Apostle writeth that the stipend of sin is death but life euerlasting is the gift of God Rom. 6.23 Vpon these words our Rhemists haue noted that the sequell of speach required that as he saide death or damnation is the stipend of sinne so life euerlasting is the stipend of iustice and so it is Wherein euerie man may behould their intollerable saucines and presumption in setting the holie Apostle to schoole in controling his speach in corrupting his meaning For if the case had stood so clearlie and roundlie as these men teach that euen as condemnation is the stipend of finne so is eternall life the stipend of iustice it had bene as casie for the Apostle to haue so written as to alter his wordes and hauing saide that death is the wages of sinne to affirme after an other manner of speach that life euerlasting is not the wages of iustice but the gift and free gift of God And doutles according to the doctrine of S. Paul and the holie ghost it is no other
and railing against Gods truth Other confutation or condemnation shal not neede then your owne conscience which can tell you these reproches are vntrue proceeding onlie from wilfulnes and malice Our translations fauour no such Atheisme as you without wit or learning imagine For doth it follow if we translate Thou wilt not leaue my soule in graue that the blessed soule of our sauiour was mortall and died in the graue and that the immortalitie of the soule is destroied doth not the scripture oftentimes vse this kinde of speach Psa 44.25 Our soule saith Dauid is humbled in the dust Againe The waters haue entred euen vnto my soule Psa 69.2 Psa 119.25 Againe My soule cleaneth to the ground Againe he saith psal 22.21 deliuer my soule from the sword And in an other Psalme he saith O Lord thou hast brought vp my soule out of the graue Psa 30.3 And such phrases in the scriptures are vsuall of which I trust you will not gather that mens soules can be couered with dust drowned with water killed with swordes buried in the graue and to conclude that they are mortall If you were not possessed with a spirite of wrangling there needed no words in this behalfe What Castalion or Illyricus haue written against Beza or Master Carlile with some others against some places translated in our Bibles maketh nothing to purpose I haue not said otherwise but that some things may be amended whether yet so as these men haue auouched I leaue to be considered of the learned Howbeit you may not reason thus because some men haue found a fault with the translations in some one place or other whether with iudgement and reason or fansie that therfore the wholl translation is false corrupt wicked no better then Mahomets Alcoran as you haue here written after your accustomed manner blasphemouslie The rest you leaue to Master Martine pag. 275. c. whose reasons stand as yet you saie vnanswered Belike the answere you haue not seen or not perused in differentlie But M. Martin and all his reasons haue bene answered largelie and pithely long agoe and nothing hath bene replied on your part What conscience and Religion is to be vsed in translating the scriptures I knowe and am farre of from allowing such libertie as a man may take in translating profane authors neither did I euer like the daintines and curiousnes of some that refuse the vsuall wordes of scripture because they are not Ciceronian As for the names of priest Altar penance I would it were as you saie that not onelie the words were chaunged but the things vtterlie remooued from the harts of al Christians For your priests are no lawful priests your altar is erected to an Idoll your penance is contrary to true repentance The wordes Church Christ Apostle are as common in our translations sermons and all treatises as anie other That which followeth of Atheist Saducee Libertines Academikes Sacramentaries containing onely matter of reproche I am content to let it passe CHAP. 12. Concerning the Latine Bible which the aduersaries maintaine to be more sincere then the Hebrewe now extant A Man would thinke that common reason pag. 281. c. and some regard of learned iudgements might more preuaile which our aduersaries then that they should openlie defend so foule an assertion as in this Chapter Master Rainolds taketh vpon him to maintaine by warrant of the Tridentine assemblie that the vulgar latine translation is more sincere then the Hebrewe and Greeke text of scripture For though he adde this exception in sundrie places yet their meaning is that not onelie in certaine places but generallie their latine Bibles are more pure and incorrupt then the Hebrew and Greeke text because vniuersallie in their translation they pretend to follow the latin not the Hebrew of the olde Testament nor Greeke of the new and so was it in their assemblie of Trente decreede Admit this were true that you entend here to prooue doth it follow therefore that the Latine Bible is wholly to be preferred before the Hebrew Greeke Though the hebrew â—ext were in some places not so pure as the latin translatioÌ„ yet might not this be a good reason to prefer the translation before the text generallie to be onelie followed in translations to be vsed onelie in all diuinitie excercises If the latine were in some places purer then the Hebrew might not yet the Hebrew be in many moe purer and sincerer then the Latine Then this is but a slender shift to pretend more purenes in the Latine in diuerse places then in the originall text and hereupon to thrust the text behinde the translation which is more foolish vnreasonable then to make the Ladie walke one foote like a seruant and set her handmaide one horsebacke because perhaps the seruant is thought in some things to be more excellent then her mistresse Lucas Brugensis Freneis Lucas in Epist ad Serletum a man of your owne housholde and one that hath taken much paines to correct your Latine translation confesseth that manie faultes haue crepte into the same by diuers occasions which he saith is no maruell seeing the like hath fallen out in the verie fountaine it felfe as it is plaine in the new Testament in Greeke For saith he of the olde in Hebrew I will speake nothing not daring to affirme that such faultes haue taken place in the hebrew text of the olde Testament But you are bolde blindelie and bluntlie to auouch that both these fountaines are not onelie corrupted but more corrupted also then your translation which Lucas was afraid and ashamed once to insinuate Your reasons if you bring anie shal in their seueral places following be examined but good reason for your defence in this behalfe am I assured can none be brought Three things the Reader must cary in minde at your request First that we pretending to translate after the Greeke and Hebrew in sundrie places swarue from the Greeke and Hebrewe as you prooue by diuers examples out of Master Martine Secondlie that our departing from the Greeke is alwaies in matter of controuersie Thirdlie that you decline not from the Greeke or Hebrewe because it more harmeth your cause then the Latine but for other causes Whatsoeuer Gregorie Martine to whome you referre your selfe hath written of these points it hath beene alreadie confuted and yet standeth confuted and therefore no more needeth to be answered What causes moued you to preferre the latine before the Hebrew or Greeke it shall appeare in place reasons I know are rendred in the preface of your translation by your Remish translatours but such as any man of skil and knowledge maie easilie espie to be simple shiftes and pretences onelie to ridde your selues from the originall text of scripture The papists condemne the Originall text and defende the vulgar translation because that serueth their turne nothing so wel in shew as this which is far more expresse and pregnant
no dout accompanied in some princelie sorte they muste needs haue bene discried Thirdlie if they had bene as you imagine kings yea and Monarches as great as the king of France and Spayne or the great Sophie of Persia which you suppose might be then would they not haue left our sauiour Christ and his Mother in that poore estate that she was able to offer no more but a paire of doues according to the oblation of the poorest amongst the people If you can remooue the ground of these reasons I will confesse your opinion hath in it more probability then I thought although to beleeue it as you do for a certaine truth I cannot because thereof I know no sure reason can be alleadged The fathers I graunt some of them speake of these wise men as of kings taking that word in a larger sense for great and honorable personages such as may be thought that they were but the ground of their opinion is a place of scripture misunderstoode in the 72. Psalme concerning the kings of Tharsis Arabia and Sheba that should bring giftes which cannot be applied to these for so much as those countries are not Eastward from Iudea and the scripture plainly saith that these wise men came out of the East Therefore whatsoeuer any father hath written to this purpose is lightlie to be regarded hauing no better ground then a manifest wresting of scripture and turning South into East Now that they were also three pag. 489. how may it be prooued forsooth here is a mysterie of the blessed Trinitie whereunto Saint Augustine most sweetlâ—e alludeth At this most heauenlie mysterie Master Rainolds none will be grieued saue onelie most wicked and detestable heretikes indeed But how appeareth it that these wise men did represent and signifie that mysterie Saint Augustine and Leo saie so and therefore we must beleeue it is so Which argument I will admit if because their oblations were of three thinges therefore it follow necessarilie that them-selues whoe offered were three Yet Master Rainolds hath a better reason then this if it will be accepted The Euangelist saith he speaketh of them in the duall number and therefore they were moe then two but we neede not to beleeue that they were moe then three Neither need we to beleeue that they were iuste three for the Euangelist speaking of them indefinitlie as he doth we may as well thinke they were moe then three as well as three and so also indeede some fathers haue thought So that this hangeth vpon a slender threede of mans coniecture which cannot be warranted by mysticall expositions And if herein were conteined so sweete and excellent mysteries much maie we maruell why the Euangelistes would not plainelie write for better vnderstanding of this mysterie that they were neither fewer nor moe then iust three Lastlie touching their names pag 490. Master R. asketh seeing they were not nameles why their names were not Gaspar Melchior Baltasar rather then William Iohn and Thomas I graunt as well maie we thinke the one as the other but reason is there none to thinke either That their names might haue bene continued in the Church I denie not as well as those forcerers names were of whome S. Paule maketh mention And so standeth your argument Their names might be such therefore they were such they might be three therefore they were three they might be Kings therefore they were Kings And thus in Popish traditions the argument holdeth well a posse ad esse contrarie to the rules of all Logique in the world But enough of these three counterfaite Kinges of Colen That Iohn the Baptist was an Eremite pag. 482. and patrone of Eremiticall life is as likelie as the other First scripture haue you none for this Tradition of yours for then it were not a right tradition if you could bring something out of scripture for confirmation thereof The Euangelists saie not that he liued alone from companie of men in the wildernes as your Eremites did but that he liued in that countrie of Iudea which in respect of other parts therof more populous Hierâ—â— in vis a Paâ—li was called the desert of Iudea Then whatsoeuer you alledge out of fathers may in a worde by another father be disprooued who denieth that Elias and Iohn were Monckes and saith that Antonius and Paulus were thought to be the first fathers of Eremites Concerning the stone that hitt S. Pag. 493. Stephen on the elbowe and nowe is kept at Ancona in Italie Master Rainolds will not stand greatlie in maintenance of this fable but referreth vs to Saint Augustine in a counterfaite sermon Yet that such a thing might be he prooueth by example of Aharons rod and the Manna which were by Gods speciall commaundement preserued in the Arke But was there anie like commandement or cause to keepe the stone that rebounded from Saint Stephens body shew vs some and then we say no more For Elias comming before the last iudgement are alledged sundrie Doctors pag. 494 So then belike all is safe on their side if they can approoue their opinions and expositions by Testimonies of some Doctors But this will not serue vnles the Doctors saying be warranted by Gods worde as we haue a thousande times tolde them Now this imagination of Elias comming is by the wordes of our sauiour Christ plainlie confuted whoe teacheth that Elias Mat. 17.13 according to the prophecie of Melachie was come alreadie and the Apostles vnderstood that he meant of Iohn the Baptist whoe was Elias not in person but in spirite and power Then the prophecie of Elias comming being fulfilled in Iohn Baptist as our sauiour himselfe hath taught vaine is it to dreame of an other comming then that wherof no worde can be found in all the scriptures of God Wherefore as you compare the fathers with vs to make your cause seeme the more probable so will I compare the scriptures with the fathers whose authoritie is much more incomparablie aboue theirs then theirs is aboue ours by how much God is more aboue man then one man is aboue another Your faults in framing arguments out of the text of scripture pag. 497. are most incredible monstrous such as I gathered some out of your Annotations vpon the new testament as your selues had deliuered them vnto vs. You cannot otherwise doe but take vpon you some seelie defense of your fellowes Collections whether with greater ignorance or boldnes I can not tell Christ and Peter walked on the waters Matt. 14.26 therefore it is euident that Christs bodie may be in compasse of a litle bread This to be a most false argument not onelie in true Diuinitie but also in naturall reason is manifest For had Christ or Peter a bodie that both walked on the water and walked not on the water at one time Doe the scriptures so teach or is there no such thing to be found in them If not then is not this like to you
imagined presence of Christs bodie in the sacrament which being graunted according to your doctrine of transsubstantiation inferreth moste necessarilie that Christs bodie at once is both compassed in a litle bread which is contrarie to the nature of a mans true bodie and also is not compassed therein as sitting in heauen and hauing the naturall properties of a true bodie which cannot be brought within so narrowe a compasse as is your wafer cake This is repugnant to scripture to reason to Gods ordinaunce and therefore a moste absurde and impossible thing is it that Christs bodie should remaine a true naturall bodie and yet at once be contained in so small a compasse as you teach In that Christ and Peter walked on the water no such inconuenience nor absurditie can be found whether the waters were made by miracle firme as the ground or the bodies were sustained by Gods power that they suncke not Christ might beare vp him-selfe and Peter from sincking downe by his diuine power and chaunge no naturall propertie of his or Peters bodie but Christs bodie can not be brought into that slender compasse of your mathematicall cake without destruction of all properties incident vnto a natural body So then betweene these two is no likenes at all as any man not blinded with Popish folly and not wilfullie shutting his eyes against the cleare light may manifestlie perceiue Wherefore distrusting this argument you protest that your note consisteth not so much thereupon as in the authoritie of Epiphanius whoe hath not anie worde at all to this purpose For tell vs Master Rainolds doth Epiphanius drawe an argumente from Christs walking on the water to prooue his bodie reallie present in the sacramentall bread No such matter can you finde in Epiphanius or any auncient father of Christs Church That which Christ hath said he that beleeueth not to be true is fallen from grace and saluation as Epiphanius writeth but Christ hath neuer said that his bodie should be in the compasse of a litle bread Howbeit what talke you of a litle bread when you teach no bread at all remaineth but onelie signes and shadowes of bread False is your doctrine and foolish is your argument but bad reasons are good enoughe for such a bad religion Of Peters walking on the water pag. 498 is gathered an other argument of like qualitie to prooue the Popes supreme authoritie which argument was first inuented and deuised by Saint Bernarde in his second booke and eight Chapter to Eugenius a Pope Manie waters are many people Peter walked on the waters therefore Peter and his successors are rulers ouer manie people saith good Saint Bernarde to whome your Pope is greatlie bound for deuising such a fine argument which no auncient Doctor was able to finde But must we now receiue Bernards phantasies for substantiall proofes of the papall supremacie No Master Rainolds Saint Bernarde hath no warrant to make allegories at his pleasure for confirmation of that Antichristian tiranny which in those daies was established Your comparison of this argument with that of Christs about the brasen serpent and of Pauls concerning Isaac and Ismael is no better then blasphemous Might Saint Bernarde with like authoritie reason thus Peter walked on the waters therefore he and his successors are supreme gouernours of the vniuersall Church as Christ did shew the manner of his death by the lifting vp of the brasen serpent in the desert or as Saint Paul did prooue the haued and persecution of false brethren against the true Christians by example of Ismael and Isaac Had Bernard the fullnes of wisdome and trueth that was in Christ was Bernard alwaies directed with that spirit wherewith Saint Paul expounded the scriptures of God Here we may see how baselie you thinke of Gods word to match therewith mens seelie expositions and applications such as Saint Bernards often times were and this moste notablie is An argument is gathered for workes of supererogation pag. 499. out of the Samaritanes wordes whatsoeuer thou shalt bestow more or as it is by them translated Luc. 10.35 whatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate This argument saith Master Rainolds followeth wel enough and is Saint Augustins conclusion to prooue that Saint Paul did supererogate when he might haue receiued all duties for preaching the Gospell but would not That men may remit some part of their due and doe more towardes men outwardlie then they can of necessitie be vrged to doe no man will denie and thus may one man be said to supererogate towards another but what maketh this for workes of supererogation towards God whoe requireth both inward and outward obedience of vs in moste absolute manner For reall presence a like argument to the first is gathered of Christs transfiguration Pag. 499. whereof yet Master Rainolds being ashamed saith it is not their argument Matt. 17. â— but onelie a deduction that Christ maie giue vs his bodie in forme of bread and wine A proper deduction no doubt of a glorious bodie to prooue no bodie That Saints can heare and helpe vs euerie where pag. 500. because they are like to Angels is a verie bad argument Mat. 22.30 considering that neither Angels can so do for then were they of equall power with God and though Saints are like to Angels as in other things so in this that they marrie not yet it followeth not that therefore they are equall to Angels You are glad of such arguments hauing no other but if ye had better ye would not esteeme such Ioseph wrapped Christs bodie in sindon pag. 501. Therefore Christs bodie on the altar must be laid in pure linnen Mat. 27.59 In this argument Master Rainolds cannot tell what I mislike whether the reall presence or the linnen vsed at the altar as it was in the sepulcher or the relation from one to the other I answere in a worde I mislike all there being no trueth in anie of all The women came to beholde the sepulcher pag. 502. Ergo we must goe to the holie sepulcher in pilgrimage Matt 28.1 This argument Master Rainolds confesseth cannot indeede prooue that we must but that we maie goe in pilgrimage by example of those godlie and zealous women which yet is a false and fond deduction seing there is no such like cause for vs to goe as was for them That Christ appeered to the twoe disciples in another forme pag. 504. cannot prooue that he is in the sacrament in forme of bread Mark 16.12 for somuch as in Christs bodie noe alteration at this time was wrought but onelie the disciples eies were helde that they know him not as Saint Luke expreslie noteth Luk. 34.16 For your exorcisme in baptisme argument you saie you made none of Christes saying to the dombe and dease Ephpheta Mat. 7.34 If no argument no proofe if no proofe then no cause to vse by example of Christ such exorcisme in you baptismes pag. 505. Luk. 1.3