AMONG sundrie cōtrouer­sies raysed by the Protes­tants in our dayes, one and that of greate weyght and consequence, is the Canon of holy Scriptures, that is, what bookes are to be admitted into diuine and supreme authoritye, and as certaynlye wryt­ten by inspiration of the holy Ghoste to be receaued without any doubte or contradiction. In examininge which question, the behauiour of our aduer­saries deserueth diligent considerati­on. For as in the beginning, they much praysed the Fathers, Church, & Coun­cels of the firste fiue hundred yeares, [Page 2] not for any respecte or reuerence they bare vnto them, The proce­ding of the new gospel. but by so doinge to discountenance and thrust out of cre­dite, the Fathers, Church and Coun­cels of the later thowsand, by whom they saw most euidently their heresies to haue bene condemned: so not long after, for lyke purpose, they made vaūt of the scriptures, agaynst those very first and moste auncient Fathers, not for any iuste honor or regarde which they had of the scriptures, but by that meanes to disgrace the Fathers, and ease them selues of answering their au­thoritye, when soeuer they should be pressed therewith. For that in deede they accompte not of the very scrip­tures more then of the Fathers, but turne them ouer for vs to defende no lesse then the Fathers, time and expe­rience hath shewed, their publike wry­tinges professe (as by that which here­after ensueth, shall manifestly appeare) and M. Whitaker though in worde he would fayne dissemble the matter, yet in facte and truth playnly declareth so much. which being so, let the Christi­an Reader as in other things, so in this especially note the proceeding of that which these men call the gospell, the [Page 3] grosse impietie wherevnto it tendeth, and in to what open profession of infi­delitie in a shorte space it is likely to breake out, which in the compasse of so few yeares is growen to such a head, that now already they dare as boldly call in question and deny partes of the holy scriptures, as not long sithence they made the like quarels against the wrytings of the auncient Fathers. Let the Christian Reader note I say, not their wordes, but their doinges, not their coūterfeit dissimulatiō in speach & pulpit sometyme vsed, but their eui­dent practise, reasons & asseuerations published in bookes, confirmed by ar­guments, deduced by necessarie cohe­rence from their doctrine, and many wayes expressed by them selues in sun­dry their Cōferences, Institutions, and disputations, and he shall easely per­ceaue our aduersaries after denyall of the Fathers, Councels, Tradition, and the authoritie of the Church Catho­like, now at this present to stand vpon lyke deniall of the written worde, the Apostles & Prophets, so as they leaue no one ground whereupon a christian man can rest his fayth, or stay him selfe. Thus much I gather not onely by the [Page 4] writinges of sundry other Protestants whereof some I shall touch hereafter, but euen of M. Whitakers discourse in defence of Luther about S. Iames Epi­stle. whose words and reasons for this purpose and the Readers better intel­ligence, I will sett downe and prose­quute somewhat the more at large.

And firste of all concerning S. Iames his Epistle, M. Martin repro­ueth M. Whitaker for denyinge that Luther called that Epistle stramincam, and in so cleare a case charged Father Campian with a notorius lye. It is easie to gesse (sayth M.W. In prefat. pag. 2.) vvhat a fellovv vve shall fynde you in the reste, vvho are not a­shamed in the very beginning to lye so egregi­ously. When F. Campian replyed that it was in some one of Luthers first editi­ons, though otherwyse altered in the later: In respons. ad episto. Campiani. nether so sayth M.W. Praefationem illam purgatam esse dixisti, quam tamen con­stat nullo vnquam verbo mutatam esse. You saye that preface vvas corrected, vvhereas it is certayne that there vvas neuer anye vvorde changed in it. Now this being the faulte which M. Martin layeth to M. W. see how wel he defendeth himselfe. First, because after he had read ouer all Luthers prefaces vpon the new Testa­ment [Page 5] (as he sayth) he found none such, there of he inferreth: prefa. pag. 2. He is not to be ac­counted impudent (as you call me,) vvho deni­eth that to be true vvhich he knovveth not to be true, but he that to deceaue others defendeth that as false vvhich he knovveth to be most true. but I am so farre from acknovvledging this to be true, that I neuer thought it to be more false then I thinke it novv. I will not wrangle vpon the definition of impu­dency but whether this dealing be not moste shamelesse and detestable in a Christian, let any man of indifferencie iudge.

1 First it can not be excused of grosse and insolente boldnesse and rashnesse, vpon the vew of one onely edition to deny so peremptorily a thing obiected so often, The Here­tikes cor­rupt their ovvne vvry­ters. by so many learned men of name, and for ought I coulde yet reade or heare, neuer denyed by the Luthe­rans: especially, whereas withall no­thing is more notorious, 2 then the ma­nifold alteratiōs which Melanchton and those of VVittenberge haue made in Lu­thers works, corrupting, deprauing, putting in, and taking out, so much and so far forth, as pleased their chāge­able humor: where of the zealous Lu­therans in a synode holden at Altem­burg, [Page 6] by procurement of the Duke of Wirtemberg, Anno 1568. Colloq. Alt. in respo. ad excusa. cor. fol. 227. and Palsgraue of Rhene, lamentably complayne. Electorales (say they) Lutheri scripta enormiter quám faedis­simé deprauant, ita vt post obitū Lutheri &c. The Diuines of the Prince Elector, do most filthely and beyonde all measure depraue Luthers vvrytings, so as since Luthers death there haue not bene more foule corrupters of Luthers bookes. In the same Councel ma­ny times they fal into this argumēt, and each side in most spitefull termes ob­iecte to others this faulte, as may be seene, if you liste to peruse the pages here noted in the margent. And in fine there is promise made, 2. Respō. ad Hipothe. a fol. 284. ad fo. 290. & fo. 353.355.441 442.443.526. as a matter of great importance, and one of Hercules labours, that the Duke of Saxonie will cause Luthers workes to be printed without corruption. Illustrissimus Dux Saxoniae, Ibi. Saxoni. ad respons. de difcess. fo. 539.540. curabit tomos Lutheri sine depraua­tione typis excudi. which notwithstāding is perhaps a harder thing thē the Duke of Saxonie can perfourme, though his power were much greater then it is. What speake I of the Lutherans, with whom Luthers wordes be autenticall and litle inferior to scripture, whereas the very Caluinists, and that in Geneua, [Page 7] where Caluin is all in all, yet notwith­standing haue in their prints corrupted Luthers works. whereof Ioachim. Vvestphalus in apologia contra calū. Cal. ca. 46. pag. 458. VVest­phalus a Lutheran thus wryteth in his Apologie against the slanders of Cal­uin. I Marueil much (sayeth he) that Cal­uin keeping such a doe about this one vvord, could not see the most filthy mutations and corruptions of the diuine commentarie of D. The vvorks of Luther corrupted by the Cal­uinistes in Geneua. Luther vpon the epistle to the Galatians, and translated into French, and printed at Geneua. In one place some vvordes are taken avvay, in an other many mo, some vvhere vvhole paragraphs are lopte of. Detruncaeti. in the exposition of the sixte chapter, tvvo pages and an halfe are lefte out. vvhere Luther doth reproue the Sacra­mentaries, there especially those falsifiers tooke to them selues libertie to mutilate, to take a­vvay, to blotte out and change. some vvhere they remoue the name of Sacramentaries, at o­ther tymes they haue put in vvordes such as pleased them. and that this vvas done at Ge­neua vvithout Caluins knovvledge, it is not very lykely.

3 And touching this very place wher­of we treate, when Coclaeus obiected it to Bullinger, as now M. Martin did to M. W. he answered, (not denyinge that which was so publyke and notorious) but, Guperem Lutherum sobrié magis, modesta­us [Page 8] & circumspectius &c. Bull resp. ad Cocle. ca. 3. I vvoulde to God Luther had iudged and geuen his sen­tence more soberlye, discreetelye, and circumspectly of Sainte Iames his Epistle, and the Apocalips of Sainte Iohn; and certayne other.

4 Add we herevnto M. W. owne con­fession set downe in this preface. Pag. 4. I con­fesse (sayth he) that Luther hath vvritten in a certen place, that Iames his Epistle is not to be compared vvith the Epistles of Peter and Paule, and that in comparison of them it may be iudged an epistle made of stravv. Which a man would thinke were sufficiente to cleare M. Martin and M. Campian, and to condemne Luther and M. Whitaker. For how or in what comparison coulde Luther so speake, but onely to disgrace that epistle, & in respect of other scrip­ture to make it light and contemptible: that is, not to make it scripture at all. For if he thought it to proceede from the holy Ghost as did the bookes of the Prophets, the Gospels, and Epistles of Sainte Paule, how coulde he without intollerable iniurye done to the holy Ghost so debase that wryting, which he beleeued to proceede from his diuine inspiration. Ibid. But M. Whitaker reply­eth: That vvorde albeit I defende not, [Page 9] yet iustly may I say that Luther is iniuried vvhen he is accused to haue reiected as made of stravv that epistle, and playnely and sim­ply to haue named it so, vvhereas he called it so in comparison: especially vvhereas these vvordes are not founde in the bookes of later printes. and excepte I by chaunce had happe­ned vpon a most auncient edition, I might haue sought long inough in the later. Manifest contradicti­on. Con­fesse you then that there hath bene such choppinge and changinge in Luthers workes, that the one differ so far from the other, & namely in this very point? How standeth this now with your for­mer bold asseueration: It is certaine, there vvas neuer any one vvorde changed therein? And what reason haue you better to credit these later printes sett furth by Luthers scholers, then the auncient set furth by the maister and author Luther him selfe.

5 But to end this matter, may it please you to reade Father Duraeus, Duraeus fol. 8. there shall you be informed in what print and edi­tion of Luther, S. Iames e­pistle deny­ed by the Protestāts. these wordes are to be reade, to wit, not in the later of VVittē ­berg corrected and corrupted by the ci­uill Lutherans, but in the more aunci­ent of Iena, a Citie in religion lutherish to, but yet after a more exacte and pre­cise [Page 10] order then are those other. There may you finde that Pomerane a greate Euangelist among the lutherans, tou­chinge S. Iames Epistle wryteth thus. Fayth vvas reputed to Abraham for iustice. by this place thou mayest note the error of the epistle of Iames, Pomeran. ad Rom. ca. 8. vvherein thou feest a vvic­ked argument. besides that he concludeth ridi­culously, he citeth scripture against scripture, vvhich thing the holy Ghost can not abyde: vvherefore that epistle may not be numbred a­mongest other bookes, vvhich set foorth the ius­tice of fayth. There may you finde Vitus Theodorus preacher of Norimberg in hye Germanie, In Annot. in [...]o. Test. pag. v [...]i. wryting thus. The epistle of Iames, and Apocalips of Iohn, vve haue of set purpose lefte out, S. Iames e­pistle & the Apocalips lefte out of the Protest­ants bibles. because the epistle of Iames is not onely in certayne places reprouable, vvhere be to much aduaunceth vvorkes a­gaynst fayth, but also his doctrine through out is patched together of dyuers peeces, vvhereof no one agreeth vvith an other. Vnto these you may add for your better satisfacti­on the iudgement of the Centuries, noted by F. Campian though not touched by you. C [...]. 1. li. 2. c. 4. colum. 54. They say, that the epistle of Iames much svvarueth from the analogie of the Apostoli­call doctrine, vvhereas it ascribeth iustificati­on not to onely fayth but to vvorks, and calleth the lavv, a lavv of libertie. And in the next [Page 11] booke: Cent. 2. ca. 4. colum. 71. Against Paule and against all scrip­tures, the epistle of Iames attributeth iustice to vvorkes, and peruerteth as it vvere of set purpose, that vvhich Paule disputeth Rom. 4. out of Genes. 15. that Abraham vvas iustifi­ed by onely fayth vvithout vvorkes, and af­firmeth, that Abraham obteyned iustice by vvorkes. Luther. 10.5. in 1. Pc. ca. 1. You may add Luther him selfe in his commentarie vpon S. Peter. ep. 1. ca. 1. fol. 439.440. in the common edi­tion of Wittemberg, where after he hath geuen many rules taken from his owne licentious doctrine, wherby to discerne the true and canonicall scriptures from false and Apocriphal, of them al thus he concludeth. pa. 442. Atque inde etiam fa­cile discitur epistolam D. Iacobi nomine in­scriptam, handquaquam Apostolicam esse e­pistolam: nullum enim prope elementum in ea de his rebus legis. Hereby vve easely learne, that it is no Apostolical Epistle, vvhich goeth in S. Iames his name: for there is in it no letter or title of these matters: that is, of onely fayth, confidence, resurrection &c. whereby we must esteeme of true & ca­nonical scriptures. 6 And that this fault lye not altogether vpon Luther and the lutherās, VVolfg. Musculus, a famous wry­ter amongst the Zuinglians, vpon lyke reason pronounceth lyke sentence. They [Page 12] obiect vnto vs (sayeth he) the place of Iames. Muscu. in lo­cis cōmu. ca. de lusti. num. 5. pag. 271. but he vvhatsoeuer he vvere, though he speake othervvise then S. Paule, yet may he not pre­iudice the truth. And after he hath at large shewed the disagreemente betweene those two Apostles, thus he breaketh forth into the open reproch of S. Iames. VVherefore he (S. Iames) alleageth the ex­ample of Abraham nothinge to the purpose, vvhere he sayeth, vvilte thou knovv ô vayne man, that fayth vvithout vvorkes is dead? A­braham our Father vvas he not iustified by vvorkes vvhen he offred his sonne Isaak? He confoundeth the vvord, fayth. hovv much bet­ter had it bene for him, diligently and playne­ly to haue distinguished the true and proper­lye Christian fayth, vvhich the Apostle euer preacheth, from that vvhich is common to Ievves and Christians, Turks and Diuels, then to confound them both, and set dovvne his sen­tence so different from the Apostolicall doc­trine, vvhereby as concluding he sayth: you see that a man is iustified by vvorkes, and not by fayth alone, vvhereas the Apostle out of the same place disputeth thus &c. And after he hath made S. Paule speake as he thin­keth best, he inferreth: Thus sayeth the A­postle of vvhose doctrine vve doubt not. Com­pare me novv vvith this argument of the A­postle, the conclusion of this Iames: A man ther­fore [Page 13] is iustified by vvorks and not by fayth on­ly, and see hovv much it differeth, vvhereas he should more rightly haue cōcluded thus &c. In which discourse the Reader may see that he not onely contemptuously refu­seth to call him an Apostle, and euer na­meth him as opposite to the Apostle, but also that he refuteth him as making false arguments, and taketh vpon him to be his maister, and as it were calling him ad ferulam, checketh and controw­leth him for a corrupter of scripture, misapplying the word of God, and wic­kedly pullinge downe that which S. Paule had so wel built vp.

All which beinge so plaine, eui­dent, and manifest, and the worde, stra­minea found out at length, & acknow­leged by M. VV. a man wold thinke all this matter ended, and that egregious lye fathered vpon M. Campian, turned vpon M. VV. head, & withall M. Cam­pians first reason iustified, wherein he burdened the Protestantes with de­nial of the holy scriptures. And yet M. VV. yeldeth not, but like a valiant sol­diar is so farre from geuinge ouer, that he pursueth his aduersarie still, as though he had the better of him and wh [...]e so? or how can he possiblie de­fend [Page 14] him self? forsoothe, because Luther non plane & [...] stramineam appellauit: pag. 4. Luther sayed not playnlye and simplye that it vvas stravven, or made of stravve, but in comparison of Sainte Peter, and Sainte Paules Epistles. I beleeue in deede: Ne­ther did F. Campian or M. Martine saye so, or any wise man els for although he were as madde and shamelesse in his assertions, as euer was heretike, yet to haue termed that epistle [...] stramineam, simplye made of stravve, or any otherwise then to haue signified the vnworthynes of the same in respect of holie scriptures, (and in that sort, it is [...] a worde of blasphemous con­tempt) had bene as wonderful, as [...] to haue affirmed that is was made of woode, or morter.

And here in the verie fronte and beginning, let the reader note in M.VV. the liuely paterne of a perfecte wran­gler, maintaininge a continuall bab­linge vppon wordes, and neuer draw­ing nigh to the pointe. Father Campians and M. Martins charge vppon them beinge euidente, that they contemne the written worde, as is proued by Lu­ther, M.VV. nota­ble vvrang­linge. M.VV. knowinge not wel what to say, runneth he knoweth not whether, [Page 15] vp and downe, and aboute, forwarde, and backward, now grauntinge, and by and by recalling: so that in the com­passe of one leafe, in one plaine mat­ter, he hath more contrary windinges and turnings, then a graue and sober man could be driuen vnto, in the wry­ting of a large volume. 1 First there is no suche thinge, and F. Campian lyeth egre­giously. nowe him selfe hath founde it out. 2 then there was neuer a worde chaunged in Luthers preface. now the later editions differ much from the for­mer. 3 againe, Luther calleth it not sim­pliciter stramineam, but in respect of S. Paules epistles, and S. Peters. 4 If this serue not the turne, then I require you (saith he), to bring forth the other wordes that folow, arida, tumida, con­tentiosa, or els this of straminea is no great matter. yet one fetche more. 5 Al­though I vvil not defend this of Luthers, yet you haue iniuried him, in saying that he cal­led it omnino stramineam, altogether made of stravv. looke (saith M. Martin) in Illyricus and there you shall finde the matter graunted. I haue so done (saith M.VV. pag. 3.) & let me be counted impudent, yf you finde this vvord there. Thus muche I graunt, Illyri­cus saith that Luther rehearseth graue causes, [Page 16] vvhy this epistle ought not to be esteemed for a vvriting of Apostolicall authoritye. 6 But vvhat is this to the purpose? as though he that denieth the epistle to be apostolical, ter­meth yt stramineam, made of stravv. This is a copie of M.VV. vayne in wryting, first to deny the matter be it neuer so eui­dent, and whē the matter is cōfessed thē to cauil vpon syllables, and when mat­ter, and forme, & the verie syllables are founde, yet to yelde to nothing, but to keepe the pen or tounge walking: as though in this point lyke verball gram­marians and ridiculous sophisters, we principallie hunted after these syllables stra mi ne am (which neuerthelesse are found) and not as students & searchers of truth in diuinitye, soughte out first and cheeflie, whether by these and the lyke contemptible speeches, the aduer­sarie laboured to disgrace & deface that Apostolical writing, and so impiouslie to auoyde suche authoritie, when he should be pressed therewith.

Wherefore to draw to some issue, howsoeuer Luther [...] called it stra­mineam or called it not, or whether he spake so in respect of the matter of the epistle, or the forme, or by way of comparison with S. Paule, or whatsoeuer [Page 17] other quidditie M.W. ether now hath or hereafter shall deuise, if Luther did yt [...] to deface the epistle, which M.VV. denieth not, and to dispossesse it of Ca­nonicall authoritie as the thing it self speaketh, if by his example the Ger­mane Diuines & churches altogether contemne it, if vppon Luthers senten­ce Illyricus pronounce, Illirieus in praefa. Iac. that Luther in his praeface rendereth great causes, vvhy this epistle oughte in no case to be accounted for a vvriting of Apostolicall authoritie, vnto vvhich reasons I thinke euerie godlie man and not geuen to contention ought to yeld, if Pomerane say, the vvriter thereof maketh a vvicked argument & concludeth ridiculous­lie, if Vitus Theodorus thrust it cleane out of the booke, if the Centuries affirme that it svvarueth from the Apostolicall do­ctrine, and teacheth cleane contrarie to S. Paule and all scriptures, if Luther flatly & expresly deny it to be Apostolical, and affirme it to conteyne no one title or letter of such matter as the Apostels are wont to hādle, if Wolfgāgus Musculus vse him so contemptuouslie, as though he were some poore rascall not worth the naming, and teache him what he should say, and sette him to schole: this being euident, then F. Campions conclu­sion [Page 18] standeth strong, Had it not bene a goodly matter & vvorthy the labour of such greate men in the Tovver dis­putations, to discusse vvhether Luther called S. I [...]mes E­pistle stra­mine [...], made of stravve, simply or ō ­ly in com­parison? that Luther with his complices contemne that parte of scrip­ture, howsoeuer he calleth it [...] or [...] strawen or wodden And therefore ether let M. VV. lyke a good childe confesse with Luther, Cont. Cam­pi. pag. 198. vvhom gladlie he vvorshippeth as his father, and vvith the Lutherans, vvhom he embraceth as his most deere brethren in Christ, that this epistle is no more worth then his father and brethren make of it, or if he mislike such consanguinitie (as sure I am they abhorre him) let him then detest them as profane and wicked men, who so im­piouslie reiecte the written worde of God, that is, the foundation, as they say. whereon is buylte their newe con­gregation. and so may the reader note downe one more capital and substan­tiall point of dissension betwene those two churches lutheran & zuinglian, then he [...]herto he hath cons [...]dered. although nether can he so doe precisely, but ra­ther note it as a diuision amonge the zuinglians also, for so muche as it ap­peareth by Musculus, that the Zuinglians of Suitzerlād, no lesse then the Lutherās of Germanye, disagree from the En­glishe churche in their Canon of scrip­ture, yea the Englishe church within [Page 19] it self, as shal appeare in the nexte cha­piter.

AFTER S. Iames foloweth a questiō proposed by M. Mar­tin, Pag. 4. how it chaūceth that the English church doth admit S. Iames epistle which sometime was not admitted, and yet wil refuse Tobias, Eccle­siasticus, & the books of Machabees, which were no farther disproued, then that of S. Iames. The reason in truth is, & the same in effecte geuen by M.VV. Whit. cont. Camp. pag. 17.1 [...].19. because these later contayne such proofe of the Ca­tholyke religion, as by no sophisticatiō can be eluded. S. Iames they thinke is not so flat, but shifts they haue to ridde their handes of him well inough. So much writeth Caluin. Some there are, that thinke this epistle not vvorthie of authoritie, Cal. in argu­ment. ep Ia. but I because I see no sufficiente cause vvhy it should be reiected, The Here­tikes sit in iudgemente vpon the scriptures, & allovv & disallovve as they find moste fit for their sectes. gladly vvithout contro­uersie embrace it. for vvhereas the doctrine of [Page 20] free iustification semeth to be refuted in the se­cond chapiter, in his place I shall easelie ansvvere that matter. As if he had sayd, that therefore he admitted it, because he had found out a quidditie to auoide that hard obiection agaynst only faith. which answere notwithstāding because it is false, peeuish, sophistical, and cannot abide the tryall, as wel proueth Illyricus, Pomerane & Musculus, they ther­fore thought the other way more clean­lie, rather vppō pretēce of some doubte made in the primitiue churche, cleane to shake it of with the rest, then vppon a vaine toy which must in fine shame it selfe, make hazard of their solifidian iustificatiō, which must needes come to the grounde, if this Apostle retaine his old credite. This I say in deede is the reason, but because thus to haue spoken plainlie, had geuen a sure demonstratiō to the reader, that they make no more account of scriptures then of fathers, no more reckning of Iames or Peter, then of Gregorie or Austin if they be against their conceaued heresies, therefore M. VVhit. semeth to shape a more cleanlie an­swere, and this yt is.

Whit. pag. 5. All the church (saith he) reproued not the epistle of Iames, and they that reproued it [Page 21] vvere moued so to doe by no sure reasons: The reason why the en­glish clear­gie admitte some books of scripture and refuse others. but these bookes vvhich you name, Tobias, Eccle­siasticus, the Machabees, the vvhole churche of old reiected: nether vvere they vvritten in the Hebrevv tounge, vvhereas no bookes of the old testament vvere Canonicall but onlie those, vvhich the lord commended to the old churche. Two reasōs he seemeth to geue, the first that no bookes in the olde Te­stamēt are Canonicall but such as were written in the Hebrew, the proofe wherof consisting onlie in M.VV. autho­ritie without ether reason, or proba­bilitye, or Doctor, or Councell, if I op­pose against him S. Augustine with the catholike churche of that age, Aug. de doct chri. li. 2. c. 8. I trust the reader wil not greatlie stagger which syde he ought to take. A ca. 2. vers. 4. vs (que) ad fi­nem 7. ca. and if this reason hold, I marueile what shall become of Daniel, a great parte wherof is held of them for Canonical, & yet is not writtē in the Hebrew. His other argument is of more force, that the vvhole primitiue church refused the bookes of Machabees, Pag. 5. Iudith, & Tobie: but certaine onlv, & that vppon no good reason refused S. Iames. These two partes if he proue, and shew this difference, he sayth somewhat, & I wil be of iudgement as he is. if not (whereof I assure my self) then as befo­re, [Page 22] so here styll, lust and fantasie ruleth them in mangling thus the scriptures, not reason & diuinytie. let vs see how he proueth that the whole churche re­iected the former. S. Hierom sayth, the church readeth the bookes of Iudith, Tobias, & the Machabees, but reckeneth thē not amongst canonicall scriptures. This for them. how may we fynd now, that not the whole churche but some particuler men, and they not vppon any good reason refu­sed S. Iames? For this part we must cre­dit M.VV. vppon his worde. for besyde his worde, reason or coniecture he yel­deth none, but cōtrariwise to disproue this his distinction, and approue that without reason or conscience, he and his fellowes haue made choyse of the one with condemnation of the other, thus to do M.VV. him selfe ministreth vs mattet abundant. for thus he wryteth in his first booke in iustifiynge frier Luther against S. Contr. Cāp. pag. 9. vide ibi pa. 10.12 Iames. Luther vvas not ignorante vvhat the aunciente church iudged of Iames his epistle. Eusebius doubted not to vvrite of that epistle expresslie, I vvold have all men to knovv, that the epistle vvhich is as­cribed to Iames, is a bastarde epistle. vvhat could be writtē more plainly? but perhaps Eu­sebius pleaseth you not. geue me a reasō vvhy. [Page 23] heare then Hierome, vvhom you knovv to have bene a Priest of the Romane Church. The epistle of Iames is auouched to have bene set forth by some other in his name. the one af­firmeth it to be a counterfeite, the other saith, it is supposed to have bene published not by the Apostle, but by some other. vvhy then are you angrie vvith Luther, vvhom you see not sud­denlie or rashlie first to have begon to doub [...]e of that epistle, but therein to folovve the iud­gement & [...]stimonie of the auncient Church? Let vs now ioyne together these two proofes of M. VV. M. VV. rea­sons make most against him selfe. with consideration what thence is and must be deduced, to wit, the cause why the Englishe congre­gatiō admittinge S. Iames, hath reiected those other, and we shall straightwaies finde, not only that he ouerthroweth himself (which is a comō tricke amōgst such good writers) but also conclu­deth the contrarie of that which here he pretēdeth. The Church readeth the bookes of Iudith, Tobie and the Machabees, saith S. Hierome, but reckeneth them not amongst the Canonicall scriptures. In that the Church at solemne times read them, it is a great argumente that she much honoured them, although she admitted them not as then vniuersallie into that highest roome of supreme authoritye. But [Page 24] of S. Iames we heare not so much, but contrariwise Eusebius directlie affir­meth (if M. VV. saie true) and iudgeth, & wold all other men so to iudge, that that epistle of S. Iames is a false and bas­tard epistle. and Hierome, a prieste after the order of the Romane Church, (and not a mi­nister after the fashion of the English congregation) is brought to proue the same. Who seeth not now what greate difference there is betweene these two verdits geuen in by these auncient fa­thers. the first being read in the Church, had a degree to Canonicall scriptures, the later had no such. Of the first he bringeth in S. Hierome saynge onlie that as then it was not acknow­ledged for Canonical. he bringeth in S. Hierome to saie as much of the second, and for a surcharge he ioyneth Eusebius, directlie affirming it to be a bastard epi­stle, and withall wishinge all men so to iudge of it: him self inferreth that Luther in his rashnes which we condemne, folowed the iudgement and testimo­nie of the aunciēt & primitiue Church. he affirmeth farther as a general princi­ple, & namely treatinge of this epistle: Quod principio statim non habet diuinam au­thoritatem, pag. 5. non potest tempore & hominum ap­probatione [Page 25] fieri diuinum. That vvhich at the first hath not presentlie diuine or canonicall authoritye (as in their opinion S. Iames had not) can not be made canonicall by the approbation of men. yet now of these, he wold haue vs learne this distinction, that the primitiue Church vniuersallie reiected the bookes of Iudith, Tobie, & the Machabees, & some onlie, and those without iust cause, refused S. Iames epis­tle: and therefore that the English con­gregation hath done verie discretelie, to authorize the one, & disauthorize the others. let him not playe to much the Sophister, but answere as becōmeth a Diuine, & saue him self in this, frō opē folie & contradiction, & he shall shew more wisedome & learning thē hether­to he hath geuen vs occasion to deeme in him.

And that he may the better waye the veritie and substance of his aunswere, The summe of the Tow­er disputa­tion tou­ching the scriptures. and the reader haue occasion to consi­der, what a variable & tottering gospel these men preache, and how iustlie we obiect to them, that at their pleasure they make hauocke of scripture: I will laye to M.VV. reasoning, the effecte of the late disputation had in the Tower with F. Campian touching this pointe. [Page 26] This they make the mayne grounde of their whole argamēt. The fourth dayes con­ference. Those bookes vvhich olde fathers and Councels haue not receaued for canonical, & bookes to ground our faith vpon, them can not nev [...] me [...], nor the Tridentine Councel make canonical. This proposition stand [...]ng for good which they so confi­dentlie vrge, Whit. pref. pag. 4. & 5. & con. Camp. Pa. [...]0. and M.VV. thinketh y [...] moste assured, let vs see vppō this rule what waste they make of the sacred bookes. vppon that ground thus they buylde, or rather pull downe. Aug. li. 2. cap. 8. de doct Christiana leaueth out Baruch, and the tvvo last bookes of Esdras. Hierom in his preface vppon the booke of Kinges, saith, that Sapientia Salomonis, Iesus the sonne of Sirach, Iudith and Tobias, are not in the Ca­non. Eusebius in his sic [...]e booke and 18. chapi­ter (it is the 19.) leaueth out the third and fourth of Esdras, Tobias, Iudith, Baruch, Sa­pientia, Ecclesiasticus, and the bookes of Ma­chabees. and concerning the epistle to the He­brevves, though him selfe say plainly it is S. Paules, yet he confesseth that many haue doubted thereof. also cōcerning the second epis­tle of S. Peter, he saith it vvas doubted of many, & so of some, vvere the last tvvo epistles of Iohn. The same Eusebius li. 4. ca. 26. (it is 25.) speaketh of Melito bishop of Sardis, vvho reckening vp the volumes of the old tes­tament, [Page 27] omitteth Esdras, Tobie, Hester, Iudith, Baruch, VVisdome, Sirach, the bookes of Ma­chabees. And the Coūcel of Laodicea omitteth Lukes gospel & the Apocalyps. you see there­fore that these olde Fathers, haue leaste these books out of the canon, & yet vvere not called heretikes nor blasphemers. Thus farre they. Afterwards they define those to be not Canonical but Apocriphal, Ibi. A. 2. [...]. that are not in the (auncient) Canon receaued and allovv­ed to haue proceeded vndoubtedly from the ho­ly Ghost. and those Apocriphal are forbid to be read. and though they may be read for mo­ral lessons, yet not for matters of religion. Af­terward the same argument is resumed againe, and especially that parte vrged, Ibi. 3. b. 8. that the Councel of Laodicea leaueth out those former bookes, in the olde Testament, Tobias, Iudith, the booke of vvisdome, Ecclesiasticus. and in the nevv Testament, Luke, and the A­pocalyps. And when F. Campian answe­red, that that Councel was but particu­ler, reply was made, that the Councel vvas prouincial, and farther confirmed by the sixte general Councel holden in Trullo, Constantine being presidēt, as Bartholomeus Carāza vvri­teth, fol. 71. And therefore vve may leaue out of the canon Tobie, Iudith &c. vvhich your Councel of Trent thrust in as autentical. Hetherto your brethren in the fourth [Page 28] dayes conference. The firste dayes con­ference in the Tower. D. 1.2. In the first day, vp­on like warrant they recken amongst Apocryphal bookes, that which you labour so much to saue, S. Iames, which there is called a counterfeit or bastard epistle, by iudgement of Eusebius. Item, the epistle of Iude, the later of Peter, the se­cond and thirde of Iohn. And against these they alleage Eusebius▪ Hierome, Epi­phanius, and the Councell of Laodicea, confirmed as they say there againe, by the general Councel holden in Trullo. And yet (such is their inconstancie) in the same place, some of these, in worde they professe to receaue, but only as at pleasure, of curtesie and liberalitie, not as of fayth, dutie, and necessitie. For the summe of all commeth to this, and it is the effect of that disputation.

Such bookes as of olde haue bene doubted of, we are not bound to admit for Canonical, but may refuse now.

These particuler bookes here na­med, haue bene doubted of in olde time: ergo these bookes we are not boūd to admit for Canonical, but may refuse them now.

This being your reason, and the same so manifestly approued by them and you, out of the same, for our pre­sente [Page 29] purpose against you this I note. 1 First how iustly we accuse you for de­facing and renting out so many parcels and whole bookes of scripture. Sundrye bookes of the scrip­ture denied by the pro­testantes.

• Tobias.
• Iudith.
• Hester.
• Baruch.
• The booke of Wisdome.
• Ecclesiasticus.
• The two bookes of the Machabees.

• S. Lukes Gospel.
• The Epistle to the Hebrewes.
• The Epistle of Saint Iames.
• The 2. of S. Peter.
• The 2. & 3. of S. Iohn.
• S. Iude.
• The Apocalyps.

Vnto these, partly your selues in your common bibles, partly your bre­thren ioyne certayne other peeces, both of the olde Testament and of the new: as The prayer of Manasses. Paralip. lib. 2. The songe of the three children. The story of Bel. Canticum canticorum. and a parte of S. Iohns Gospel. some of these held for ca­nonicall these fiftene hundred yeares, some these twelue hundred, all aboue a thousand.

2 Nexte your distinction of the vvhole Church, and some of the Church, were it true, as it is most false, is vtterly refu­ted by these your owne doctors: for by [Page 30] their sentence, whatsoeuer hath bene doubted of not onely in the whole Church, but in a part (for they goe not about to proue that these were doub­ted of in the whole Church, and leaste of all S. S. Lukes gospel doubted of. Lukes Gospell) that may you doubte of, and number amongst the bookes Apocriphal: and both you and they proue as substantially that S. Iames was doubted of, as you proue the same of Iudith, Hester, the Machabees or any o­ther. sauing that they fowly ouerreach them selues when they affirme that S. Lukes Gospell with those other, was leaft out and not receaued for Canoni­cal in the Prouincial Councel of Lao­dicea, and the same confirmed by a ge­neral Councel afterward.

3 Then commeth to my remembrāce your profoūd argumēt against M. Cam­pian in defence of Luther. Luther despi­seth S. Iames his epistle saith M. Cam­pian. Contr Cāp. pag. 9, you answere. Bene habet, crimen hoc omne Iacobi epistolam attingit &c. That goeth vvell. All this fault toucheth only Iames epistle. Luther doth not in a vvorde violate Matthevv, Marke, Luke, or Iohn, nor Paule, nor Peter: exagitat. only he somevvhat shaketh vppe Iames epistle. A deepe reason: as though S. Iames beinge canonical scripture [Page 31] were not to be esteemed as honorably, and violated as litle as S. Peter, The open way to deny al scripture. or any of the other. and as though he in so wri­ting, and you in so defendinge, doe not lay the way open to shake of and vio­late all the reste as wel as that. For now if a man burden you with the refusal of S. Luke, your defence is already proui­ded. bene habet, al goeth vvel. Al this faulte toucheth only S. Luke. Our doctors doe not in a vvorde violate Matthevv, Marke, Iohn, nor Paule, nor Peter, only vve somevvhat shake vp Lukes Gospel, and so peece-meale til none be leafte, you may and will shake out one after an other, & stil, Bene habet, all goeth vvell, vntill you fall to open profession of Atheisme, in the broade way whereof, you are farre & wel gone already.

4 Fourthlye, because in the end of your preface yow bragge so much of your forefathers, pag. 24. that they haue euer vāqui­shed ours, here you put vs in mind what forefathers those are. Aug. de he­resi [...]. he­resi. 53. Epiph. here. 75. Hetherto your forefathers were knowen to be, Aerius in denying prayer & sacrifice for the dead, Vigilantius of whom yow learned to condemne the inuocatiō of Saintes, Hiero. cont. Vigilanti. & Io [...]iniat. & honor done to them in the Church, Iouinian in breaking vowes of chasti­tie [Page 32] deliberatelye made to God, and making the state of matrimonye, tou­ching merite, equal in the sight of God with the state of virginitie & continen­tie. Which men notwithstanding were forced to yeld to our forefathers, S. Epi­phanius, The protes­tantes as in sūdry other partes of their doc­trine, so in denying certaine books of scripture, imitate the aunciēt he­retikes. S. Hierom, and S. Augustine as hetherto al Christendom is witnes, and therefore were not such victorious capitaynes as you woulde make them. In this place as though your purpose were to ouerbeare vs with number, and make your armye so much the more stronge, you multiplye and set in ranke againste vs more fathers. For whereas you so blasphemouslye speake of the booke of Iudith, The 4. daies conference. that it is far vnvvorthy to be called scripture, and yet match S. Luke and the Apocalyps with it, whereas you saye most plainlye of these and al the forenamed bookes, that yow are not bound to admit them but may re­fuse them, that they be read for moral lessons not for matters of religion, you simplye disallow for canonical those two bookes. And who are your fathers herein, but those auncient Archhere­tikes Marcion and Cerdon, Epiph. here. 42. & those other for ther brutishnes called Alogi or Bruti.

In which your doinge as the reader [Page 33] 5 may easely perceaue how yow trotte forwarde to playne Apostasie from Christe, by callinge now the verye Gospel into questiō: so why we should number you amongest those olde Brutishe heretikes, Epiph. her. 51. your selues yeald vs more abūdāt reasō, thē our fathers had in calling them by that name. For your self M.VV. cōfesse and proue your doc­tors and maisters to be the most sens­les and brutishe creatures that euer wēt on the earth. For, to auoide directe answeringe to the question proposed you, W. contra Cam. p. 28. hovv you knovv the bookes vvhich you call scripture, to be heauenlye and penned by diuine inspiration, that is, by vvhat testimo­nie you knovv those vvritinges to be canoni­cal or holye vvhich be so called, you say, and I vvith as good reason vvill demaund of you hovv you knovve the sunne to be the sunne, or hovv you assure your self that God is God. for vve knovv as assuredlye that these are the holy scriptures cōmēded by God to his Church, vvritten by the Prophetes and Apostles, and deliuered by diuine authorytie, as vve knovv the moone to be the moone, or (at a vvord) any other thinge, vvhatsoeuer vve comprehend by most certaine knovvledge: and this ansvvere Caluine also geueth you. And this answere I admitte from you and Caluine, Insti. li. 1. ca. 7. ¶. 4 and [Page 34] hereof I conclude that you are more trulye called Alogi and brutishe, The protes­tants refu­sing the au­thoritie of the church, can neuer geue reason how they know some bookes and not other, to be canoni­cal scripture then were those other auncient heretikes. For was there euer in the worlde, any so notable a Choraebus or Grillus hauinge the shape of man, that fell at brawlinge & disputinge with his friēdes, whether the sunne which we see, were the sūne, or the moone, the moone, as you do against Luther, & your churches against the Lutheranes, whether S. Iames epistle be canonical? then yf you thinke right, (as I truste you wil speake wel of your selfe) with the same breath you con­demne your father Luther, and your brethren the Lutheranes, for the veriest sottes and stockes that euer liued: for they know not the moone, they know not the sunne, which to you shineth so bright & cleare. And to oppose your self vnto your brethrē at home, and to your owne self, how say you to S. Luke, to the epistles of S. Peter, Iude, Iohn, & the Apo­calyps, be they canonical or no? yf you say yea, as I thinke you will, (or at the lest, Cont. Cam­pian. pag. 9. that was your opinion in Septem­ber laste, as your booke sheweth) then your doctors now denyinge the same, you see what is to be concluded, that one parte of you is as wise as those [Page 35] former, who know not the sunne from the moone. Yf you denie, and be of their iudgmente, as it may be very wel, your faith beinge as mutable as is the moone, yet so you proue your self no wiser then they, who in so shorte space haue fallē out with your self & altered your iudgmēte, and now esteeme that for apocriphal, which then was to yow canonical, that is, now iugde that to be the moone, which then you thought to be the sunne. Our lorde geue his people grace to thinke of you as you proue your selues, that is, so fantastical & inconstant, that you know not what to say: and whyles you seeke to keepe your selfe aloofe from the Catholike churche, the sure piller & groūde of tru [...]he, I. Tim. 3. v. 15. you plunge your selues ouerhead and eares, in such foule absurdities, as ne­uer did heretikes before you.

6 For what is the reason of al this? because besydes the written word or scripture, yow wil not acknowledge any traditiō of the Church, wherevnto by this question yow are enforced of necessitie. The protes­tats refusing the churche, beleeue not the scrip­tures. For if we are bound to be­leeue certaine bookes, as for example the Gospel of S. Matthew, S. Marke, S. Iohn, and S. Paules Epistles to be [Page 36] Canonical, that is heauēly and pēned by di­uine inspiration, and yet the same can not be proued by scripture, thē cleare it is that we are bound to beleeue some­what which by scripture cā not be pro­ued, and so the tradition of the Church is established. And marueyle it is that yow perceaue not, how grosly yow ouerthwart your self, and plainly refel that, which yow would seeme most ear­nestly to confirme. For if yow march your beleefe of scripture, with know­ledg of the Sunne and Moone, and such like as are knowen by only sense & the light of nature: See after chap. 16. then you deny it to be a­ny article of your faith. For these two, are directly opposite: and the apostle confirmeth this reason, whē he defineth faith to come by hearing, Rom. 10. ver. 17. and hearing by the vvord of God. ergo fides ex auditu, auditus per verbū Dei. And therefore if you beleeue, not with humaine faith, as yow beleeue Tusculanes▪ questions to haue bene written by Cicero, but with Christian & diuine faith, as yow beleeue Christ to be your sauiour, if thus you beleeue the Gospel which beareth S. Matthews name, as likewise that of S. Marke, and S. Iohn, to haue bene written by them: then yow beleeue so, because so yovv [Page 37] haue heard it preached, 1. Cor. 15. ver. 11. and so yovv haue re­ceaued. and consequently by the Apos­tles authoritie, that verie matter so preached vnto yow is the vvord of God. which word of God whereas yow find not in the scriptures, Somewhat is the word of god besi­des scrip­ture. hereof it foloweth manifestly, that somewhat is the vvord of God which is not scripture. and there­fore yow and your fellowes beleeuing only scripture, beleeue not al the vvord of God, but only a peece thereof. and so did the worste heretikes that euer were, yea so do at this day the verie Turkes and Mahometanes.

7 But to end this special matter with yow M. VV. touching your distinction betweene S. Iames, and Tobias, Iudith, the Machabees, &c. where you make this to be the difference, that S. Iames vvas refu­sed but of a fevv, and the other generally of the vvhole Churche, tota Ecclesia repudiauit say you, for declaration of your truth herein, I referre you to the moste eui­dent testimonies of the same auncient Churche. S. Aug. de doc. Chris. l. 2. ca. 8. Augustine setting downe the Canonicall scriptures as they were read and beleeued in his time, placeth S. Iames I cōfesse in order with the Gos­pels, & Pauls epistles: yet not excludīg those other, but in the selfe same place [Page 38] numbringe Tobie, Iudith, and the Macha­bees with the bookes of Moses and the Prophetes. his (saith he) 44. libris, ve­teris testamēti terminatur authoritas. In these fourtie and foure bookes, is concluded the au­thoritie of the old testament. Likewise the Councel of Carthage approueth for Ca­nonicall S. Con. Cart. 4. ca. 47. Iames, but in the same Canō it approueth as far the other forenamed and teacheth of them as directlie as of the other, that they are Canonicall scriptures. Somewhat before S. Augu­stines daies, they were not by publike decree of the Church receaued, as ap­peareth by S. Con. Laod. can. 59. The epistle of S. Paule to the he­brewes, as much doub­ted of in the primitiue Churche, as that of S. Iames. and b [...]n, as much as those books of the olde testament which the protestants reiect. Hier. in Esai cap. 6. et 8. Hierome and the Councel of Laodicea, but then, when there was as greate doubte of. S. Iames epistle, S. Paule to the Hebrewes, and the Apocalyps. touchinge the first, it is manifest by that which hath bene said by you and your felowes. Of the secōd, there was more question then of the first, and S. Hierome seldome citeth it, but he geueth a note, signifyinge that it was not in his time taken for Canonical. In the Epistle to the Hebrevves, vvhich the custome of the Latine Church receaueth not, (saith he) it is thus vvritten. Againe. the blessed Apostle, in his Epistle to the Hebrevves, Latina co [...] ­suetudo. although the custome of the Latin Church receaueth it not amongst [Page 39] Canonicall scriptures. Againe. Idē in Hier. cap. 31. this authoritie the Apostle Paule vsed, or vvhosoeuer he vvere that vvrote that Epistle. In catalogo he saith, that euen vnto his time, Hiero. in Catalogo. Caius. it vvas not accounted the vvritinge of Paule: and that Caius an auncient writer denyeth it to be his. and in his epistle to Paulinus sette before the Bible, he saith, that a plaerisque extra numerum ponitur. of the more part it is put out of the nūber of Paules vvritinges. The like might be declared by S. Cipriā, Lactantius, Tertullian, Arnobius, and S. Austine, if it were needefull. and the Apocalyps was yet more doubtful then ether of these two, & as wee see by the Councel of Laodicea, leafte oute of the rolle of Canonicall writinges, Cōei. Laod. can. 59. when both the other of S. Iames and S. Paule were put in. Wherefore, as false that is which M.VV. constantlie auoucheth of the auncient Church, touchinge the seueringe of these sacred volumes, so hath he not yet, nor euer shalbe able with reason to satisfie M. Martins de­maund, why they of England haue cō ­descēded to admit the one rather then the other.

And here the reader may consider & esteeme as it deserueth, of that glo­rious [...] which in fine he singeth [Page 40] to him self, settinge the crowne of tri­umphe vppon his owne head and his felowes. Pap. 24. M.VV. brag of cōfuting the catholi­ke doctrine, vayne and impossible. Nothing (saith he) is novv more vulgar then the Papists arguments against vs. Quicquid afferri a quoquam potuit, vidimus, diluimus, protriuimus. vvhat so euer could be said of anie of them al, vve haue seene it, refel­led it, and trode it vnder foote: he may con­sider I saie, how like this man and his companions are to worke such maiste­ries, who as yet knowe not what those weapons are, which they should vse in atchiuing such conquests. For whereas they vaunt to doe this by the written worde, & yet are not resolued amōgest them selues what that written word is, and how farre it extendeth, it is as fan­tastical a parte to bragge of victorie, as if a mad man should rūne into the field to slea his enemie, and when he com­meth there, knoweth not with what weapon to begin the fight. Wherefore wel may he, and his felowes heare and see the Catholike doctrine, as Esai spea­keth of the Iewes concerninge the do­ctrine of Christ, Mat. 13. v. 14 hearing shal you heare & shall not vnderstand, and seeing shal yovv see and yovv shall not see, and wel may they treade it vnder theire feete, as our Sa­uiour parabolically forespake that he­retikes [Page 41] wold doe, when he said: Mat. 7. v. 6. Nolite proiicere margaritas ante porcos, ne forte con­culcēt eas pedibus suis, but to refel, confute, & suppresse it, that is no more possible, then that Christ should be false of his worde and promisse, Mat. 16. Luc. 22. that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it. And whereas it hath cōtinued by the protestāts cōmon graūt, aboue a thousand yeares, in truth, euer since Christ his passion, against other maner of tempests then these are, heretikes of excellēt learning, heresies of maruelous subtilitie, most mightie Emperours, rulers of the worlde: now to imagine that it maie be vanquished of these grosse and contrarie heresies, fortified with no maner of learning, wherof manie are so base, that men euē by the light of nature abhorre thē, ha­uing nothing to mainteine thē selues, but onlie a vaine challēginge of the Spi­rite, and bold crakinge of the vvord of the Lord, which a parrat cā doe with a litle instruction as well as they, thus I saie to talke, were more fit for Pasquillus Estaticus, or a sicke man whē he raueth, than a sober Diuine, that wayeth what he speaketh.

NEXT commeth in againe frier Luther, whō M. Martin accused for saynge that he esteemed not a thousande Augustines, Cipriās, & Churches, whē they are against him. That the reader may better carie awaie the matter, I wil first put downe Luthers wordes where vpon this controuersie standeth, after it shal be easier to iudge how aptlie M. VV. defence is framed. The wordes of Luther, Luther tom. 2. contr. Re­gem Angl. fol. 342. are in his booke written against King Henrie the eight her Maiesties fa­ther, and are these. But I (saith he) against the saynges of fathers, of men, of Angels, of deuels, set not old custome, not multitude of men, The cōmon vaine & spi­rit of euerie Secte of protestants. but the vvord of the onlie eternall ma­iestie, the Gospel. here I stand, here I sit, here I glorie, here I triumphe, here I insult ouer Papists, Thomists, Henricists, Sophists, and all the gates of hell, much more ouer the saynges of men, be they neuer so holie. Gods vvorde is aboue al, the diuine maiesty maketh for me, so as I passe not, if a thousād Austines, a thousand Ciprians, Henricianae ecclesiae. a thousand Kinge-Harrie Churches [Page 43] stoode against me. God can not erre or deceaue. Austine, Ciprian, and likevvise all other elect might erre, & they haue erred. here ansvvere maister Harrie, here plaie the mā. I cōtene thy lies, I feare not thy threates, here thovv stādest astonished like a stock &c. These are the wordes with which M. Martin findeth faulte. M.VV. defendeth them thus. Pag. 6. If Luther had preferred him self before all fathers & Churches, he vvere not to be borne vvithal. but this Luther neuer challenged to himself. But in some causes, Luther might esteeme more his ovvne iudgement, then the authoritie of Austine, or Ciprian, or a thousand Churches. For if that vvhich Luther taught, vvere a­greable to Gods vvord, Luthers iudgment vvas to be preferred, before all the contrary iudg­ments of all men liuinge.

Before I enter into the examinati­on of this answere, let me demaunde this one thinge in courtesie of you M.W. what the reason is, Luthers ex­treme ha­tred against the Sacra­mentaries & Zuinglians. whie you so busilie and eagerlie defende Lu­ther, be his wordes neuer so strange, or fanatical. or whie is the Pope Anti­christ for resisting your Gospel, where­as Luther you aduaunce, if not into the place of Christ, yet at least amonge the number of his Apostles. Did the Pope of Rome euer persequute your zuin­glian [Page 44] gospel, Cle [...]ius a Zuinglian made a booke inti­tuled, victo­ria venitatis & [...]uti [...]a pa­pa [...]us Saxo­nici. an. 1561 with more deadly hatred, then did that pope of Saxonie? Did he not from the verie beginning, to his later breath, holde you and your bre­thren, for most damnable wretches, and professed enemies of the eternall testament of Christ? Are you ignorant, how for this cause, he wrote whole vo­lumes agaynst your first Apostle Zuin­glius? Confess. or­thodox. Ec­cles. Tig [...]r. tractat. 3. [...]o. 108. Read you neuer the Confession of your brethrē of the Tigurine church where thus they complaine? Lutherus statim ab initio, m [...]rdere, furere, conuitiari, & bacchari coepit &c. Luther presently at the be­ginning, began to byte, to play the mad man, to raile and rage, and besides this, he filled his bookes vvith the horrible names of Deuils, Sectaries, Sprites, mad men: and vvhatsoeuer slaunders came to his minde, Immaniter contra nos expuit. he cast them out agaynst vs outragiously. Complaine they not in the preface of that Confession, that he inueigheth against them as against ob­stinate heretikes, Ibid. in pre­fat. fol. 3. [...]. and such as are guiltye to themselues of all impietie, as prophaners of the Sacraments, and the most vyle and pestilent men that goe on the ground? He proscribeth and condemneth first of al the faithful doctors and ministers of God, Oecolampadius, Zuingli­us, and their disciples vvheresoeuer they be: all frindship and communion vvith vs, he [Page 45] compteth vvicked & abominable: and vvhat soeuer commeth frō vs, be it letters, be it bookes, be it salutations, be it benedictions, he vvill not only not reade, but he vvill not so much as vouchsafe to looke vppon them, or heare them spoken of: so farre forth, Lauatie [...]. in historia Sacram. fol. 32. Luther re­i [...]cteth the bible trans­lated by the Zuinglians, how much more ought catholiks to auoyded the same? that when Eros­chouerus the zuinglian printer of zuricke sent him a bible trāslated by the diuines there, Luther sent it him backe againe with this greetinge, that he should not send him anie thinge that proceeded from the mi­nisters of the Tigurine church. for he vvould haue no dealinge vvith them, nether vvoulde he receaue or reade their bookes: for the chur­ches of God could not communicate vvith thē. Yea, he protesteth that he had rather sus­teine a hundred seueral deathes, then to become of your opinion, or shew any coūtenance of bearing fauour to it. In cōfessio. Tigur. vers su­pra fo. 30. The Lord defend (sayth he) that I vvittingly and vvillingly by the authority of my name, should couer or confirme the verie least error of the fanatical Sacramētaries. Nam vel centies la­niari aut igne comburi mallē &c. For I had ra­ther be torne in peeces or burnt vvith fier a hū ­dred times, thē to folovv the opinion, and agree in doctrine, vvith zvvinglius, Oecolampadius, & the rest of those miserable, vnfortunate, fa­natical men. Finally, know you not M. W. that thus he began, thus he went fore­ward, [Page 46] thus he continued, thus he ended his daies, dyinge such a mortal enemye to you, that he seemed to make his h [...] ­tred and detestation of your church and gospel, a peece of his iustificatiō before Christe? as in his last Confession made a litle before his death, and recorded in the foresaid Confession of Zurake it ap­peareth. Confes. Ti­gur. tract. 3. fol. 108. Ego qui iam sepulchro vicitus ob­ambulo, hoc testimoniam et hanc gloriam ad Christi saluatoris tribunal perferam &c. I (saith he) that novv vvalke nye to my graue, vvill carie this testimonie and this glorie to the tribunal seate of Christ my Sauiour, that I haue vvith all earnestnes, condemned and auoyded those fanaticall men and enemies of the Sacrament, The Zuin­glians con­demne them selues in de­fending Lu­ther. Zuinglius, OEcolampadius, Stinckf [...]ldius, and their scholer, vvhether they be at Zuruke, or in vvhat place else so­euer vnder the s [...]nne. Thus Luther.

If you know this Maister Whita­ker, as you wil seeme to be ignorant of nothing, what maketh you so busily to defend Luthers barbarous and proude vauntes, as though he were such a pil­ler, without whom your church could not stande? But belyke it is sufficient, that he was an Apostata frier as were the founders of your gospel, that he with you agreed in rayling at the Pope [Page 47] and Sea of Rome, and so for his agree­ing with you in these smaler toyes, you care not for his disagreeing from you in those weightie matters. Wel, be it as you liste, and perhaps you haue more reason then I perceaue, otherwise you shall neuer be able to iustifie this de­meanure in the sight of any man endu­ed with common sence. Let vs heare how conningly you cure this stinking sore. for nothing stinketh more before the face of God and man, then a poore contemptible wretch, so Lucifer-lyke to prefer him selfe before inumerable, excellent, learned, and glorious Saintes of God. What distinction haue you to saue Luthers honestie? Forsooth this: M.W. dis­tinctiō, whē Luthers iudgemēt is to be prefer­red before al the Church. In certaine cases, Luther might more esteeme of his ovvne iudgement, then of Austine, Ci­prian, or a thousand Churches. For if that vvhich Luther taught, vvere agreable to Gods vvord, then Luthers iudgment vvas to be pre­ferred before the contrarie iudgment of al men and Churches. Here M. VV. thinketh he hath spoken much to the purpose, and therefore aduaunceth him selfe alofte. Scripturam Lutherus protulit, cuinullus mor­talis resistit, quaeque tandem Pontificiis decre­tis pestē atque exitium afferet. Luther brought vvith him scripture vvhich no mortall man [Page 48] can vvithstand, and vvhich at length shall be the bane and distruction of the Popish decrees.

That I may the better conceaue this distinction, and ether yelde to it if it stand with reason, or discouer the vanitie of it, if it fal out to be but a pee­uish battologie of wordes as I trowe it will proue: let me require a playner explication of that parte. The folie of M.W. distinction. Luther might vvell prefer his iudgment before a thousand Austines, Ciprianes and Churches, if he spake vvith scripture. 1 Is this the meaning, that in case and controuersie of religion, if a thousand Ciprians, that is, all the Fa­thers teach vs one thing, and bringe scriptures for them, and one father Lu­ther teach vs the contrarie, and bringe scriptures for him, may Luther in this case preferre his owne iudgement be­fore al those Fathers? if so, as the speach it selfe is so monstrous execrable as the deuil him selfe can not open his mouth into more horrible pride, so what heresie, what Apostasie, what Atheisme in the church can euer be cō ­trouled, if this rule be made currante? why shoud Arrius yelde to the Councel of Nice? Nestorius to the Councel of Ephesus? Macedonius to the Coūcel of Constantinople? seinge they brought [Page 49] scriptures for them, and by this rule ought to haue preferred their priuate iudgment before those byshops, as Luther & his offpringe doe theirs, be­fore the Councel of Trente, 2 or will he say, that if perhaps a thousand Austines and Churches teache some doctrine without the writtē worde of God, that is, citing no text for it, & Luther against the same, bring the written worde, that is, some texte of the scripture after his sēse, in this case, he may better esteeme of himselfe then of al the rest.

But first, he can neuer geue instance that ether the auncient fathers did so in their tymes, or that we do so now. for howsoeuer in the Councels of Nice, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, the byshops stoode much vppō the traditiō of their elders ( ea que sunt patrum teneantur, Cone. Chal. actio. 1. Lirine. cont haeres. ca. 43. say they, sic credere à sanctis patribus edocti su­mus, let vs hold fast the fayth and decrees of our fathers, thus to beleeue vve haue bene taught by our holye fathers) yet they wāted not scriptures, as nether did the fathers in the Councel of Trent, nor we at this day in our controuersies with the pro­testantes. And if those auncient fathers had alleaged no direct & euident place against Arrius, Nestorius, Eutyches, [Page 50] yet notwithstanding, the Christian peo­ple were bound to beleeue them, groun­ding them selues only vpō the Catho­like & vniuersal fayth of the churches which were before them, as they did in the question of our B. Ladies per­petual virginitie. And albeit the here­tike brought some clauses of scripture for the cōtrary part, yet ought al faithful men to yeld no more credit thereto, thē to the deuil when he alleaged scripture against our sauiour. Mat. c. 4. v. 6. because, as the deuil so al heretikes may vse scripture against the true sense and meaning thereof: Ioan. c. 14. et 16. Ephes. cap. 4. b. c. Esa. ca. 59. v. 21. the vniuersal church cā neuer teach or beleeue so, as by Christ him self we are assured. And this case in effect cōmeth to one issue with the former. for, geue this scope to an heretike, that all the Bishops, Churches & Fathers may erre & he alone, if he can alleage a text, may therefore rightly contemne al other in respecte of him selfe, as euery Sectmai­ster doth and hath done, where is the Churches quietnes? what order is there for cōtinuance of fayth? to what ende was the comminge of Christ? to what vse, the sendinge of the holy Ghost? 3 Or perhaps M. W. wil say, posito per im­possibile that all the Churches & fathers [Page 51] teach against scripture, In this case the authori­tie of the deuel as wel as of Luther is better thē all Fathers, or al the an­gels of hea­uen. Gal. 1. & Luther alone teache with scripture, then lo Luther maye thinke him selfe a better man then they all. and this is true, & this I graunte: as in like maner I confesse that if the heauen shoulde falle, we knowe what woulde folow. And yet of these two suppositions, the Spirit of God putteth the later to be more pos­sible, Ierem. 31. g. & 33. d. that the course of heauen shal so­ner alter, then the Catholike Churche of the new Testamēte fal frome Christe to Apostasie.

4 But it may, be M.VV. wil say, I scanne his wordes to narrowlie, his meaning is plaine, that whereas Luther bringeth scriptures against vs, that is, against all the Austines, and Ciprianes, of the Ca­tholike Church, all the Byshops now liuinge, he maye well truste his owne iudgmente. if this be the meaning, yet stil al commeth to one ende. and whie may Luther so do, more then Caluine? whie Caluine, more then Muncerus? whie a Zwingliā, more then a Puritane, Ana­baptiste, or Trinitarian? Or what assu­rance hath he, more then those other? Luthers iud­gement with scripture a­gainst the Sa­crametaries.

But if Luthers iudgment bringinge scriptures with him, be so forcible a­gainst vs, may not we, (trow you) Lu­therize [Page 52] a litle after your example, and say the same against you? As for ex­ample. Luther to. 7. A defence of the literal sense of our Sauiours wordes etc. against the fanatical sprites of the Sacramē taries. Luther hath made a booke enti­tuled, defensio [...] verborum coenae, accipite & comedite, hoc est corpus meum, contra fanaticos Sacramentariorū spiritus. In that booke not very longe or large, yet contayninge more substāce then some whole volumes of his do, his principal conclusion risinge vpon this texte of scripture, and grounded vpon many texts of scripture beside, is, that he and his, Ibi. fol. 383. vvill and maye retaine external peace and ciuil concord vvith the Zuinglians in matters temporal, but quoad spiritum, eos ad extremum vsque halitum deuitabimus, argue­mus, & damnabimus pro idololatris, verbi Dei corruptoribus, blasphemis, & deceptori­bus &c. touchinge the soule and matters spiri­tual, vve vvil auoide thē as long as vve haue a day to liue, vve vvil reproue and condemne them for idolaters, corrupters of Gods vvorde, blasphemers, The Sacra­mentaries enemies of the gospell by Luthers iudgmēt cō firmed with scripture. and deceauers, and of them as enemies of the Gospel, vve vvill sustaine per­secution and spoile of our goods vvhat-soeuer they shal do vnto vs, so lōge as God vvill per­mitte. And in the same leafe it foloweth immediatelye: aptlye may vve say to these men offeringe vs peace, as Christe saide to Iudas in the garden, Iudas vvith a kysse be­trayest [Page 53] thou the sonne of man? So this is the very peace and kisse of Iudas: for offeringe vs their friendship, they vvoulde vvithal ob­taine of vs to holde our peace, and in silence be­holde the fyers and slaughters, vvhereby they thrust headlong infinite thousandes of soules dovvne to hell. Here is Luthers iudgmente, and that with scripture. for againste al communion with the Zuinglians, he in this place vrgeth the wordes of our sauiour Math. 10. vers. 34. Luk. 14. v. 26.2. Cor. 6. v. 14. Eph. 4. v. 5. May Luther now prefer his iudg­mente thus qualified, before a thou­sande Caluines, a thousand Peter Mar­tyrs, or who-soeuer els be the greatest doctors of your congregatiōs, before all Zuinglian churches? Or if Luther may so do, may not we do the like, and thinke of you as he doth, and that by vvarrante geuen vs from your ovvne mouthe? Maye vve not saye to you vpon like grounde. Scripturam Lutherus protulit cui nullus mortalis resistit, &c. Luther hath brought scripture vvhich no man can vvithstand, and vvhich at lenght shal be the bane and ouerthrovve of all the Zuinglian and Caluinistical opinions?

Now if (which is the extreme re­fuge) you wil say, that Luthers iudgmēt [Page 54] against you is not agreable to scrip­ture, and therfore not so deepely to be accompted of, then see I beseeche you how finely and suttely you haue fet this matter about. for now the sense of your distinctiō is, that whē Luther affirmeth any thing agreable to the scriptures, by iudgment of your selfe, he ought to es­teeme more of it, thē of a thousand Au­stines, a thousād Ciprianes, & an innu­merable cōpany of catholike churches. And thus, Euerie pro­testant, soueraine iudge of scripture Coūcels. doctors, old & new. whiles you first geue Luther power to iudge ouer al Fathers, Doc­tors, and Councels, and then make your self iudge ouer Luther, to approue & re­proue him as you please, who seeth not that in fine, you make your self supreme iudge of altas before of scriptures, so now of Fathers and Councels, old and new, Catholike and heretike, no lesse of your owne doctors, then the aunci­ent fathers and doctors of Christes church, See the 5. chap. in the beginning. which is in deede the verie last refuge and extreme resolution of all your new diuinitie.

Finally (because it greeueth me to spēde time in such vnreasonable pelfe) may it please you at your better ley­sure, to consider the sense of this par­cel, & to put it downe somewhat more [Page 55] intelligiblie, and if you can so do, and saue your selfe from the note of much foly (for, from beinge an heretike by Luthers iudgment, what soeuer the an­swere be, you shall neuer saue your selfe) you shal performe a matter of more difficultie, then perhaps you are aware of. In the meane season, as it stan­deth, it carieth with it grosse faultes, as manie welnie as it hath lines: whether you oppose Luther to the auncient pri­mitiue Churche, as it seemeth, and as doubtlesse he meante, or to the catho­like churche of our time, whiche you woulde inferre, or to your owne deui­ded Zuinglian congregation, which by like sequele doth folow, or whether you consider Luther in this case, only as one principal author of your Gospel, & so make this priuiledge common to him with other, or rather consider him singularly by himselfe, because he was the first that brake the yse, and opened the waye to this soule Apostasie, which is now so far spread: or finally whether you thus aduaūce Luther, but euer hol­dinge the raynes in your owne handes, which (I weene) must be your laste re­fuge, and final determination.

THE difference betwene you & M. Martin aboute priestes, is no priuate, but a general controuersie betweene all Catholiks and Protestants. your mi­nister like termes of Baalites, pa. 7 and Anti­christian sacrificers, I cōtemne, & am cō ­tente to dissemble. many breaths more stronge and ranke then this, we muste gladly abide, or els we are not such, as by Goddes mercy, we hope & professe our selues. Comfortably saith our sa­uiour, Mat. 10. v. 24. the disciple is not aboue his maister, nor the seruante aboue his lorde. if they haue called the goodman of the house Beelzebub, hovv much more them of his housholde? there­fore feare ye them not. For to comforte our selues withal, if we be Baalites and An­tichristians in respecte of oure priest­hode, then certainly Christe is the ca­pitaine Baal & Antichriste, from whom our priesthode descendeth. And that will I proue in few, principally and first, by your owne wordes, secondari­lye [Page 57] by manifeste deduction out of the scriptures.

A priest you define thus, pa. 6. Who are truly priests. Sacerdotes ii verè & propriè sunt qui sacrificia faciunt, qualis fuit Aaron & Aaronis filii, & Mel­chisedechus, & quem illi adumbrabant, Chri­stus. Priestes truly and properly are they that offer sacrifices, such as vvas Aaron, and the sonnes of Aaron, & Melchisedech, and Christe vvhom they prefigured. Those that offer sacrifice, you acknowledge to be priestes truly and properly, not onlye by abuse of speeche, as in this place a­gainste S. Austine you falsly cauille. In the number of such priestes that of­fered sacrifice, you reckē Melchisedec, Melchise­dec did sa­crifice. & after him Christe, of vvhom Melchisedec vvas a figure. This you woulde neuer haue said, had you bene skilful ether in your owne diuinitie, or in the faith of the Catholike Church. for although hetherto we haue many wayes labou­red, and vsed all possible meanes of proufe that Melchisedec offered sacri­fice, yet we could neuer obtaine so much of your brethren, because they wel saw, that therein was included the manifest confirmatiō of the Catholike faithe touching priesthod, & the vtter ruine of your Geneuiā Ministerye. For if [Page 58] Melchisedec sacrificed, then was it in bread and wine, for other sacrifice of his neuer man imagined, and the scrip­ture proueth it inuincibly, which men­cioneth that, & no other, nor by worde, sillable, or title, geueth the leste insi­nuation of any besides. Then how ne­cessarilie it muste folow, that Christe sacrificed in like maner, and how from him, power to do the same is deriued vnto priestes of the new testament, this shal be shewed hereafter.

First of all, that of Melchisedecs sa­crifice beinge most certaine, & of you graunted, and of vs beleeued, you shall here note how stubborne & desperate, yea beyond al measure, The sacri­fice of Mel­chisedec de­nied gene­rally by the protestants though confessed by M. W. stubborne and desperate are your felowes & maisters, who in this so euidente a truth, haue hetherto resisted the Church, & would neuer confesse, that ether Melchisedec did the one, or Christe the other. I wil not stay to proue it, because you con­fesse it: only for plainer declaration, I wil touch the matter briefly. In the booke of Genesis, where onely is des­cribed this sacrifice, thus we reade. Melchisedec rex Salem, Gen. 14. proferēs panem & vi­num (erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi) bene­dixit et. Melchisedec king of Salem, bringinge [Page 59] forth bread and vvine (for he vvas the prieste of the moste high God) blessed him, that is, Heb. c. 7. v. 6 Abraham. In these wordes, we see the reason geuen of Meschisedecs priest­hode, & the same to consiste in his ac­tion aboute the bread and wine, that is, in his sacrificinge as M. .W. telleth vs. But the Protestātes to auoide this, into how many formes and fashions haue they turned them selues? How many quirkes and false sleightes haue they deuised? vntil in fin, they haue ronne in maner generally, to corrupte the sa­cred text for auoyding of this inconue­nience. In moste of their writinges, & manye of their translations, they geue the sense thus: that M [...]lchis [...]d [...]c kinge of Salem, brought forth bread & wine, & because he was a prieste of the most hygh God, therefore blessed Abraham. So writeth Musculus in his common places. That part of the sentence, Mus. in loc. com. cap. de Miss. papist pa. 492. (and he vvas prieste of the moste high God) is to be re­ferred to that vvhich folovveth, vz, and he blessed him for as a kinge, he brought forth to Abraham bread & vvine, as a priest, he gaue him his blessinge. Vpon this reason, to make the holy texte more aptlie serue this heretical deuise, in the Englishe Bible it is turned thus. Bib. printed anno, 1579. Melchisedec kinge [Page 60] of Salem, Corruption of the scriptures. broughte forth bread & vvine, & he vvas a prieste of the moste high God, therefore he blessed him. Thus the protestants com­monly interprete it, and to note one for al, thus writeth Caluine, in his commē ­tarie vpon the Hebrews. Cal. in. com. in episto. ad Heb. c. 7. v. 9 Prius illud quod narrat, regium, fuit, &c. That firste thinge vvherof Moyses speaketh in the storie of Mel­chisedec, vvas the parte of a Kinge, to re­freashe vvith bread and vvine, those that came vveary from the fight: the blessinge ap­perteined to his priestly function. The diffe­rence betwene him and the aunciente fathers, in the same paragraph he com­priseth thus. Ibid. Hereby is refuted their deuise vvho seeke out the cheefe resemblance (be­tvveene Christ and Melchisedec) in bread and vvine. VVe see the Apostle searcheth out euery particular point diligently and curiously: he pursueth the name of the man, the seate of his Kingdome, the eternitie of his life, the right of his tithes, the benediction vvhich he gaue to Abraham. In any of these there vvas lesse vveight thē in the oblation. shal vve say, that the holy Ghost forgat himself, vvhē he maketh stay vppon these smale matters, Caluin reie­cteth the aū ­ciēt fathers touchinge the sacrifice of Melchi­sedec. and omitteth that vvhich vvas the principal, and most per­teined to the purpose? vvherefore I marueile the more that so many old Doctors of the Churche vvere possessed vvith this opinion, [Page 61] that they stayd vpon the oblation of bread & vvine. For thus they say. Christ is a priest af­ter the order of Melchisedec. but Melchisedec offered bread and vvine: ergo bread and vvine appartaine to Christs priesthode. Thus far Caluin. Cal. in psal. 110. the like he writeth in his cō ­mentarie vppon the Psalmes. I will not stand to satisfie his marueiling, why the Apostle should pretermitte that which the holie fathers after obserued. In one worde this I say, that if he had wayed, ether the preface of the Apostle when he began this argument, saing, Heb. 5. v. 11. of Melchisedec vve haue great speache, and inexplicable to vtter: or the same Apostles maner of writing & preaching at other times, to lyke auditors, or S. 1. Cor. ca. 2. ver. 5. ca. 3. ver. 2. Hier. ep. 126 ad Euagri. Greg. Nazi. Hierome handling this matter, & geuing reason of the Apostles so doing, or S. Grego­rie Nazianzene in his oration de mode­ratione in disputationibus seruāda, or in his second oration de theologia, he would perhaps easelie haue leaft of maruei­ling, and rather haue marueiled at his owne folie, who could be moued to marueile at a thing so reasonable and ordinarie.

But touching our purpose, let the christian reader, out of Caluin note these two pointes. The one is, that Cal­uin [Page 62] and the Caluinistes generally, find nothing wherein Melchisedec sacrifi­ced, & so by sacrificing prefigured the sacrifice & priesthode of Christ: The o­ther is, that the auncient fathers and the catholike Church, acknowledge Melchisedec to haue sacrificed, and that in bread and wine, and by that sa­crifice to haue foreshewed Christs sacri­ficing in like maner, and to this side M. W. forsaking Caluin and the Protestāts ioyneth him selfe. Christ did sacrifice at his last sup­per. This therefore is cleare, that Christ fulfilled this prefi­guratiue sacrifice of Melchisedec: & we neuer finde it done, but only thē when he offering bread and vvine, that is (sayth S. Cip. ep. 63. Ciprian) his ovvne bodie and bloud, Luke 22. aftervvards sayd to his disciples: hoc facite in meam commemorationem, and then (as witnesseth S. Iren. li. 4. ca. 32. Ireneus) noui Testamen­ti nouam docuit oblationem, quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in vniuerso mundo offere Deo. he taught the nevv oblation of the nevv Testament, vvhich the Church receauing from the Apostles, in the vvhole vvorlde offereth vnto God. The sacri­fice of the Masse dedu­ced directly from Christ by M. Whit. owne graūt. This being true, as M. W. graū ­ting so far as he doth, can not go backe, nor possiblie inuent any tergiuersatiō, thus I frame him an argument.

That which Christ did, and appoin­ted [Page 63] to be done, that may and ought to be done.

But Christ at his last supper offered sacrifice according to the order of Mel­chisedec, and appointed the Apostles and priestes to do the same:

Ergo the Apostles and priests may and ought to offer sacrifice.

The Maior is euidente, and no Chris­tian will denie it. The Minor hauing two parts, is proued touching the later, by Christes expresse commaundemēt, Hoc facite in meam commemorationem, doe this for a commemoration of me. the former wherein lieth the difficultie, is acknow­ledged by M. W. for if not only Aaron, but also Melchisedec offered sacrifice, & thereby prefigured Christ, thē it foloweth of necessitie, that Christe offered sacrifice, not only in bloudie maner as did Aaron, but also in vnbloudie and mistical sort, as did Melchisedec, Psal. 109. Heb. 7. accor­ding to whose order he is specially na­med a priest, & so by perfit correspon­dence, fulfilled that antecedent figure. & hereto S. Ciprian, S. Ireneus, S. Aus­tine, and al the auncient fathers, accor­dinge to Caluines confession and eui­dent truth, geue witnes: that M. W. be not leaft post alone, to sustaine so great [Page 64] a burden. Of this first argument, I de­duce one more.

They who may and ought to offer sa­crifice, as did first Melchisedec, and af­terwarde Christe, are truly and proper­ly, sacerdotes.

But priestes of the new testament, may and ought to offer sacrifice in suche sort.

Ergo they are truly and properlye sacerdotes, priests.

The Maior is true and set downe in forme by M.W. the Minor is the conclu­sion of the last argumēt, and so proued sufficiently alreadie: then I hope the Conclusion will stand. wherefore lea­uinge this matter for M. W. to scanne, and to recorde with him selfe, who is that Baal, founder of the priesthode of the new testament, now may we vew with better iudgment, how substantial­ly he answereth S. Aug. ciui. li. 20. ca. 10. Austines place de Ci­uitate dei, where S. Austine doth distin­guishe betweene all Christians, vvho are vnproperly called priestes because of their mistical Chrisme and vnitie vvith Christe, Propter mi­sticu chris­ma. & others, qui proprie iam vocantur in ecclesia sacerdotes & episcopi, that properlie are novv called in the Church, priestes and byshops: and properlie such are they by M. W. defi­nition [Page 65] which properly offer sacrifice. M.W. āswereth, pag. [...]. that the name (priest) vvas of olde tyme, after a more peculiar sorte ap­plied to the pastors and ministers that handled the vvorde and sacramentes, but there vvas an abuse in so speakinge. then you agree not with S. Austine, who teacheth that propriè, in proprietie of speach, they were so called. who, if they had then to execute no other priestly function, then haue now the Englishe ministers, as M. W. supposeth, or wolde pretend, I graunte the worde prieste could not be applied to them but as abusiuely, as if one woulde cal a ciuil magistrate by that name, or one of the Quenes Readers in the Vniuersities. For, preachinge of the worde, & ministringe of some one or other sacramente, although in the Catholike Church it be done by pries­tes, yet properlie that is not the reason why they are called by that name. but the true reason, is that which M.W. ren­dereth, quia propriè offerunt sacrificia, be­cause properly they offer sacrifice. Now, that S. Austine meante of priestes in this sort, & that himselfe was such a prieste, S. Austine a priest. to passe ouer many pregnante and eui­dente places in him, for breuities sake I refer you to the knowen story of his [Page 66] mothers death. Where she firste of al in her death-bed requesteth, Aug. Cōf. li. 9. cap. 11. that her sonne vvould remember her at the altar of God. When after her death, the corps beinge brought into the Churche, and placed beside the graue, before the tyme of burial, prayers were sayd, Ibid. ca. 12. & the sacrifice of our price and redemption offered for her. when after­warde, S. Austine in his moste deuoute & zelous praier made to God for her, reckneth this to her singuler commen­dacion, Ibid, c, 13. that at her departure she tooke no care for costlie maner of burial, or sumptuous monumente, but only desired to be remembred at thy altar ô Lorde, from vvhence she knew vvas dispensed that holy sacrifice, Coloss. c. 2. vvhereby vvas blotted out the handvvrittinge vvhich vvas againste vs, vvhereby triumphe vvas obtained against Satan our eternal enemie. & straight waies: inspire (saith he) ô Lorde my God, inspire to thy seruants my brethren, that vvho-soeuer of them shal reade this, may haue remembrance at thy altar, of Patricius and Monica my father and mother.

An obiectiōBut againste this M.W. hath an ob­iection, as common & plaine to them that know oughte in diuinitie as Dun­stable hye way: & answered before hāde abundantlie, in the annotacions of the the new testamente, Heb. ca. 7. v. 12. [Page 67] 17.23. his argument is: pa. 6. I say there are no priestes of the new testamēt that offer sacrifice after Christ, who is the eternal priest according to the order of Melchisedec, & obtaineth sacer­dotiū [...] an eternal priesthod. he hath made an end of al sacrifices, & takē away the succession of priestes, & cōmitted his church to be ruled by pastors and doctors for euer.

To beginne with the laste where you ende, if Christ abolished all priesthod, and left his Church to be gouerned for euer by pastors and doctors, The English churche ru­led by Pas­tors, such as are no pri­estes. which were no priestes, had this appointemēt and ordinance of his, effect, yea or no? if no, beware what yow say, for litle differ you from a Iew, & a man of Ma­homets religion, and weake is your faith in Christes godhead, if you thinke that in so manie places of scripture, he appointed such a regimente for his Church, The church of Christe was neuer so ruled. which after his departure ne­uer tooke effect. if yea, then shew vs where, or when, was his Church so go­uerned. was it a hūdred yeares ago, be­fore Frier Luther first of all in our me­morie, induced this kinde of gouern­ment? you must needes say, no. Ascend we then 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and ten ages, vntil S. Gregories time, was it al this while gouerned by such pastors as [Page 68] you describe? I wene as yet you wil say, sure I am you should say, no. For those pastors, were styll priestes, and that in proper sense, as appeareth by al stories. Suche were our first Apostles, the con­uerters of our nation, those excellent men, SS. Augustine, Paulinus, Lauren­tius, Melitus, Iustus &c. sacred by the Pope of Rome, or other lawfull Bi­shops in obediēce of the Sea of Rome, offering sacrifice, liuing and dying as priestes: Beda in ec­cles. histor. Aug.. li. 1.2.3.4. as by the goodlie storie of Ve­nerable Bede our coūtryman, you may euerie where learne. Such pastors and priests they were, by whom, and vnder whose regiment, our Churches were first builded, and the ecclesiastical state of our realme ordered: as now vnder the regiment of them that cal thē selues pastors no priestes, and are in deede no more the one then the other, all is pul­led downe and ouerthrowen. And if in anie other countrie of Christendome, the churches had any other regiment, such as you pretēd now in England, of pastors no priestes, shew vs your bookes, and we wil beleeue you. But you wil say, from S. Gregorie vpward all was smooth and iumpe as it is now in the English congregation. Suppose [Page 69] that to be true. how in the meane seasō can you iustifie your owne saing, in perpetuū that Christ delyuered his Church to be gouerned for euer, by suche maner of pastors. Cā Christes decree be made frustrate for so many ages? Can mans iniquitye (as you in your Apologie commonlie, Aug. de vni­tate eccle. c. 6.10.12.20. con. epistol. Parm. lib. 1. c. 1. li. 2. c. 19 con. lit. pet. lib. 2. ca. 31. cō. Cres. grā. li. 3. c. 63.64.65. but most bluntlie obiect) stoppe the course of Christes omnipotent and eternal pro­uidence? know you not how copious­lie S. Augustine hath confuted this self same slaūderous obiectiō in your fore­fathers the Donatistes?

But passe we on. come we to the first fathers of the primitiue Churche. were they lay ministers after the maner of the English congregation, that is, pas­tors, no priestes? how dare, or can you say so? seing in S. Austine manifestlie you see a sacrificing priesthod: Sup. pa. 23. seing your self acknowledge Sainte Hierome to haue bene a priest of the Romane Church which neuer yet approued any such ministery as you haue inuented: Bal. act rom. pont. in Leo ne. pa. 45. Calu. lib. de scā. et lib. de vera eccl. re­formā. ratio. inter opuse. P. Mar. in defens. Eucha. con. Gardi. Par 1. obiec. 156. seing your greate Rabbine and synke of ini­quitie Iohn Bale, calleth S. Leo the great and first of that name, in plaine termes an idolater for this cause: seing your chiefe capitayne & Apostle Cal­uine, and after him P. Martir, and before [Page 70] him Huldericke Zuinglius, Zuin. to. 1. Epichir. de ca none missae fol. 183. affirme in generall of the fathers in the primitiue Church, that for maintenāce of the vn­bloudy sacrifice, they forced & abused the scriptures. Cal. in libel. de caena do­mini. and Caluine more exe­crable then the rest, addeth, that the aū ­ciēt Church expressed the verie forme and type of the Aaronical & Leuitical sacrificing, eo excepto, quòd panis hostia, lo­co animalis vtebantur, sauing that insteed of a beast, they vsed bread. all which proueth that in propre maner of speache they sacrificed: and therefore by your owne definitiō, in propre speache were pries­tes. And finallie, doth not Illyricus with his companions, confesse in worde & proue by deede, Sacrifice of­fered by priests, was cō ­mō in the primitiue church, by cōfession of the aduersaries. that sacrifices were ordinarelie offered to God in the flower of the primitiue Church, in the middest of the persequutions, for the soules de­parted, in the honor of Saintes, for ge­neral and particular necessities, as is now vsed in the Churche of Rome? Thus write they. Cent. 3. ca. 5. col. 138. To this end, S. Cyprian in his third booke and sixte epistle to the priestes of Rome, willeth those dayes diligentlie to be noted, wherein the martyrs departed this life. In the same place he speaketh of oblations, & sacrifices obserued in the memories of martyrs. Let vs be informed (sayth Tertullian) vvhat [Page 71] be those dayes, vvherein our blessed brethren by glorious death passe to immortalitie, that vve here may celebrate oblations and sacrifi­ces in remēbrance of thē. And there is verie cōmon mētion of oblations in Tertullian. as in his booke de corona militis. vve offer sacrifices yerelie for the dead, and for byrthdayes. S. pro natali­tiis. Cyprian saith, that oblations and sacrifices vvere yerelie made in the remembrance of martyrs. lib. 3. epist. 6. & lib. 4. epist. 5. & li. 1. epis. 9. he speaketh of sacrifice for the dead. And to end with one sentēce of S. Ib. c. 10. col. 247. Cy­prian by them alleaged, thus they cite him. Our lord Iesus Christe (sayth S. Cipriā lib. 2. epist. 3.) be is the high priest of God the father, and sacrifice to God the father he first offered, and commaunded the same to be done in remembrance of him. And that priest tru­lie executeth Christs steede or roome, vvho doth imitate that vvhich Christ did, and thē in the Church offereth he a true and full sa­crifice to God the father, if he begin so to offer, as he seeth Christ himself to haue offered. Thus ascēding from our time vp to the primitiue, and most pure and vncor­rupte age of the Church, yet we finde not the performance of that promise & order set by Christ, that his Church should be gouerned by pastors that were not priests.

[Page 72] M. Iew. challēg touchig the sacrifice art. 17. āswe­red & con­futed by the chief prote­stants of our time.And here by the waye to put you in minde, because in this preface, so fresh­lie you prouoke M Martin now depar­ted, and renew M Iewels challenge, may it please you, being put a litle be­sides his byas of comparing phrases to­gether (which was the verie bones and marrow of M. Iew. diuinitie) to waigh how wel you can make his challenge agree with the manifest confessions of these your own doctors and if it lyke you to vew Caluine in the booke be­fore quoted, Cal. de vera eccle. refor­ratione. yow shal there find fiue Doctors within M. Iewels compasse, by name, S. Ireneus, Arnobius, S. Athana­sius, S. Ambrose, and S. Augustine, not the least or meanest of the fathers, e­ther for ātiquity, or holines, or learning reproued and checked by Caluin, for this great ouersight forsooth, because to proue the vnbloudie sacrifice of the church (which they beleued, els would they neuer haue applied the scripture to confirme it) they misinterprete and falsly applie the scriptures, ita vidiculè (these are his wordes) vt dissentire cogat & ratio et veritas, so ridiculously, as both reasō and truth constraineth me to dissent from thē. whereas if he had lyued vntil this time, and had bene acquainted but with half [Page 73] those phrases, Iewel. artic. 17. con. Hat­ding. which in the 17 article M. Iew. hath raked together (of which benefite by your labours he might now haue bene partaker) he neuer neded to haue runne into that desperate vaine, of bidding plaine defiance to al the pri­mitiue church.

And thus much being spoken by the way, through occasion of M.I. challēg renewed by you, let vs returne to con­clude (if it may be) our former matter. from this age vnto the primitiue church we find not (as you see) pastors without priests. then it foloweth, say we, that Christ neuer appointed anye such. For then surelie in some age, yea, in euerie age they would haue appeared. And how you wil lose this knot I muche doute. yet I feare, you wil take Alexan­ders sworde and cut it a sunder, and now applie that to your self, which be­fore you yelded to Luther, that when your iudgment agreeth with scripture, you set more therby, then by a thou­sand Augustines, a thousand Ciprians, and al the churches. If you thus say (as I thinke you haue nothing els to say) yet remember that besides these many Augustines, and Ciprians, and chur­ches, you haue one Christ standing a­gainst [Page 74] you. who promised and apoīted (as you confesse) far otherwyse.

But passe we on. what scripture haue yow against priestes? S. Paule, vvho saith that Christ is an eternal priest after the order of Melchisedec, and hath his priesthode [...]. what gather you of this? you leaue the word in greeke, as though it were so much the more terrible, and able to confounde al priestes then if it were in latin. Our old interpreter translateth it, sempiternum, Beza, perpetuum, Cal­uin, immutabile, Castalio, nunquam transiturum, 1577.1579. the Englishe bible of one yere, vnchangeable, of an other, euer­lastinge. make the best of it, and take which you list, or all, if ye please. The sense of the Apostle is easie inough, How the priesthode of Christ is e­ternal aboue the Priest­hode of the law. by the comparison which he there prose­cuteth: that as Christ had many excel­lent prerogatiues aboue the priestes or priesthode of Aaron, so amonge many other this was one, that whereas the priesthode of Aaron passed from one to an other, from father to sonne, by rea­son of death, Christ neuer dying but e­uer lyuing, neuer departeth from his priesthode, but reteineth it for euer. To make the reader better conceaue this, which though it be many times read in [Page 75] your congregations, yet is perhaps ne­uer or seldome wel vnderstoode of the minister himselfe, the priesthode of Aa­ron is brieflie to be recalled to memo­rie. In the booke of Numbers, Numer. 20. God thus speaketh vnto Moyses. Take Aaron and his sonne vvith him, and leade them into the mountaine Hor. And vvhen thou hast taken from Aaron his (priestlie) vesture, thou shalt put it on Eleazarus, and Aaron shal die there. Moyses did as our lord commaūded &c. And vvhen he had spoiled Aaron of his garments, he put them on Eleazarus, and Aaron died there. In this short storie, is noted the na­ture and state of the leuitical priesthode passing from father to sonne, and en­ding in the first by death, in lyke sort as any other facultie of life, or bodie, ciuil or naturall endeth. But in Christ it is not so, who euer liuing, keepeth euer his priesthode as wel as his life, neuer departing with it to anie other, as did Aaron to Eleazarus, he to Phinees, and so one to an other in course of succes­sion. So that Christ hath [...], a sempiternall, euer lasting, vnchangea­ble, or vnremoueable priesthod, far o­therwise then Aaron and the Leuitical priests had.

This being the Apostles reason and [Page 76] sense and word, what foloweth hereof, or what would M.W. inferre? I see not what may be concluded, but ether it is so true, that we wil neuer denye it, or it is so foolish, that he should be ashamed to mention it. if he say Christ is a priest for euer: we affirme no lesse. that his priesthod passeth not from him: it is our beleefe. that the force and vertue thereof endureth foreuer: we liue and die therein. and all the baptismes, recō ­ciliations, sacrifice, sacramentes, al grace, vertue, sanctification, which is in the church Catholike, dependeth of this faith, and floweth from the eter­nity of this one euerliuinge priest and priesthode. Christs pri­esthode is no more a­gainst the office of other priests, then his kinglie power is a­gainst the office of tem­poral kings. But will he inferre hereof, that therefore there ought to be no other inferior priestes, and that this de­rogateth from his priesthode? this lo, is so chyldish, that amongest meane lear­ned diuines, it deserueth rather laugh­ter then answeare. Christe is a priest for euer, therefore there are no priestes: whie, then let vs argue, Christ is a true man for euer, therefore we are not, or he hath a soule for euer, therefore we haue none, or he is a kinge for euer, therefore let vs depose all princes, and remoue princelie authoritie. Christ is our doc­tor, [Page 77] maister, and teacher for euer, Mat. 23. v. [...].10. Heb. 1. v. 2. Iac. 3. v. 1. and so farewel al maisters and doctors, & so the Eschequer shal saue that, which the Q. Maiestie bestoweth on the Vniuer­sitie readers, & finallie, because Christ liueth for euer, therefore let vs rid our selues out of the way, lest we derogate from Christ. For as Christ in most excel lent sorte hath the one, that is, priesthod so hath he all the rest: bodie, soule, kin­glie power, prophecie, to be a maister, doctor, and teacher. all agree to him [...], & that, eternallie, vnchan­geablie, and vnremoueablie.

But ô miserable people, whose soules are committed to such teachers, & most vnfortunate church, where such doc­tors possesse the principal chaires, where the very learned mē, who should be lightes to the rest, are so blinded with heresie, that they see not so much, as ether common knowledge of meane diuinitie, or the continual practise of ciuil policie, or their verie Communiō booke thrusteth into their eyes and cares. for how is it possible that a lear­ned man hauing any sense of diuinitie, should be moued with this new deuise, hanging vpon one Greeke or Latine worde, which so many hūdreds of lear­ned [Page 78] fathers Greeke and Latine could neuer yet espie. See S. Chry. Occumen. Theophil. S. Amoros. S. Primasius or any other in Heb. ca. 7. but though they knew both this particular controuersie, and generallie all truth, by many degrees more fullie, then possiblie can any of these sectaries or secte-maisters, yet were they so far from anie such collec­tion, that euermore, in saynge and wri­ting, in teachinge and confutinge, in lyfe and death, they practised the con­trarie.

And what reasonable man castinge his eyes vpon the Q. maiestie, should not by and by descrie the vanitie of this sophistication. The authority of princes cōmunica­ted to inferi­or magistra­tes without iniurie of princes, sheweth how the power of Christ is communicated to pries­tes without iniurie of Christe. for if she may conferre vpon some of her subiectes, in euerie shier of her realme, authoritie, and go­uernemēt to rule, to imprison, to chas­tise, to correct, to release, to decide con­trouersies, to arraygne in iudgement, to condemne and execute euen vnto death, & al this, with out empayringe or diminishinge her princelie authoritie, nay to the much greater shew & decla­ration thereof, for so much as her sub­iectes doinge these offices vnder her, & hauing al their power depēding of her (she absolutely rulinge, & dependinge of none) by these so manye litle riuers as it were, doe more excellētly set forth [Page 79] the largenes of the mayne springe: how much more easelie may we conceaue this of Christ, our vniuersal and abso­lute kinge and priest, in the regiment of his Church, that he without empai­ringe of his supreme, euerlastinge, and incommutable priesthode, may com­municate these sacred priestlie functi­ons with his ministerial officers, for the benefite of his subiectes the Chris­tiā-Catholikes dispersed thorough out the world: and so much the more, as in euerie holie action wrought in the Church, in euerie consecration, in euerie sanctification, in euerie recon­ciliation, in euerie baptisme, in euerie sacramente and sacrifice, whatsoeuer is done to the benefite of mans soule, Christ our high priest hath therein a more true and effectual operation con­curring with his minister, then hath any prince vnder the sunne, in lyke case, in regiment of his owne realme.

And if this can not sinke into their heads, how is it, The Parla­mēt yeldeth to ministers a principal part of Christs pri­esthode, vz. power to remit sinnes. that they consider not their verie Cōmuniō booke, where the Parlamēt (from whēce that booke hath his authoritie) geueth power to the minister, in some case to remitte sinnes, then which, nothing is more proper to [Page 80] Christ, The Com­munion booke in the visitatiō of the sicke. nothīg more [...], nothing more neerelie vnited to his diuine per­son. And yet thus it is appointed there. Here shal the sicke person make a speciall cō ­fession, if he feele his consciēce troubled vvith any vveightie matter: after vvhich confes­sion the priest, (that is, the minister) shall absolue him after this sorte. And so folo­weth a verie forme of Absolutiō, boro­wed from the vse of our Catholike Church. Our Lord Iesus Christ vvho hath least povver to his Church to absolue al sinners vvhich trulie repente and beleeue in him, of his great mercie forgeue thee thine offences. And by his authoritie committed to me, I ab­solue thee from all thie synnes, in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the Holie Ghost. Amen.

Wherefore, if ether reason, or sense, or experience, or humanitie, or diuini­tie, preuaile with M. W. he can not vpō Christs sempiternall priesthode, make any probable coniecture against the priesthode of the Church, or say, it de­rogateth from Christ. Contrarywise, if he wil stand, ether to his owne writing, or to the iudgement of his felow-zuin­glians, Martir, Bale, and Caluin, or to the proofes and testification of the lu­theranes his brethren (for so he calleth) [Page 81] them) Illyricus, wigandus, &c. or will admitt the vniforme consent of the fa­thers in the primitiue Church, or the veritie of Christs promise, he must needes acknowledge, not onlie that in S. Augustines time, but euen from the Apostles time, priestes properlie so cal­led, were pastors & rulers of the church, and haue had their origine from Christ. And therfore as before, so here I tell him againe, that in calling them Baalites & Antichristians, he calleth Christ Baal, he calleth our Sauiour Antichrist. And therefore, if I thought my counsaile might preuaile with such prophane mi­nisters, Rom. 9. geuē ouer (I feare) into a repro­bate sense, and vessels of damnation, I would say, as S. Peter said to Simon Magus, Repente thee of this thy vvickednes, Act. 8. v. 22. and pray to God, if perhaps this cogitation of thy harte may be remitted thee. For in this blasphemous sentence, most certaynly he hath troden the sonne of God vnder foote, Heb. 10.29. and esteemed the bloud of the Testament pollu­ted, vvherein he is sanctified, and hath done contumely to the spirite of grace.

NEXT in place foloweth Pe­nance, wherein M.W. kee­peth his accustomed, spea­king so doubtfullie and am­biguouslie, that he semeth not fullie resolued, what to affirme: yet in fine, as commonlie his maner is, he yeldeth suf­ficient matter to ouerthrow him selfe. M. Martin here noteth him of two faul­tes. one, that he iniurieth the fathers: the other, that he contrarieth him selfe. the iniurie done to the fathers is this, that he affirmeth S. pag. 7. Ciprian and other fathers, to haue depraued the doctrine of penance.

Before he come to iustifie this accusation, he falleth into a common place, common to all sortes of protestā ­tes, taking to him selfe supreme iudge­ment ouer the fathers, & complayninge of the Catholikes, that so it fareth vvith them, pa. 7. that excepte those thinges may preuaile vvhich in the fathers are most corrupte or vi­tious, [...]itiosifiima. they are not able to maintaine their cause. Whereunto I answere, that so it fareth with the protestantes, that ex­cept [Page 83] they may be soueraigne iudges of fathers, Councels, Church, and al, they must hold their peace, and say nothing. for this is as stale a tricke, Euery here­tiks particular heresy is that word of god, wherby they iudge al fathers. and currant amōgst any sect, as any thinge hitherto spoken of: to protest much reuerence to the fathers, whē they are not against the word of God, that is, against their cōceiued heresies. marie thē, boldlie to stande with the word against them, and say they were all beetle-blynd and saw nothinge. for when, and wherein the fa­thers hold with them, then, & in such matters, they were worse then madde, & altogether voyde of common sense, if they would thus inueigh against thē. In the last question, presse them with the fathers and the primitiue Church, Note these errors of the aūcient Fathers. touchinge external pristhod, and the sa­crifice: it was their error, saith Caluin, Illyricus, Zuinglius, and Bale. concerning the Sacri­fice. see be­fore pa. 60.61.69.70 &c. Presse the sacrilegious vowbreakers, with the consent of the primitiue Church, for condemnation of their vnlawful ma­riages, P. Martyr. de votis. p. 524. I knovv (saith Peter Martir) and declared no lesse to my auditors in Oxford, that Epiphanius vvith manie others of the fa­thers, The vnlaw­ful mariages of priestes & votaries. erred in that they helde it a fynne to breake the vovv of virginitie, and they do ill to number it amongest the Apostolicall tra­ditions. [Page 84] Charge the English Puritanes with the consent of Antiquitie, for ob­seruation of feasts & holy-dayes in ho­nour of Christ and his Saintes. M. T. C. answereth. T.C. pa. 122. in D. Whitg. pa. 547. VVhereas M. D. VVhiteg. citeth Augustine and Hierom, to proue that in the churches in their tymes, there vvere holy-daies kept besydes the Lordes day, The honour of Saintes. he might haue also cited Ignatius, and Tertullian, and Ci­prian, vvhich are of greater aunciencie, and vvould haue made more for the credite of his cause. What memorie of Christ wil they re­teyn who labour to abolish the day of his resurrection. for it is not to be denied, but this kee­pinge of holy-dayes (especially of Easter, and Pentecost) is verie auncient, and that these holy-dayes for the remembrance of Martyrs vvere vsed of long tyme. but these abuses vvere no auncienter then other vvere, grosser also then this, and therefore I appeale from these exāples, to the scriptures. Charge the Trinitarie Protestantes, The B. Trinitie. the Arians of Polonia, & Seruetus, with the Coū ­cel of Nice, and Crede of Athanasius: the Councell of Nice (say they) vvas a congregation of Sophisters, Beza in epi­sto. theolog. epist, 81. Cal. con. Sernetum pa. 82 [...]91. and the Crede of Athanasius may more iustlie be cal­led the Crede of Sathanasius. the first Ni­cene fathers vvith Athanasius, inuented this tripartite God. they vvere all blind Sophis­ters, Ministers of the Beast, slaues of Anti­christ, and bevvitched vvith his enchaunt­mentes. [Page 85] (for that the Pope is Antichrist, in that, as in verie manie other pointes they are iust of M.W. faith) In like sorte dealeth the Lutherane Vbiquitarie, The person of Christ. a­gainst vvhose monstrous heresie, vtter­lie destroyng the mysterie of Christe Incarnatiō, vvhen Bullinger vrged the consent of al the auncient fathers, Bren­tius presētly gaue this general answere. The fathers altogether (in this question) are of no vveight or authoritie. Bulling. in fundam. fir. cont. Brenti. parte 2. ca. 7. They vvere taught, not in the schole of the holy Ghost, but in the schole of Aristotle. they vvere deceiued and blynded by Aristotle & humaine reason. of celestial matters, they haue childish imagi­nations, and grosse dreames, & earthlie fan­sies, and carnal conceites. Thus answered Brentius, and thus (saith Bullinger of him,) Inuenit compēdium ad omnia veterum testimonia respondēdi. A shorte compendious vvay hath he founde, to solue all places of the fathers, & thus sayth euerie heretike tou­ching euerie controuersie wherein the fathers stād against him. & the selfe same way hath M.W. taken. But because this way is ether to large, Mat. 7. v. 13. & therefore to daū gerous, as lying wide open for euerie kind of heretike that hath bene, is, or cā be: or to straight, if M. W. wil make it priuate to him self, and deny it to all o­thers, [Page 86] let him therfore without this pre­iudicate condemnation, geue reason whie he offereth the fathers this into­lerable iniurie. for so it must be called vntill he proue the cōtrarie. his reasons are these.

Pag. 7. Penance consisteth not in certaine exter­nall penalties, or in a certaine exquisite se­ueritie of discipline, vvhich the Apostle calleth [...], l. 2. v. 23. vvherebie the bodie is chas­tised vvith certaine voluntarie punishmen­tes, but in internal dolour conceiued through remembranco of out sinnes, and in amend­mente of lyfe. and the fathers vvhen they supposed, that by such greuous penalties, their sinnes should be acquited and God pleased, they erred greuously, and somevvhat diminis­hed the force of Christes deathe and bloud, by vvhich onlie, our sinnes are expiated. for par­don of sinnes is to be expected of nothinge but of the bloud of Christ. In which wordes three thinges I note, 1 his description of penance, 2 his reason prouinge the same, 3 and the sequele or absurditie, which he inserreth thereof, wherein stoode the auncient fathers error. His descrip­tion of pe­nance. 1 His description of penance is partlie affirmatiue, as that he requireth internal greefe of hart and correction of life: partlie is negatiue, as that he remoueth from it all externall [Page 87] chastisement or discipline. In the first we agree with him. in the seconde, we say he erreth, and vnderstādeth not the scriptures. As without the first, External di­scipline and works of pe­nāce cōmē ­ded both in the olde and new Testa­ment. Mat. 11. v. 20. the se­cond is worth nothinge, so ioyne them bothe together, they greatlie please God, & are highlie commended in the Gospel. our Sauiour when he denoun­ced vae, to Corozain and Bethsaida sayng, if the miracles vvrought in thee, had bene done in Tyre and Sidon, they had not onlie done penance longe agoe, but they had done it in beare-cloth & ashes, he sheweth this external afflictiō to be verie com­mendable, and to make the penance more auaylable, and withall pointeth the Iewes to their Prophetes, who wil­led them with such external humiliatiō to prostrate them selues before God, thereby the sooner to procure his mer­cie. Ioel. 2. Conuert ye to me (sayth the Prophete Ioel) vvith al your hart, in fastinge, and mourninge, and lamentation, and rente your hartes and not your garmentes, saith our Lorde omnipotent. In the later parte of which sentence, as he disproueth exter­nall signes, without internall remorse, as being hipocritical & reiected of God by the Prophete Esaie, Esa. 1. so in the first part coupling both toghether, he shew­eth, [Page 88] what is perfect penance, Mat. 6. v. 2.5.16. as likewise doth our Sauiour in S. Matthew, where he condemneth that Pharisaical error. but that wickednes being remoued, the thinges in them selues he approueth, & calleth them the iustice of Christians, Ibi. v. 1.4.6.18. who for the same haue their revvard vvith God. and that M. W. replie not, this to haue bene a Iewish ceremonie, and therefore abrogated, he may learne, if he know not, or he may remēber, if he haue for­gotten, that this is a duetie morall, and therefore practised not onlie in the law but also out of the law, and before the law, and after the law, both in the tyme of nature and grace.

Touching the lawe of nature, be­fore the law of Moyses, I referre him to S. Hiero. cont. Iouin. lib. 2. Hierome in his booke against Io­uinian, partlie because those examples are by him wel set forth and vrged a­gainst Iouinian, partlie because M.W. may withall finde, that his opinion is not new, but was of old defended by that fleshlie heretike.

This morall duetie grounded on the law of nature, God confirmed and es­tablished by his writtē law, Num. 30. v. 13.14. 2. Reg. 12. v. 16. as we reade in the booke of Numbers. Thus, vnder the law the prophet Dauid did penāce. [Page 89] Thus, out of the law, Ionae 2. the Niniuites did penance, and God approued their do­inge. Thus, that wicked Kinge Achab did penance, 3. Reg. 22. v. 27.28. & the scripture alloweth him therin. Thus in the time of grace S. Paule chastised him selfe, 1. Co. 9. v. 27. 2. Cor. 2.6. and enioy­ned penance to others. The Apostles vsuallie enioyned fastes, before they or­dered priestes, as appeareth in the Actes. Act. 13. v. 2.3. & ca. 14. v. 22. This kinde of fast and penance vsed Ti­mothe, whē, though otherwise weake & feeble, he altogether abstayned from wine, so far forth, that the Apostle S. Paule thought it needeful to appoint & require him to vse a litle vvine, 1. Tim. 5. v. 23. because of his vveake stomake and manie infirmites. Touchinge which place, were it not that M.W. hath already condemned the fathers as erringe in this point, I could wish him, quietlie and consideratlie to reade S. Chrisostomes notable homelie, tom. 5. Homelia 1. ad popul. Antioche: Finallie in one worde, that true Chris­tians should thus doe, that is, vse pre­script kinde of fastinge and discipline in the new testament, our Sauiour eui­dentlie foretelleth, when he saith in ex­cuse of his Apostles, because they fas­ted not, as did S. Ihons disciples, Can the children of the bridegrome mourne, Mat. 9. v. 15. as long [Page 90] as the bridegrome is vvith them? but the dayes vvil come, vvhen the bridegrome shal be taken avvay from them, and then they shal fast. which fast, must necessarilie be vn­derstoode of a fast d [...]ffering from that which they obserued with Christ. And so, nether can be vnderstood of the fast from sinne, for so Christ would not al­low them to breake their fast, nether of fast, as fast signifieth temperance in diet, for Christ neuer allowed them excesse or intemperance, and brieflie cā signifie no other fast, but such as the Church after Christes departure vnto these dayes, hath and yet doth obserue.

Colo. 2.23.Agaynst al this, M. W. alleageth two Greeke wordes of the Apostle [...] that is (accordinge to his sense) seueritie of discipline in pu­nishing the bodie. the English Testa­ment tourneth it, sparing the bodie. whe­reunto the Apostle opposeth [...]. Bible 1577. which in the same place is trās­lated satisfying of the flesh. And what meaneth M.W. by this allegatiō? thin­keth he that the Apostle discommen­deth the first, and exhorteth men to the second? is he so verie an Epicure, that he can but once imagine of S. Paule that he should wish men to pamper vp [Page 91] their bodie, and employ them selues to satisfie the flesh? if he meane so, let him speake plainlie, that men may see to what filthines this new Gospel ten­deth. If otherwise, why alleageth he those wordes in this place, and against fasting and penance? why at all allea­geth he the bare wordes without a cō ­mentarie? Touchinge the sense, let the reader peruse the Annotation vpon the same, in the Catholike English Tes­tamēt, & he shal quickly see, what pithe there is in M. W. greeke citations, with which, I know not to what purpose he would seme to illuminate his wri­tinge. Verie wel and succinctlie, Theodor. in hunc locum Theo­dorete geueth the sense of that place otherwise obscure and hard. Oportet sua sponte abstinere, non tanquam ab abominan­dis, sed tanquam a suauissimis. The Apos­tle meante not to withdraw men from abstinence. they must abstaine from mea­tes and drinkes, not as from things impure and abominable, for that is Iudaical, but as from things pleasant and delectable to the flesh, and this is Christian.

His reason why he disliketh the former workes of penance, The protes­tants com­mō argumēt aginst wor­kes of pe­nance. is because they are iniurious to Christs passion ond death, the onlie price and satisfaction for sin­nes. [Page 92] This argument is al one with the last, of priesthode, and therefore in parte is satisfied alreadie. For a sur­plusage I adde, that these and the lyke reasons, procede rather of ignorance then ought els. & therefore if he would first learne, what is the meaning of the Catholike Church, and all Christians, he would neuer so idlie trouble the world with such stuffe, nor so wicked­lie controule the learned auncient Bi­shops, and withal he might ease him selfe of some labour. Verie diuinelie saith the holie Councel. Conci. Trid. sess. 14. ca. 8. This satisfaction vvhich vve vndertake for our sinnes, is not ours so, that it is not by Christ Iesus. for vve 2. Cor. 3. that of our selues, as of our selues, can do no­thing, philip. 4. by his cooperatiō vvhich strengtheneth vs, can do al things. 2. Cor. 2. so man hath not vvhereof to glory, but 2. Cor. 10. Gal. 6. Act. 17. al his gloriation is in Christ, in vvhom vve liue, deserue and satisfie, Mat. 3. & 4. Luc. 3.10.17. doing fruites vvorthie of penance, vvhich of Christ haue force, by him are offered to the father, and by him are accepted of the father. Thus the Councel▪ whose doctrine wel vn­derstoode, maketh far more for the ho­nour of the Crosse and bloud of Christ, then doth our aduersaries, without comparison.

And surelie, ether our lucke is euill [Page 93] in these our dayes, whose happe is to fal amongst such peruerse aduersaries, that what-soeuer we can do, one way or o­ther wil gnawe at it, or els our aduersa­ries lotte is strange and maruelous, a­mongst whom, scant any one can frame an argument against vs, but presentlie he hath a brother of his owne, that is readie to pul him by the sleeue, and cal him foole for his labour. M.W. repro­ueth the fathers, and in them, al catho­likes, for that by our workes we pull from Christ, and diminish the vertue of his bloud. Contrary-wise, Iew. defēce of the Apo­logie, part. 4 ca. 19.20. ¶ 1 that most graue and learned father Iohn Brentius, (so M. Iewel calleth him,) inueigheth against vs, for that by our workes we geue to much to Christ, and magnifie more thē we ought, the vertue of his Crosse. and in truth, if there were any fault in the doctrine of the Church, Brētius reason carieth far more probabilitie thē M.W. Thus he reasoneth. Iactat Sotus se Christo nihil detrahere, sed potius glorificare. Brentius in Apol. cōfes. Wirtem. ca. de contriti. sed cōtra verū est &c. Sotus braggeth, that he taketh no­thing frō Christ, but rather glorifieth him. but the contrary is true, that Christ by him and his felovves, is iniuried vvith great cōtumely. Insigni con­tumelia affi­citur. For to attribute vnto Christ, that not only he by his death hath deserued the expiation of our [Page 94] sinnes, The Catho­likes by the judgment of Brentius, honour Christ to much. but also hath imparted that merite vnto our good vvorks, this is to attribute much more to Christ, then ether he acknovvlegeth, or the thinge it selfe can suffer. and it is com­tumelie, not onlie to detract from the glorie due to any thing, but also to ascribe to much praise and glorie to it. and the lavv of God manifestlie signifieth, that in seruice of God it is a sinne to decline, not onlie to much to­vvardes the lefte hand, but also to much to­vvardes the right. Thus he. howbeit An­dreas Fricius the Kinge of Poles Secre­tarie, a great learned and zelous Zuin­glian, disprouinge both the one and the other, both M.VV. the Zuinglian, and Brentius the Lutheran, geueth vs testi­monie, that in this parte our doctrine is sincere, and holdeth the iust and goldē mediocritie, and bendeth to much ne­ther to the one hand, nor yet to the o­ther. Andr. Fri. de eccles. lib. 4 ca. 12. for thus he writeth. Although Christ take not avvay all infirmitie from such as be regenerate, yet renevving them by his spi­rite, and planting in them vertues of nevv life and imparting to them merite and his iustice, most truelie and vvith singuler fruite he is sayd to liue in them. Non obscu­ratur sed il­lustratur, nō euacuatur anh by this meanes the glory of Christ is not obscured, but clarified, the Crosse of Christ is not euacuated, but made more copious, the price of the bloudshed [Page 95] for vs, is not diminished but increased, sed f [...]cunda redditut, nō minuitur sed augetur. vvhere­as that vvhich by his ovvne nature is not so great, by his goodnes is accōpted for such. so far he, truely and according to gods word. and therefore by your warrant I may not thinke otherwise, if a thousand Cal­uins, and thousandes of any other pro­testantes should striue to perswade me the cōtrarie. much lesse can I be moued with such seelie and pitifull sophismes as you shuffle together. for thus you goe on. Atque hic insultas, &c. Pag. 8. And here you triumph. S. Paul saith, our suffering vvith Christ is necessarie to saluation, M.VV. saith it is a derogation to Christes suffering. vvho (M. Martine) may not vvonder at your egregious subtiltie? but I ansvvere. Ro. 6.23. heauenly lyfe and glorie, is the gift of God: ergo it is not gotten by our trauayls. and the Apostle calleth vs heyres of God, & coheires of Christ: ergo the kingdome commeth to vs freelie by inheritance and ad­option in Christ. hereof it folovveth, that our sufferinges are not the efficient causes of sal­uation and glorie, as you (M. Martine) foo­lishly reason, yet are they necessarily to be vn­dertakē of vs, except vve vvil be excluded from grace and glorie &c. if you could haue distin­guished the meanes, frō the causes efficiēt, media. you vvould neuer haue reasoned thus. Certainly M. W. if some aduersary would haue [Page 96] made a booke in mockerie of your di­uinitie, I thinke he could not possiblie haue more disgraced you, then you shame your selfe. you heape vp absur­dities together, so grosse and so thicke one in the neck of an other, that where­as I should by appointment haue gone thorough with this pamphlet in a few howres, I weene I shal not riddle my handes of it in many dayes.

When Stancarus the Archheretike of Polonia, Stancarus iudgemente of Caluin & other chiefe protestante-wryters. began to breake from Cal­uine in the article of the blessed Trini­tie, and Caluine ether through malice or ignorāce, fel into greater wickednes in that mysterie then he, and amongst o­ther raylinges and scorneful reproches obiected to him his studie in Peter Lom­bard the Maister of the sentences, Stancarus after much spoken in the commendatiō of that writer, comminge at length to Caluin, and the great Rabbines of your new Church, God (saith he) hath deliuered you vp into a reprobate sense, Stanc. in li­bro de Me­diatore con­tra [...]ulling. P. Mart. Cal­uin. & Gene­uenses, k. 5. so as you say, teach, vvrite and persuade others, such things as are naughtie, vvicked, and heretical. for I tel you, one Peter Lombard is more vvorth, thē a hundred Luthers, thē tvvo hundred Melanc­thons, then three hundred Bullingers, then foure hundred Peter Martyrs, then fiue hun­dred [Page 97] Caluins. qui omnes [...] in mortario cōtūderētur nō exprime retur vna vn cia verae the ologiae, pre­sertim &c. vvho al if they vvere pounded to­gether in a morter, there vvould not be beaten out of them one ounce of true diuinitie, espe­ciallie in the articles of the Trinitie, the incar­nation, the Mediator, and the Sacramentes. I wil not applie this odious comparison, against the Englishe writers of our tyme. but this I protest in my cōscience touchinge you, that I suppose neuer mā of any account, set penne to paper to publish a thinge in printe to the vew of the world, who vttered such notorious ignorance, as euery where appeareth in this your discourse: whether the fault be in me, that I haue not hetherto so narrowly examined others, as I haue now cause to examine you, or whether the thinge in truth be so as I imagine, or whether you in your other writinges vtter more substantial matter, & in this through much hast haue ouershot your self, as canis festinans caecos parit catulos, (& I see, pa, 1. that much you couet to be coun­ted a quick dispatcher of bookes) or whatsoeuer els may be the reason. for scarce any sentence haue you geuen forth, which carieth not with it some marke to the shame of the maker.

In this paragraph you cōmit as many errors as lightly you may. 1 For first, M.W. mani­folde ouer­sightes. you [Page 98] vnderstand not M. Martin. 2 Secondari­ly, you vnderstand not S. Paule allea­ged by him. 3 Thirdlie, you vnderstand not S. Paule alleaged by your selfe. 4 Fourthlie, you vnderstand not the state of the question of which you talke. 5 And last of al, you vnderstand not your selfe, & the doctrine of your felowes.

1 You vnderstand not M. Martin, whē you make him to conclude, that good workes be the causes efficient of sal­uation, because they be necessarie to saluation. M. Martine maketh no such ar­gument, nether hath he in that place any cause to talke thereof. and so that distinction of causae efficientes & media, is pulled in by you, to make a shew whē it needeth not. Discor. pag. 205.206. M. Martins argument is this plainly. you say, good workes are iniurious to Christes passion. he pro­ueth they are not, because the scripture requireth them, and that, as necessarie to saluation. And how can you be so blynde, as not to see this argument. good workes are necessarie to saluati­on, therefore they derogate nothing from Christes passion. for cleare it is, if they derogate from Christes passion, they sette vs forwardes to damnation, & helpe vs nothing towardes saluatiō.

[Page 99] 2 You vnderstand not Sainte Paule alleaged by M. Martine, when you make sporte with the argument drawē from the Apostles wordes, and would seeme to shake it of so lightly. for though M. Martine, not talkinge of that question, Life eternal the effect of good works & good workes the effi­cient cause of eternall life. Rom, 8, v, 17 which you for ostentation of a litle skil now hale in, vrged not the place so farre as to proue workes the causes efficient of saluation, yet the place proueth it inuinciblie. for when S. Paule saith, vve are coheires vvith Christ, yet conditionallie, that is, if vve suffer vvith him, that vve may also be glorified vvith him, he sheweth the excellēt digni­tie, which in Christ we are called vnto beinge graffed into that vine, Ioan. 15. v. 5: Rom, 6, 2. 1 Cor. 12.27 2 Pet. 1. v. 4. Ioā. 17. v. 11. and made members of his bodie, and partakers of the diuine nature. he doth shew and deduce this, that as Christ our head suffered first, and those his sufferinges were not only media, meanes, but also causes effi­cient of his glorificatiō in some respect, so from him, the lyke vertue is deriued vnto vs his members. for as it behoued Christ to suffer, and so to enter into his glory, Luc. 24. v. 26 as he humbled him selfe to the death of the crosse, propter quod, Philip. 2 v. 9 for vvhich cause God exalted him, Act. 14. v. 21. so his members by tribulations, folow where he is gone be­fore, [Page 100] and not by faith only, but also by patiente suffering, Heb. 6. v. 12. inherite the promises. and such sufferinges & workes of charitie, are semen and fundamentum, 2. Cor. 9. v. 6. 1. Timot. 6. v. 19. the verie foun­dation and seede growing to life euerlas­ting, as the Apostle calleth them. And in this comparison, Heb. 12. a. cōsisteth the dignitie of our Christianitie, as in S. Paule e­uery where appeareth. for vvhom he hath foreknovven, Rom. 8.29. he hath also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his sonne, that he might be the first borne in many bre­thrē. And albeit the sufferings of this life wayghed in them selues, are short and transitorie, Rom. 8.18. and therefore can not be con­digne to the glorie to come vvhich shal be re­uealed in vs, yet being wayghed as ry­sing and wrought in vs by the spirite of God, sanctified in the bloud of our Sa­uiour, 2. Cor. 4.17. and applied to his honour, so this our tribulation vvhich presentlie is mo­mentanie and light, vvorketh aboue measure exceedinglie, an eternal vveight of glorie in vs. And S. Paule els-where most diuine­lie conioyneth both these in one, so as a man can not deny this effect to Chris­tian mens workes, but first he must deny the same to the workes of Christ. Heb. 2. v. 9. vve see Iesus (saith the Apostle) because of the pas­sion of death, crovvned vvith glorie and ho­nour, [Page 101] that through the grace of God, he might tast death for all. for it became him, for vvhō all thinges, and by vvhō all thinges, that had brought many children into glorie, to con­summate the author of their saluation, by his passion. for be that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified, all of one. for the vvhich cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren. In this diuine discourse, S. Paule compri­seth the maner of Christes glorificatiō, and of Christians: of him as the head, of vs as the mēbers, of him as the roote, first begotten brother, principal, anoin­ted with oyle of exultation prae partici­pibus, aboue his felovves: vs as braunches, Heb. 1. v. 9. Ioan. 1. v. 16 seconde brethren, inferior, receiuing of his fulnes. yet so, that we alway continue in the same race and course, according to our measure and proportion, and so are made conformes, conformable to our head, Rom. 8.29. vvho is the firste borne amongst many brethren. The sum of al is this, that as in the place cited by M. Martin, glorifica­tion in Christ, sheweth his workes to haue bene the causes efficient thereof, and in Christ, passion and glorification are so compared together, as the cause and the effect, and one inferreth the other: so in vs Christians his members, compassion in the Apostles sense, and conglorificatiō, [Page 102] proueth lyke cause and effect, and one is concluded of the other. and this shal appeare more plainlie, by that which ensueth.

3 You vnderstand not S. Paule allea­ged by your selfe, when of his wordes Donum Dei vita aeterna, Rom. 6.23. eternall life is the gift of God, Grace ta­keth away the merite of worke, no more then merite of work taketh away neces­sitie & coo­peration of grace. you conclude: ergo it is not got­ten by our trauails. fot the Apostle meant nothing lesse then any such illation, which in so manie places he refelleth. And if these two, grace and vvorkes, be so opposite in Christians, that one must destroy the other, then consider I pray you the force of these argumentes. In feare and trembling vvorke your saluation, sayth S. Phil. 2.12. Paule. ergo our saluation is of workes, and therefore not of grace. our afflictions and calamities susteined patientlie vvorke our glorie. 1. Cor. 4.17. ergo it is not of grace. he that sovveth sparinglie, 2. Cor. 9. v. 6. sparinglie also shal reape. and he that sovveth in blessinges, of blessinges also shall reape. that is, he that geueth almes aboundantlie, shall haue in heauen aboundant reward. and he that geueth lesse, shal haue his reward proportionable. ergo heauen is not of grace. Mat. 25. d. Come ye blessed (saith our sauiour) receaue my Kingdome. why so? for what cause? for because you haue [Page 103] done the workes of charitie, you haue fed the hūgrie, harboured the stranger, visited the sick, succoured the disea­sed &c. ergo heauen is not of grace. he that is not a hearer, but a doer of the lavv, Iac. 1.29. shall be blessed, in, or for his vvorke. ergo not by Gods grace and mercy: and so forth, infinite such argumentes might be made after the paterne of M. Whit. and proue as wel. and yet notwithstan­ding, how many so euer they be, be they a carte-loade, they are all wicked, and not worth a straw, and no more is his. And the Apostle intended nothing els in so sainge, but to commend the grace of Christ, which is the true cause of merite or good workes, and not to deny the value of good workes, as he might haue learned of S. Austine noted vpon that place in the new testament, were it not that he disdaineth him, See after in the last cha­piter towar­des the end. and plainly accompteth him a superstitious and Sorbonical papist, for geuing that sense and interpretation.

4 And vpon these his good argumēts, fourthlie I say M. Whit. vnderstandeth not the state of the question where of he writeth. for if he had, he woulde ne­uer (talking of Christians regenerate by the spirite of God) haue imagined [Page 104] a contrarietie, betweene grace and vvorkes, mercy and iustice, inheritance and purchase: which, although perhaps it is not so easelie conceiued, in buying a peece of lande, yet is it not hard to be conceiued, in buyinge or procuringe heauen: no harder, then it is to beleeue, that we shal enioy heauen, by Gods infinite grace and mercy, & yet for al that, by right and iustice, because Christ our sauiour hath trulie and fully paid for it. and S. Paule, and S. Austine, of old haue many tymes notified vnto vs, the recō ­ciliation of these two, which to igno­rant men seeme so opposite.

That heauen is of grace, S. Paule cited by M. Eternal lyfe is both of grace & workes, mercie & iustice. W. proueth. that it is of vvorkes, any one of those places sheweth, which last of all I noted, and in the same epis­tle whence M. W. taketh his argument, the same S. Paule most euidentlie de­clareth, where he saith. In the iust iudge­ment, Rom. 2. God vvill render to euerie man accor­ding to his vvorkes. to them truly that accor­ding to pacience in good vvorkes seeke glory, honour and incorruption, life eternall: but to them that are of contention, and that obey not the truth, but geue credite to ini­quitie, vvrath and indignation. Tribula, tion and anguish vpon euerie soule of man [Page 105] that vvorketh euill, of the Ievv first, and of the Gentil. but glory, honour and peace to eue­ry one that vvorketh good, to the Ievv first, & to the Gentil. for there is no acceptiō of persons vvith God. by which wordes also, he clearlie refuteth that distinctiō of media and causes efficient, wherein M. whit. see­meth well to please him selfe, and twi­teth M. Martine with ignorance there­of. for when he layeth in indifferente balance good workes and euill, and so maketh one the cause of heauen, as the other is the cause of hell, to which effect the place is flat and euident, M. W. must be content to geue ouer that inuention, how dearely soeuer he estee­me it: except he wil say, that sinnes are the meanes, media but not the cause efficient of damnation.

That heauen cometh of mercy, S. Eph. 1. et 2. Paule sheweth at large in the first and second chapter to the Ephesians. that it cometh of iustice, the same S. 2. Tim. 4.8. Paule sheweth, when he saith. There is laid vp for me a crovvne of iustice, vvhich our lord vvill render to me in that day, a iust iudge: and not only to me, but to them also that loue his comming. when he saith, Rom. 2. v. 5. in iust iudge­ment God vvil render to euery man according to his vvorkes. and iustice requireth, that as [Page 106] God should punishe the vvicked, 2, Thessal. 1. v. 6.7. Heb. 6. v. 10. so he should revvard the good, & it were iniustice to do otherwise, as he sayth to the Hebrues.

That heauen commeth by adoption and of inheritance, M.W. sayth it, and though he proue it not, we beleeue it, because it is true. but that it is not gotten by vvorkes and trauayls, this we deny, be­cause it is false, and S. Paule refuteth, when he compareth the crowne of hea­uen, 1. Cor. 9.24. brauium. to a pryce or garland, which is pro­posed to wrestlers, runners, or such like, thereby declaring thus much, that as the first is gotten by running and la­bouring, so is the second, by payne and wel working. and the same, our Saui­our signified, Mat. 11. v. 12 when he sayd. The king­dome of God suffereth violence, and the vio­lent beare it avvay. Mat. 5.12. Ibid. ca. 6.1. ca. 10.41. 1. Cor. 3.8. Apo 11.18 Ibid. 22.12 [...] The scrip­tures teach that heauen is the repay or rewarde for good workes, as hell is for euil. The same is proued by that ordinarie phrase, wherein hea­uen is called merces operum, [...] the hyre, paiment, vvages, stipend or pryce of vvorks. The same is proued by S. Paule, whereas though the worde proper­ly sound in the better part, yet for truth of doctrine, he vseth it indifferently, as well for the payment of eternall dam­nation, which sinners receaue for their iniquities in hell, as the contrary pay­ment of eternall saluation, which good [Page 107] men receaue for their holines in hea­uen. So he saith in the epistle to the He­brues: Heb. 2. v. 3. that all preuarication and disobedi­ence hath receaued [...], iuste re­tribution and payment, as afterward in the same epistle, that Abrahā, Isaac, Iacob, and Moyses, for Christs loue susteyned all affliction, hoping for [...], Ibid. c. 11.26 iust retribution or paiment. and in the same chapter, he putteth the beleefe of this pointe, as a first principle in Christian religion. for so he speaketh: Heb. 11. v. 6. He that commeth to God, must beleeue that he is [...], one that vvill repay men for their good vvorkes. which point sith you haue not yet learned, it foloweth that you are very greene, and a mere nouice in Christian religion.

And S. Austin (whose iudgement agreeing with S. Paule, I trust you will esteeme as wel, as before you did Lu­thers) in sundrie places expounding these wordes of S. Paule, 2. Timoth. 4. 2. Tim. 4.7. My resolution is at hand, I haue fought a good fight, I haue consummate my course, I haue kepte the fayth. concerning the rest, there is layd vp for me a crovvne of iustice, vvhich our lorde vvill render vnto me in that day, a iust iudge, neuer maketh doubte of this veritie. He vvill render (sayth S. Aus­tin) [Page 108] being a iust iudge. Aug. inter hom. 50. ho. 24. for he can not deny the revvarde vvhen he seeth the vvorke. I haue fought a good fight, that is a vvorke: I haue consummate my course, that is a vvorke: I haue kepte the fayth, that is a vvorke: there remayneth to me a crovvne of iustice, this is the revvard. but in the revvard, thou doest nothinge, in the vvorke thou art a doer, but not alone. the crovvne commeth to thee from him, the vvorke from thy selfe, but not vvith­out his helpe. Aug. in ps. 100. And agayne: VVhy vvill God render to me a crovvne of iustice? because he is a iust iudge. VVhy a iust iudge? because I haue fought a good fight, I haue consummate my course, I haue kepte the fayth. therefore being iust, he can not but crovvne these thinges. By these vertues (sayth the same doctor) im­parted to vs from God, Idem epist. 52. in fine. a good lyfe is ledde in this vvorlde, and lyfe eternall the revvarde thereof, is repayed in the next. for here these vertues are in acte, there in effecte, here in vvorke, there in revvarde, here in office, there in ende. And he doubteth not to call them the very pryce, Idem in ps. 49. circa medium. et ad Dulc. qu. 4. whereby (as I may say) we buy heauen, with which worde you are so much offended.

And that this iustice nothing dimi­nisheth gods mercy, or this purchase our adoption, as you very simply imagine, the same doctor in very many places [Page 109] teacheth. To note one for all, explica­ting the place of Timothee before tou­ched. Aug. in psal. 100. God vvill render to me (sayth he) a crovvne at that day, a iust iudge. He said not, he vvill geue, but he vvill render. vvhen he gaue, he vvas merciful, vvhen he shal render, he vvil be a iudge. because mercy and iudge­ment shall I singe to thee ô Lorde. but forge­uing our offences, he made him selfe a debtour of a crovvne. there I obteyned mercy. our lord therefore is mercifull first, but aftervvardes he vvill render a crovvne of iustice. Is not a crovvne (sayth he els-where, Aug. de gra. et lib. arbit. ca. 6.9·8. disputinge this matter more at large) rendered as due to good vvorks? yet because God vvorketh those good vvorkes in vs, therefore he crovv­neth vs in mercy &c. This may serue to informe you a litle in the state of this question. and for your further satisfacti­on, I referre you to the Catholike new Testament in English, especially those places, whence you commonly fetch your arguments agaynst this necessary parte of Christian lyfe and fayth.

5 Finallie, I say you vnderstand not your self and your owne doctrine, when you write, that such vvorkes, though they be not causes efficient of saluation, necessario subeundae yet are they necessarily to be done, except vve vvil be ex­cluded from grace and glorie. For how stā ­deth [Page 110] this with your doctrine of only fayth? By makinge works necessary to saluation. M.W. ouerthrow­eth the Pro­test. doctri­ne of only faith. how wil that alone serue the turne, if now of necessitie good workes must come to helpe forth the matter? Thinke you, that impertinent distinc­tion of causa efficiens, & medium can serue you, the whole course of your doctrine, whole bookes and cōmentaries of your maisters & brethren, being against you? some there are (sayth Flacius Illyricus) vvho drousely vvayghing the matter, Illyr. praefa. ad Rom. pa. 636. Quidā som­nolentius rem expen­dentes. thinke this to be the cōtrouersie properlie betvvene vs & the papistes, vvhether good vvorks iustifie, or be the merite & cause efficient of iustice & life, and not vvhether they be in any respect, necessarie to saluation. which in deed is, (or was, when you first began) the verie point of the controuersie. which he therefore defendeth, vz, that they are in no respect necessarie, by 26. most firme and stronge demonstrations, as he cal­leth them, and reckeneth this your do­ctrine for a papisticall error, and calleth you a nevv papist for putting the questiō as you doe. Ibidem. pa. 634.635. These are his wordes. He­therto touching the papistes corruption of this doctrine. novv I come to the doctrine of the nevv papistes, vvhich is as pernicious as the old. Neopapistae they say, that the Apostle meant to exclude good vvorkes from iustification, non [Page 111] simpliciter & ratione debiti, not simply and as due, but only as meritorious & causes efficient. vvhere-vpon these doctors or rather seducers, do diuers vvayes elude that proposition of S. Paule: vve are iustified by faith, gratis, vvith­out vvorkes, eche one according to his ovvne head, and as his priuate spirite suggesteth to him: and most of thē couet diligently to mingle vvorkes, as a certain harmefull leauen vvith iustification & the lambe of God. And there he reckneth twelue such corruptions, the last where of is yours, the very self same which here you defend. against which he setteth downe the protestan­tes faith thus. But the true sense of Paules vvordes is, that vvithout al merite, condition, Ibid. or necessitie of our vvorkes, by only faith in Christ, vve are iustified before Christ & saued, so as our saluation doth in no sort depend of our vvorkes, nether be they any vvay neces­sarie to saluation, &c. Scripture, Luther, M. Whitak. doctrine cō cerning ne­cessitie of good works condemned as papisti­cal by the protestante diuines. and al doctors of sound iudgment thinke thus, of vvhich doctrine, these be most firme demon­strations, &c. and in fine he saith, Iste ipse error, est omnino papistica corruptela articuli iustificationis. This verie error is altogether a papistical corruptiō of the article of iustificatiō.

And if you can recal to memorie, the common argumentes gathered to your hand by euery heretike, that hath writtē [Page 112] vpon the epistle to the Romanes, name­ly the fourth chapter, you shall soone perceiue, Arguments of the pro­testāts, prouinge good works to be necessary to saluation in no respecte. that your opinion and their commentaries can neuer match toge­ther. out of the mayne heape, I wil note one or two, such as are most common to euery preacher, and found in euery booke. whereby you shal see, how by this assertion, you ouerthrow your whole doctrine. Illyr. vbi supra. 1 S. Paule excludeth al our boastinge from iustice and saluation, and that in Abraham a man most holie. ergo vvorkes are by no meanes, so much as causa sine qua non, of saluation. othervvise, vve shoud haue some occasion of boasting. gloriatio 2 Againe, Paule him selfe separateth his vvorkes and iustices so far from his saluation, that he accounteth them for trashe and hinderances of saluation. If such an Apostle, vvho for Christ and the Gospel la­boured more then al the rest, be constrained to cast avvay his innumerable most excellent vvorkes, as trashe and hinderances to salua­tion, hovv madly do vve say, that our vvorkes are necessarie. 3 Againe, all our iustices (saith Esai ca. 64.) are as foule stayned clothes. & hovv can a thinge so filthie and disallovved of God, do any thinge, or be necessary to iustice before God. Out of which, M.W. may of two cōclusions, choose one which shal lyke him best, ether that his principall [Page 113] doctors interprete S. Paule peruersly and wickedly, when in S. Ro. 4. et 10. Philip. 3. Paules epis­tles they interprete the vvorkes of the lavv our iustice, legal iustice, I esteemed my vvorkes dunge & durte that I might obteine the iustice of Christ, when I say they stil expounde these places of the workes of Christian men, done by the grace and spirite of God: or els that his assertiō is against al sense and reason, to make that necessa­rie to saluation, which the Prophetes & Apostles do so abase, so condemne, & make so filthie in the sight of God. & of these two which he wil choose, I know not: but because I thinke he wil rather cōdemne them, then deny him self (for so long as he may be his owne iudge, the word of God shal be cleare on his side) I finallie oppose against him, as in this self same question the zelous Lu­therans opposed against the cold Me­lanchthonistes, in the Councel of Al­temburg, Col. Altem. collat. 4. fo. 75.76. They note one special printe, be­cause they suppose o­ther printes to be corrupt. after manifold argumentes brought for only faith against any ne­cessitie of workes. After al this (say they) vve conclude vvith that vvorthy sainge of Luther in his first tome printed at VVittem­berge. if vvorkes be necessary to saluation, then saluation can not be had vvithout vvorkes, and then vve are not saued by only [Page 114] faith. And thus you see how wel you haue disproued M. Martins saing, and approued your owne, so wel, that by verdite of your great writers, in fine you haue marred the topp and crowne of your Kingdome, your solifidian ius­tification, and by them for your paines are iudged to be a Papist, which I wish were true for your owne sake.

NOw come I to the third part, that is, your accusatiō of the fathers, wherein also M. Martine noteth you of con­tradiction to your self. for with what reason could you call them most holy, sanctissimos, when in the self same place you defaced them as most iniurious to the bloud & passion or Christ. you an­swere, Pag. 7. a litle. smoothing so much as you may the matter, and say, that they erred a litle, (and yet within fiue lines before, you [Page 115] say, greuously they erred greuously and diminished not a litle the force of Christes death & passion) and there error proceded rather of lacke of vvitte, then of malice. and though vve graunt that herein they erred a litle, yet in respect of yours, their errors seeme ether light, or none at all. Here of you conclude that vvel you might cal them most holy, pag. 9. al­though they erred once, or vvere not so vvise as they might haue bene. This is that, which in the beginninge I tolde you, that you speake doubtfully, and stammer, & fal­ter in your tale, & know not wel what to say. for to let passe that in one page you make it a greuous error, pag. 7. and in the next, ether none at all, pag. 8. & 9. or a verie light one, compare your cruel and bloudie wordes, whereof riseth M. Martins re­profe, with this second modification, & then let euery man iudge, what a mise­rable defender you are. you say there, Discou. pag. 205. that the fathers thought by their external vvorkes of penance, to pay the paines due for sinnes, and to satisfie Gods iustice, and to pro­cure to thē selues assured impunitie, remissiō, & iustice. that thereby they derogated, not a litle not a litle from Christes death, attributed to much to their ovvne inuentions, and finallie de­praued repentance. Here you say, it vvas a litle error, a smale ouersight, they slipt a litle, a litle [Page 116] and that they vvere not vvithstanding, most holymen. You a Christian M.W. & dare thus to write? you a refuter of errors, & make this a light one? had you any part ether of the spirite of S. Paule, S. Cipriā, S. Austine, or such Saintes of the Catho­like Church, or some zeale and sense of your owne Gospel and religion, how could this euer haue slipt out of your penne? to cal them most holy, who by your doctrine, were as far from al true holynes, as euer was Scribe or Pharisee. to cal thē most holy, who had not in them the first stepp or degree where holines beginneth. for, whereas to holines, first of al and principally is required faith in the death and passion of Christ, then, zeale and feruour in good woorkes, to cal a man holy without the first, is to commend for strenght and valor, a man that hath neuer a sound ioynt, or to praise for eloquence such a one, whose tongue is cutt out of his head.

No good workes, no martirdome profiteth a­ny man to saluatiō, out of the Cath. church.In the number of Christians, & pro­fessors of Christianity, there haue bene from the beginning many, that haue li­ued very hard & seuere lyues, that haue bestowed their goods amōge the poore, that after many labours, and trauails, & rare workes of extraordinarie zeale, [Page 117] haue at lenght suffered death for the tes­timony of Christ. And this oftentimes chaūced in the primitiue Church, with­in the tyme of the first persecutions be­fore Constantinus Magnus. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 15. Niceph. li. 4. cap. 23. yet if such men liued and died schismatikes, that is not beleeuing rightly in the church, did euer any true Christian holde them for good & holie? If I spake vvith the tongue of men and angels, saith the Apostle, 1. Cor. 13. and knevv al mysteries, and could moue mountai­nes, if I bestovved al my goods vpon the poore, and my bodie to the fier, for the testimonie of Christ, yet wanting the charitie of my brethren, 1 Ioan. 3. & 4 being without ecclesiasti­call vnitie, it profiteth me nothing. wherevpon S. Ciprian: Ciprian. de vnit. Eccles. They cānot dvvell vvith God, that be not in vnitie vvith the Church. Examine by this certain & sure rule the martyr­doms & martyrologes of Lutherās Zwinglians Anabaptis­tes &c. sette forth by M. Fox, Crispin Hamstedius and others. Aug. epi. 252 though they burne amidst the flames & being deliuered to the fier or cast to vvild beastes, so yeld their lyues, yet that shal not be to them a crovvne of faith, but a punysh­ment of infidelitie. such a one may be slaine, he can not be crovvned. he professeth him self such a Christiā, as the deuil many times pre­tendeth him self to be Christ. For (as S. Au­stine saith) vvhosoeuer is separated from this Catholike Church, though he thinke him self to liue verie commendablie, yet by reason of this only offence, that he is deuided from [Page 118] the vnitie of Christ, (in his Catholike Churche) he shal not haue life (eternal) but the vvrath of God remaineth vpon him.

And is al this true of men, Christians by profession, beleeuing rightly in eue­rie other article of faith, & onely erring in a secondarie point, against the visi­ble church, and is it not much more true, when the error runneth so grossly against the first, and chief, and capital article of Christianitie, and that proper and peculier part, whēce Christianitie hath his name, the death and passion of our sauiour, the verie hart, life, and soule of our religion? can a fault against the bodie, so pollute and contaminate a man, that he becometh with al his supposed holines, an infidell, vvicked, prophane, an enemy of God, and a damnable creature: and can such sacriledge against the head be so light and contemptible, that the offender remaineth notwith­standing, faithfull, a good Christiā, and most holie? The fowle grossnes of that error, with which M.W. char­geth the aū ­ciēt fathers. S. Paule in the beginning, when the law of Moyses was not yet quite abolished, nor the gospel so vni­uersallie and clearlie published, said of the Galatians, who would haue ioyned the law with the gospell: O ye sensles Galatians, Galat. 3. vvho hath bevvitched [Page 119] you not to obey the truth? Ibi. ca. 5. v. 2. Beholde I Paule tell you that if you be circumcided, Christ shal profite you nothing, and though an Angel of heauen teach you so, that is, Gal. 1. v. 8. preach you workes, wherebie you should be withdrawen from Christ, anathema be he, that is, the curse of God light vpon him. how thē may a Christi­an, that ether loueth or feareth Christ, thus extenuate the fathers error, being by M. W. declaration, in substance, the self same, by reason of circumstance, farre more haynous, the light of the gospel spread more larglie, the truth of doctrine more deepely rooted, the law more vndoubtedlie abolished, and euerie part of Christian religion more clearly acknowledged and pro­fessed. wherefore in this, I take M. Whit. inexcusablie, rather for a Pagane then for a Christian, when he saith, The fathers by their penitentiall vvorkes derogated from Christ, and thrusting them selues into his roome, ascribed to their ovvne inuentions, the satisfying of Gods vvrath, and remission of their sinnes, and yet for al this calleth them sanctissimas, most holy. whereas this being true▪ they were the most impious and detestable men, that euer the sunne saw.

[Page 120]Luther in his booke aduersusfalsò no­minatum ordinem episcoporum, describing his iustifiing faith, writeth thus, al­though wickedly, yet agreablie to his owne doctrine, and the common doc­trine of the protestants. Luth. To. 2. fol. 322. Marke me (saith he) vvhat is Christian faith. Christian faith is to beleeue, that by no vvorkes, but by onlie faith in Christ as thy mediatour, and by mer­cy in him geuen thee freely, thou art iustified and saued. Gal. 1. so as a man despaire of all his ovvne strength, vvorkes, and endeuours, and depende altogether of an other mans merites, and an other mans iustice. Iudaical faith is to entend to be iustified, to blot out thy sinnes, and be saued by thy ovvne strength and merites. Rom. 10. by this, Christ is cast avvay. To like effect he writeth in his second commentarie vpon the Gala­tians, Luth. To. 5. in Gal. ca. 4. fol. 382. expounding these wordes. his qui natura non sunt dii seruiebatis, ye ser­ued them, vvhich by nature vvere not gods, vpon these words, he maketh this question, and thus solueth it. is it all one in S. Paule, to depart from the promise to the lavv, from faith to vvorkes, and to serue gods, vvhich by nature are not gods? I an­svvere, vvhosoeuer falleth from the article of iustification, he becommeth ignorant of God, and is an idolater. And therefore it is [Page 121] al one vvhether he returne to the lavv, or to the vvorshipping of idols. al is one, vvhe­ther he be a monke, a Turke, a Ievv, or Ana­baptist. for this article once taken avvay, there remaineth nothing, but mere error, hipocrisie, impietie, idolatrie, although in shevv there appeare excellent truth, vvor­ship of God, holines &c. Yea speaking ex­presly of the auncient fathers, and in re­spect of this special matter, he most wickedly, but most plainly, adiudgeth them to hell fier, for their wicked faith in this verie cause. I speake not (saith he) against the papistes for their life, but for their faith, because they vvil not come to God by only faith, but by faith and vvorkes, and therfore if the fathers those old papistes liued now, I would speake vnto thē as I do to these new papistes. Ibid. ca. 4. fol. 400. thus stand his wordes. Si illa facies veteris papatus, &c. if that face and forme of old papistrie stoode novv, if that discipline vvere obserued novv vvith so much seueritie & rigour, S. Hierom. S Gregorie & S. Austin old papistes by Luthers verdit. as the he­remites, as Hierome, Austine, Gregorie, Ber­nard, Fraūcis, Dominike, & many others ob­serued it, litle perhaps should I profite by my doctrine of faith, against that (state of papis­trie.) yet neuertheles after the example of Paule inueighing against the false Apostles, in apparance most holy and good men, I ought [Page 122] to fight against such Iustice vvorkers of the papisticall Kingdome, Iustitia [...]ios papistici re­ [...]ni. and say: though you liue a chast life, and vvearie your bodies vvith much exercise, yea though ye vvalke in the humilitie and religion of Angels, yet are ye bondmen of the lavv, of sinne, and the deuill, ye are to be cast out of the house, because you seeke for iustice and saluatiō, by your vvorkes, and not by Christ. Thus Luther. and this being the general doc­trine of the Protestantes, in al their trea­tises of iustification, and M. W. preten­ding to be of the number, supposing the fault to be true which he layeth to the fathers, if he folowed the iudgment of S. Paule, S. Ciprian, S. Augustine, & al Catholike Christiās, he must needes accompt them aduersaries of Christ, prophane and wicked, & cast out eternally from the face of God: if he folowed the vniuersal sway of his owne doc­trine, The aunciēt fathers cal­led by Lu­ther, Iues, idolaters, bondmen of sinne & the deuil, for their doc­trine of workes a­gainst only fayth. teaching only faith, and iustifi­cation thereby, he could not but with Luther hold them for impious, hipocrites, bondm [...]n of sinne and the deuil, idolaters, vvithout knovvledge of God, as il as any monke, Turke, Ievv, or Anabaptist. And certainly no monke (except perhaps some Apostataes, as Luther him self, Bucer, P. Martir, or such founders of this new [Page 123] Gospel) liuing in his order, thought e­uer so ethnicallie of Christes passion, as by M.W. iudgment S. Ciprian and those fathers did. And therefore I see not how he so excusing the fathers in this point, and calling it a light error, or none at al, cā him self be excused from plaine Atheisme, whether he be arraygned be­fore his lawful Iudges, S. Paule, S. Ci­prian, S. Austine, and their successours Catholike Bishoppes, Cōtra Cam­pian. pa. 198 or before Lu­ther that Apostata, vvhom he honoreth for his father, & the rest of that cōfraternitie. except perhappes he wil pleade in his defence, that he knew not this, which is so cōmonly knowen to al, and so to quitte him self of so foule impietie, wil condemne him self of notorious igno­rance. But howsoeuer he shift the mat­ter, M. Martins charge standeth vndis­charged, that, to say, that the fathers tooke from Christ, & ascribed to them selues the office of his mediatorship, sa­tisfaction and remission of sinnes, and iustice before God, and yet to cal them most holie, An euident contradic­tion. is as plaine a cōtradictiō, as to say, such a man seeth most sharply, yet both his eyes are out of his head. he geueth con­saile excellēt wel in any cōtrouersie of law, mary his head for al that, is a mile [Page 124] of from his shoulders.

And yet, to mende the matter, pre­sently and fast vpon the former, talking of the same thinge, he stumbleth in to an other contradiction as grosse as the other. For labouring to make our faul­tes more odious, and to seuer vs as far as may be from the fathers, thus he writeth. Ibid. pag. 8. the fathers vvrite sometimes, that it is our part to do satisfactiō vnto God, that God is pacified vvith our satisfactiō, that thereby vve promerite him, and redeeme our sinnes: vvhich albeit they are not verie conuenient­ly spoken, Note this interpreta­tion. yet by these, they vvould haue no other thinge vnderstood or signified, thē that pardon of sinnes and Gods grace, vvas to be requested and craued of vs, vsinge also those external actions of penance, teares, fastes, vvatchinges, almes: vvhich thing may ap­peare by Ciprian alone, in many places. most euidētly in his 55. epistle, in his booke against Demetrian, and in his sermon de lapsis. what sense you deuise and frame to your self, S. Ciprians wordes tou­ching wor­kes of pe­nance, & the merite ther­of, in the places noted by M. W. Epist. 55. et sermon. de lapsis. I know not, nether skilleth it greatly. but surely the discourse of S. Ciprian, and his words, be as much against you, as possibly may be deuised: and especi­ally in the places by you quoted. to geue the reader a tast of your sinceritie, thus he there writeth. By satisfaction and [Page 125] iust mourning our sinnes are redeemed, and our vvoundes by teares are cleansed. our lord is to be prayed vnto, our lord is to be pacified by our satisfaction. let euerie man confesse his sinnes, vvhile his confession may be admit­ted, vvhile satisfaction and pardon geuen by the priestes, is acceptable before God. let our soule prostrate her self before god, and satisfie him by sorovvfulnes. let vs pacify gods vvrath and indignation, by fasting, lamentation, & mourning, as he him self hath vvarned vs. The prophete Daniel by fasting endeuoured to deserue gods fauour, and the like haue done al humble, vvel-meaning, and innocent men. Thinkest thou that God is so easely pacified, vvhom vvickedly thou hast denied? Thou must pray and intreate him earnestlie, thou must spend the day in mourning, the night in vvatching & lamentations. prostrate on the ground in ashes and hearecloth, thou must imploy thy self vpon iust vvorkes, the doctrine of the Chri­stians in the Apostles tymes, & of the Cathol. Church in our tyme is al one con­cerninge workes of penance. by vvhich sinnes are purged, thovv must geue much almes by vvhich soules are deliuered from death. In this sort, the faith florished in the Apostles tyme. in this sort the first faithful Christians kept Christes cōmaundemētes. & to be short (for a great part of that treatise de lapsis runneth after this maner) thus he en­deth the same. he that thus shal do satis­faction to God &c. being heard and holpen [Page 126] of God, shal not only deserue pardō of him, but also a crovvne in heauen. Thus S. Ciprian. which how it should most clearly make against satisfaction and workes satisfac­torie, M.W. knoweth belike, for I, glad­ly professe my self therein to vnderstād nothing.

A manifest and grosse contradic­tion.But graunt we the conclusion. let S. Ciprian speake & meane as you would haue him. looke a litle backe, & consi­der how palpably you contradicte your self. for if it be most euident that S. Ciprian meante vvel, though he spake not so conueni­ently, if he vnderstoode nothing els, but that vve ought to request pardon for our sinnes at Gods hand, and craue his grace, vsing vvithal these externall actions of penance, fasting, vvatching, pag 7. almes, why sayd you imme­diatly before, that Ciprian vvith the other fathers, corrupted the doctrine of penance? why sayd you, that they greuously erred, & somevvhat diminished the force of the death and bloud of Christ, by vvhich only our sinnes are expiated? Straung and wonderfull diuinitie. how is it not a sensible lye, when you say, that by their penitentiall vvorkes, they derogated not a litle frō Chris­tes death, & attributed to much to their ovvne inuentions? when you haue quitted thē of that superstitious opinion of merite & satisfaction, which commonly you ob­iect [Page 127] to them, how can the actions seeme any way reproueable to any mā, except he be worse then Epicurus or Diago­ras? do these holie actions being done with a good minde and intent, such as you now graunt to the fathers, corrupt the doctrine of repentance? doth fasting in it self, derogate from Christes death? doth watching detract from his passiō? do almesdedes diminish the vertue & force of his bloud? Who euer heard such stuffe? Liberti­nisme. the end of iusti­fication by only fayth. now doubtles I thinke ye wrote this in a dreame. or if ye wrote it wa­kinge, and aduisedly, then are you pro­ceeded from a common Protestant, and a Puritane, & become a Familiane, or mere Libertine, though I can easely be indu­ced to beleeue, that this is the end, and so wil proue, of your commō solifidian iustification, that for a man to bewaile his sinnes, to watch, to fast, to pray, to geue almes, shal be deemed papistical, and derogatorie to Christ, and therefore in al respectes quite abandoned.

Yea your self proue this by as sound an argument, Whit. in. li. contra San­der. pa. 297. as any you haue to proue the Pope, Antichrist. for thus you dis­pute in your academical oration, Anno 1582. Quid Christo integrum relinquunt? s [...] est Christus noster sacerdos, et sunt huius [Page 128] sacer dotii duae partes. altera, vt sese pro nobis in vnicum perpetuúmque sacrificium offerat, altera, vt preces pro nobis faciat, quid est quod pontificii Christum quotidie offerūe &c. vvhat leaue the papistes entier to Christ? if Christ be our priest, and of this priesthode there are tvvo partes, one, that for vs he offer him self an only and perpetual sacrifice, the other, that he pray for vs, vvhy then do the papistes offer Christ daylie? by which pro­found demonstration, as you make vs Antichristes for hearing or saing masse, so you make your self (if you be a mi­nister) and your fellow-ministers, as very Antichristes, for preaching ser­mons, or saing Communion. for in them, I thinke you do not always rayle at the Pope and Catholikes, but some­times pray, though to smale purpose. Thē, whereas there be tvvo partes of Christes priesthode, to sacrifice, & pray, they that pray, be iniurious to his priesthode, and robbe Christ of that which by your di­uinitie is proper to his person and of­fice of mediation. and so if we be Anti­christes for doing the first, needes must you and your comministers be Anti­christes for doing the second. and in deede, one is as true as the other. To auoid which mischeefe, what way is [Page 129] there, but ether to allow both, and so to returne to the Church (which to do our Lord send you grace) or with sacri­fice, to abandon prayer also, and all o­ther workes of charitie, which without question (as I haue said) is the meaning and extreame scope of that paradox, we are iustified by onlie faith, that is by onlie fansie and imagination. for that being so, what neede or vse is there of fasting, prayer, and such superfluous & vnnecessarie works, iniurious to Christ and derogatorie to his priesthode, and without which, you are most assured of eternal life, by the omnipotēt power of your only faith.

HAVING so wel acquited your selfe against the auncient fa­thers in the matter of pe­nāce, in the cōclusion there­of, vpon smal occasion you renew M. Iewels old challenge, & verie fearcely prouoke M. Martin to oppugne it if he [Page 130] dare. pa. 9. thus you say: Touching the principall partes of religion, most true it is, that I haue vvritten, in nostris ecclesiis. that the same faith is taught and preached in our Churches, (that is, Zuingliā not Lutherane) vvhich the most auncient fathers held. nether feare I to renevv that challenge of the most learned M. Ievvel, vvhich you haue mentioned, if you daere take it. They are in number 27 articles, vvherein consisteth the cheefest force of papistrie. of all these articles choose vvhich you vvil, I pro­test my selfe your aduersarie in the cause so long as I liue. To perfourme so much as you say, though of your abilitie I doubt greatly, yet of your good wil, I doubte not a whit. for I see you sticke at no­thing, nether care what you say, or vn­say, deny or affirme, be it right, be it wronge, true of false, nothing commeth amisse. and many tymes you shew this skill, within the compasse of one page. And to go about to proue to one, who after so long tyme, S. Peters be­ing at Rome denyed by M. W. moste absurdly, & against all antiquitie. and so many, & eui­dent, and inuincible proofes of a mat­ter historical, which of it selfe was amōg sober men neuer doubted of (I meane, S. Peters being at Rome, and founding the Church there) yet now denyeth the same: to one, that had read in D. Sāders, the same confirmed by al maner testi­monies [Page 131] whereby such a matter may be cōfirmed, Sander. Mo­narch. lib. 6. ca. 10. these are in that chapter besides ma­ny more in other places by those that thē liued & frō tyme to tyme ensued, by Papias S. Ihon the Euāgelists scholer, by Hegesippus, by Caius, by Dionisius bishop of Co­rinth, by S. Ireneus, by Tertullian, by S. Ciprian, al these most auncient, and li­uing not long after (for S. Ciprian the yongest is almost of 1400. yeares anti­quitie) by S. Athanasius, S. Hierome, S. Optatus, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, S. Epiphanius, S. Leo the greate, S. What proo­fes will content our ad­uersaries, if these will not? Au­gustine, S. Gregorie, by Eusebius, Lac­tantius, Dorotheus, Orosius, Maximus Taurinensis, Sulpitius Seuerus, Pros­per, Theodoretus, Gregorius Turonen­sis, these al (sauing S. Gregory the great and Turonensis) beinge within the first [...]00. yeares: some of them also groun­ding them selues vppon the verie wor­des of scripture, as Papias, Tertullian, Eusebius, and S. Hierome, the question also being a matter of storie and fact, which can not possiblie be knowē, but by the narration of such writers as then liued, and receaued it from their elders, so that herein M.W. hath not that liber­tie to cauil, by comparinge together phrases, & expounding literal speaches by mystical Allegories, as in the sacra­ment [Page 132] and other controuersies of reli­gion their maner is, the thinge also vn­til our age being neuer denied by any writer of credit or estimation, and in our age confessed and proued by pro­testātes them selues of greatest learning and knowledg: See Bullin­ger in serie temporum et rerum as. Luca in Act. tradit. ca. 17 to go aboute (I say) to proue, that Christ is really in the B. Sa­crament (a matter more hard and intri­cate) to a man who knoweth this of S. Peter (a thing most plaine & euident) and yet after al this, and much more, saith notwithstanding obstinatlie, that Peter vvas at Rome, Whit. cont. Sad. pa. 203. and there, vvith Paule laid the foundation of that church, no papist could euer yet shevv & proue: to me it see­meth labour as madly imploied, Horace. vt si quis asellum in campo doceat parentē curre­refraenis, or if to Anaxagoras affirming stoutlie that the snow is blacke, niuem esse atramentū. Lactantius lib. 5. ca. 3. one would with sage reasons labour to per­swade that the snow is white. and per­haps it is not greater stupiditie (how shal I cal it) vnsensiblenes, in him to auouch the first, then it were follye in an other, to labour about proofe of the second.

Wherefore leauing that thing to M. Martin him self, as being fitter for a dead man to handle then a liuing, espe­cially [Page 133] hauing to deale against you M. Of M Iew­els challēg. W. who in this point seeme as dead and sensles as he, I wil for the readers in­struction speake a litle of M. Iewels challenge which you so magnifie. which albeit it hath bene examined sufficientlie, and so, as no one thinge in my opinion, hath brought ether more shame to the author, or hinde­rance to your Gospel, though at the first for a while it astonished many, as a thing bearing great countenance of learning, vntil in tyme by learned men the visard was pulled from it: yet seing you proclaime it agayne so couragi­ously, I wil in few wordes touch the substance and meaning of it. It contey­neth in effect 2. or 3. heretical articles, which M. Iewel dilated and parted into a great number, as it were some poore rag cut out into many shriddes, partly of pride and brauery to win among the simple an opinion of learning, partly of spite and malice against the Catho­like church, which he sought specially to disgrace, and which by nothing could be disgraced more, then if she held and mayntened 27. M. Iewel in his sermon at Paules crosse, the yere 1560. when firste he put forth his challēg. articles the highest misteries and greatest keyes of her religion (as he termeth them) without [Page 134] any authoritie, example, clause, or sen­tence, of ether scripture, father, Coun­cel, or writer, that liued within the first 600. yeres of the primitiue church.

The insolent vanitie of which bragge, to my seeming, is much like to that, [...]iui. [...]eca. 4. lib. 5. which T. Quintius the Romane Consul, noted in the Embassadors of King Antiochus. who comming into Grece to perswade that people to take part with Antiochus against the Ro­manes, they magnifyinge the force of Antiochus their maister, aduaunced infinitly the great hoastes which he would bringe, The true pa­terne and image of M. Iewels challenge. and terrified the simple Grecians, with straunge names of men neuer heard of before. he wil bringe (sayd they) into the field, Dahas, & M [...] ­dos, and E [...]imaeos, and Cadusios. and tou­ching his nauie, so great as no porte of Grece is able to receaue, the one parte thereof is guided by Sidonians and Tyri­ans, the other, by Aradians and Side [...]ians of Pamphilia, nations that haue no peere in the world, for skilfulnes in war by sea. Here vnto T. Quintius re­plying, this king (quoth he) by these his embassadors vaunteth of clowdes of horsemen and footemen, and couereth the seas with his nauie. but al the matter [Page 135] is verie like to a feast, which once mine host at Chalcis made me. of whom be­ing enterteyned at a certen tyme, when I marueyled at so great prouision, and demaunded, how so suddenly he came by such varietie and store of venison, he not so glorious as these men, smiling answered, that al was but the art of his cooke, and dyuers dressinge of the same thinge. for otherwise touching the sub­stance of the feast, tota illa varietas et spe­cies ferinae carnis, er at ex sue mansueto facta. al that varietie and shevv of venison, vvas made of a tame sovv: so it is of these strāge and terrible names, Dahae, Medi, Aradi­ans, and Sidonians. for al these are but Sy­ [...]ians, touching any valour that is in them, more fit to make slaues, then souldiers.

The selfe same, may be trewly verifi­ed of M. Iewels so many and so great articles. for al that straunge varietie and multiplication of particulars, is made but, as it were ex mansueto sue, of two or three heretical propositions, thorough his skil in that kind of varying, so dra­wen forth and minced, that it mustereth in the eye of the ignorant, as though it had great store of new matter. for graū ­ting to him one, and the same no gene­ral [Page 136] but a particular heresie, that the Zuinglian opinion is true touching the Sacrament, that there is no real pre­sence, which is his fift article, thereof foloweth directlie the 6. that the body of Christ, is not in a 1000 places. the 8. that no diuine honor is due to it. the 10. that bread and vvine remaine as vvel after con­secration as before. the first, and 13. that there could not be any priuate or many pri­uate masses sayd, whereas there was no masse at al. the 17. that Christ could not possiblie be offered in sacrifice, whereas there was not any such sacrifice, nor the substāce thereof, in rerum natura. the 21. that Christian men could not cal that, lord or God, which was nothing but bread & wine. and so forth many other, which a man of meane skil, may see to be as plainlye included in that one, as manie lesse numbers are included in a greater, or many partes and qualities are neces­sarily consequent to a perfect bodie. as on the cōtrarie side, put the Catholike opinion to be true, which he denieth in the tenth article, then al, or most of the same articles folow as clearly. vz. Article 5 That the body of Christ is really, substantially, &c. in the sacramēt. Article 6 That Christes body is & may be in a thousand places or moe at once. Article 8 That [Page 137] diuine honor is due vnto it. Article 22 That a man may cal it his Lord and God, &c. and likewise many of the rest. So that in deed, that glorious challenge is altogether such, as if Marciō in aunciēt tyme, Supra cap 2. or some of your brethren (who in this point seeme as verie heretikes as he) should haue prouoked the Catholikes to defend S. Lukes Gospel after this sorte.

1 If any learned man of my aduersaries, or if al the learned men aliue be able to proue, that S. Lukes Gospel is canoni­cal scripture.

2 Or that the first chapter is canonical scripture.

3 Or that the second chapter is cano­nical scripture.

4 Or that the third chapter is canoni­cal scripture.

5 Or that the storie of Marie Magda­lene cap. 7. is canonical scripture.

6 Or the tale of Lazarus and the riche man cap. 16.

7 Or that wicked doctrine touching the real presence in the 22. chapter, &c. Of this see after chapi­ter 10. I am content to yeld and subscribe.

For as here, one article agreed on draweth the rest, & one denied denieth the rest, so is it in the deuise of M. Iewel. & therefore as Marcion, the more [Page 138] particulars he had vttered, if he had run into as many ORS, as there be chap. or stories, or verses, in S. Luke (which wel he might haue done by M. Iewels ex­ample) the farther he had run in that vayne, the more notably he had layd open to the world, his owne ambitious itching folie, pride, and arrogancy: the verie selfe same is to be deemed of this conceyte of M. Iewel, touching the far greater number of his articles. Three he hath of weight, and more principal then al the rest. the primacie of the Sea Apostolike, the real presence, and the sacri­fice. vnto these 3. let vs applie his chal­lenge, and see (now he is gone) how wel you can supplie the office of his cham­pion to maynteyne it.

M Iewell in his sermon as before. O Gregorie (saith he) O Austine, O Hie­rom, O Chrisostome, O Leo, O Dionise, O Ana­cletus, O Xistus, O Paule, O Christo if vve be deceaued, you have deceaued vs. you taught vs these heresies. thus ye ordered the holy Cōmu­nion in your time, the same vve receaued at your handes, &c. None of our aduersaries that stād against vs, are able or euer shalbe able to proue against vs any one of al these pointes ether by scripture, or by the example of the primitiue Churche, or by the old Doctors, or by the auncient general Councels. and if any man [Page 139] aliue be able to proue any of these articles by any one cleare or playne clause, or sentence, ether of scriptures, or of the old Doctors, or of any old general Councel, or by any example of the primitiue Church vvithin 600. yeres af­ter Christ, I promise to geue ouer and subscribe vnto him.

Thus M. Iewel promised, and do you promise as much? what els and so longe as you haue a day to liue, you wil stand in defence here of. But how dare you say so? whereas litle know you what al the doctors haue written, and much lesse know you, what books of theirs hereafter may be found. and your selues (if you remember) not long sithence in your owne wasted librari­es, Printed by Iohn Day. found out certaine straunge sermons in the Saxon tonge, against some kno­wen and confessed partes of religion, as you wold pretend. And how cā you so confidently hazard your faith (if you haue any) vpon one sentence or clause of those men, of whom sundrie times you professe, that they wrote clauses, sentences, chapters, and bookes, in de­fence of as grosse errors as these. Remē ber your stomake against them, in this same booke. thus you write. Al our faith and religion (you meane I suppose, Cont, Sand pa. 21. [Page 140] so far as it is allowed by act of Parlamēt and practised within the Q. dominions, for other ye defend not) is grounded not vpon humane, but vpon diuine autoritie. Yet M. Car­terwrighte holdeth the contra­rie and hath proued it in many books Therefore if you bring against it, vvhat some one father hath beleeued, or vvhat the fathers al together haue deliuered, Patres eti­am simul vniuersi. except the same be proued by testimonies of scripture it vvaygheth nothing, it proueth nothing, it concludeth nothing. for the fathers are such vvitnesses, that they also haue neede of scriptures to be their vvitnesses. if deceaued by error, they haue said ought differing from the scriptures, hovv soeuer they may be par­doned erring through vvant of vvit, vve can not be pardoned, if because they erred, vve also vvil erre vvith them. Being thus perswaded touching them all, how dare you venture your faith, vppon a clause or sentence of any one? It is a peece of faith, far more sure by al antiquitie, and more surely grounded in the hart of any catholike, that Christ is perfect God consubstantial and equal to his father, then any of these paradoxes can be possiblie setled in your opinions, and we ho­nour the fathers much more then you do. yet was there euer any Catholike, so frantike & mad, that would promise to subscribe to Arianisme, if out of any [Page 141] father greeke or latin, within 600. yeares, any one clause or sentence might be brought against the catholike beleefe? wherefore this verie assertion is a most sure argument, that you haue no kind of faith. no faith (I say) at all nether diuine nor humane. not diuine, because you would neuer so lightlie es­teeme it, nor vpon so smal warrant ha­zard it: not humane, because it wel ap­peareth, that nether you, nether mais­ter Iewel euer meant to stand to that, which to the world in publike writing ye haue so solemly promised.

Wherefore albeit touching you af­fected as you are, I accompt this labour as clearly lost, as if I should water a fruitles tree, Iudas. v. 18. tvvise dead and plucked vp by the rootes, yet for the readers cōmoditie, that he may perceaue, how ignorant, and foolish, and proude, and fantasti­cal, that vaunte of M. Iewels was, and how like it is that you who know much lesse (yet comonly who more bold then such?) can maynteine the quarel, and wade thorough that myre, wherein M. Iew. him self stucke fast, I wil speake a few wordes of these his principal questions. And because I couet (so far as may be) to cut of al occa­sion [Page 142] of cauilling, I wil not run to any other doctors (lest you take exceptiō against them) then those who are na­med here of M. Iewel, as his pretended maisters in these heresies. and againe out of them I wil bring nothing, but that only which I haue learned of your owne writers, and read in your owne bookes. and that againe, in such sense, without any alteration, as your selues alleage them. So that your heroical courage in answering, shal first be exer­cised vpon these your owne brethren, and what so euer blunted dartes you shal cast against me, they shal not reach vnto me, but thorough their sydes.

I wil passe ouer Christ and S. Paule▪ vvho taught M. Ievvel these heresies, as he saith, which is not verie likely▪ whe­ther he meane in ieast, or in earnest: se­ing S. Paule willeth vs so to detest any kind of heretike, that after one or two warninges, we should let him alone, and suffer him to perishe in his sinne, Tit. 3.10. knovving that he is damned in his ovvne iudgment: Mat. 18.17. our sauiour chargeth vs to hold them for no better then ethniks and publicanes, who shal oppose them selues vnto his church and therefore i [...] can not be that ether of those should [Page 143] teach you that, for which, The prima­cie of the Rom. church confirmed manifestly by those fa­thers whom M. Iew. cal­leth his maisters to the contrarie. before hand they threaten and assure you of damna­tion. But Anacletus and Xistus old bis­shops of the Romane church before that Sea grew to this vsurped prima­cie, they perhaps taught you this heri­sie, that the bishop of Rome hath no soueraintie ouer the rest of bishops, and that such claime is altogether Antichristian. If that be so, then egregious lyers are your brethren the makers of the Centuries, who tel vs the cleane con­trarie. Magdebur. Centur. 2. c. 7. col. 139. Anacletus (say they) in the epistles vvhich beare his name, in the general regi­ment of churches, so ioyneth them together, that to the Romane churche, he attributeth primacie and excellencie of povver ouer al churches, and ouer the vvhole flocke of the Christian people, and that, by the autoritie of Christ saing to Peter, thou art Peter and vpon this rocke vvil I build my church &c. This order was appro­ued in the Councel of Nice cap [...]. the second sea after that, he maketh the church of Alexandria, by reason of S. marke scoler of S. Peter. The third, Antioche, because S. Peter abode there, before he came to Rome. degrees of Bishops he maketh thus. The bis­shop of Rome is placed first, as the supreme head of the church: vvho though he erre yet vvil he not haue him to be iudged of others, So say the rathers in Conc. Sin [...] ­essano. but to be tolerated. the second place haue Pa­triarkes [Page 144] or primates, the third, Metropolita­nes, the fovrth, Archbishops, and aftervvard bishops. he saith also, that certaine cities receaued primates from the blessed apostles, and from S. Clement. epist. 3.1. Tom. Concilio­rum pa. 63. The same Anacletus, appoin­ting how controuersies in particular churches should be taken vp & ended, after the order of S. Paule. 1. Cor. 5. willeth that greate matters should be referred to the higher bishops and pri­mates, Ibid. see the same in the Councel of Cart. & Mileu. in S. Aug. epis. 90.91.92.93 but if greater difficulties arise, or causes fal out among the bishops & primates them selues, let them be brought to the Sea Apostolike, if such appealt be made. for so the Apostles ordayned by the apoinment of our Sauiour, that the greater and harder questiōs should alvvayes be brought to the Apostolike Sea, vpon vvhich Christ builte his vniuersal church. Mat. 16. And Xistus (who succe­ded not long after Anacletus) in his 2. Cent. [...]. vbi supra. epistle, nameth him selfe, the bishop of the vniuersal Apostolike church. and vvilleth others to appeale to the Apostolike Sea, as to the head.

These are the first and most auncient that M. Iewel findeth, of whom he lear­ned his heresie against the primacie of the Romane church. and verie aunciēt they are in deede, the one being the [Page 145] fourth, the other the eight, in order frō S. Peter. But (Christian reader,) was he not a good scholer, that of these mais­ters could gather such doctrine? of such flowers, could sucke out such poyson? or can we marueyle, if they haue a feate to peruert any thing be it neuer so plainelie and trulye spoken, who can crie out vpon such fathers speaking so roundly, & say, O Xistus, O Anacletus, you taught vs these heresies, you taught vs that the bishop of Rome for challenging primacie ouer the church, is the precur­sor of Antichrist?

But you wil answere, as M. Iewel tea­cheth you, that these epistles be not the epistles of Anacletus or Xistus, An obiectiō answered. but counterfeit, and set forth by some other in their names. But what vncredible peruersitie, and contradiction, and im­pudencie is this? or how can he so say? for saw he euer any other bookes of theirs, besides these epistles? could he for him selfe, or you for him, pretēd any such knowledge? most certaine it is, you can not. and therefore learning ought against the Romane Sea, from Xistus and Anacletus, he must needes learne it hence. and so, ether this ma­keth against the Romane Sea, which [Page 146] thing by Illyricus and other your owne writers is at large refuted (and who ha­uinge the forehead of a man can say otherwyse?) or M. Iewel in naming these two Popes at Paules crosse for his maisters in that heresie, may be an ex­ample of a more dissolute man, and more rechles in lying and abusing his audience, then euer before, or perhaps euer sithence occupied that place.

Let vs trie some other of his maisters, S. Gregorie and S. Leo, vpon whom first, in like maner he exclameth. and the protestants them selues, those that be farthest gone in bold deniall of any thinge, yet denie not but the bookes and epistles extant in their names, were truly made and leaft vnto vs by them. And did they (trow you) teach him these heresies? let vs heare vvhat they say, The prima­cy of the Romane Sea o­uer all churches of Chistendō with­in the firste 500 yeres, confessed & proued by the more fa­mous and learned protestants. Cent. 5. ca. 7 col. 774 and that in no other vvordes and sense, then those forenamed your owne doctors make them to speake, and point you to the bookes, epistles, and chap­ters, vvhere you shal find that vvhich they vvrite. The bishops of Rome that liued in this fift age (vvithin 500 yeres after Christ) affirme, that the Romane church is chiefe of al others. so doth Leo in his sermon de anniuersario assumptionis, et epistola [Page 147] 89. ad episcopos per prouinciam Viēnensem. The bishops that gouerned the Romane church in that age, required of other Arch­bishops, that they should make relation to them, if there fell any matter of controuersie. so Leo vvriteth in his 46. epistle to Anatolius Archbishop of Constātinople: Ibi. col. 776 If there be any thing that doth require consultation, vvith speede let relation therof be made vnto me, that after I haue examined the matter, my diligence may apoint vvhat is to be done. Againe, epist. 62. he requireth of Maximus Archbishop of Antioche, that he acknovv­ledge the priuileges of the third Sea, and oftē tymes vvrite to the Sea Apostolike, hovv the churches there increase. Also they tooke to thē this authoritie, to reproue other bishops, if they did ought amisse. they prescribed vnto them vvhat they should do, and apointed them orders in ceremonies. so Leo epist. 86. reprehēdeth Nicetas (patriarch) of Aquileia, because he receaued to communiō the Pelagi­ans, before they had condemned their error. He reprehendeth also the Africane bishops in the prouince of Mauritania Caesariensis, for making bishops, certaine persōs vnlavvfully. epist. 87. and he rebuketh the bishops of Ger­manie & Fraunce, for contemning the order of their felovvbishops. epis. 88. And vvher­as Anatolius bishop of Constantinople see­med [Page 148] not to beleeue rightly of the incarnation of the sonne of God, Leo chargeth him to put his faith in vvriting, Leos autho­ritie ouer the bishop of Constan­tinople. and send it to the bi­shop of Rome, and therein to protest openly, that he vvil excommunicate that man, vvho so euer beleeueth or teacheth of the incarna­tion of Christ, othervvise then is the professiō of the Catholikes, and of the bishop of Rome. epist. 33. So Proterius Archbishop of Alexan­dria, is reported to haue sent letters touching his faith to Leo. epist. 68. And Leo, epist. 69. signifieth to the Emperour Marcianus, that Proterius is a Catholike. Ibi. col. 778. They also confirmed bishops in their bishopriks. so Leo confirmed Maximus patriarch of Antioche in his bishop­rike, though he vvere made in the Councel of Ephesus, of vvhich Councel al other acts vvere abrogated. act. 7. Concil. Chalced. and that the same Leo confirmed to Proterius bishop of Alexandria, the old rights of that Sea according to the Canons and (aūcient) priui­leges, it is noted epist. 68. Leonis ad Iulianū et 69. ad Imperatorem Marcianum. Leo in his 33. epistle to Theodosius, requireth that he take order, that the bishop of Constantinople send to him a vvriting, vvherin he professe to embrace the true doctrine, and to condemne al that dissent from the same. Also they sent abrode legates, Ibi. co. 779. vvho in far distant prouinces, tooke notice of the errors of heretikes, and cor­rected [Page 149] them. so Leo sent his legates to Cōstan­tinople to vvithdravv Eutiches from his er­ror, as appeareth epist. 11. ca. 6. ad Flaui­anum. so he sent legates to the Emperour, epist. 34. & to Ephesus, that they taking vn­to them the Archbishop of Constantinople should absolue those that had bene deceaued by Dioscorus, and vvere novv content to do penance. epist. 44. & 46. In like maner epist. 87. sending legates in to Africa, he cōmaun­deth that Donatus a Nouatian be receaued (to communion) if he send to Rome, a vvri­tinge touching the condemnation of that er­ror. They required also of Archbishops, Harde ques­tions rising in far distāt prouinces, referred to the Sea of Rome. that if of themselues they could not determine any thing, they should send it to the Sea Aposto­like, & vvithal they charged thē to receaue and obserue their decrees made against here­tikes. so Leo epist. 84. cap. 7. prescribeth this order to the bishop of Thessalonica in Thra­cia, that tvvo prouincial Councels be held euery yere. & if there fal out any hard mat­ter, and it be not decided by the iudgement of the bishop of Thessalonica, that it be referred to the bishop of Rome. and cap. 11. he vvilleth that the contentions risinge among the bi­shops, be referred to him, vvith a declaration of things done in such matters. The same Leo cōmaundeth Nicetas patriarch of Aquileia, that he cause al his bishops, priestes, & clearks [Page 150] openly to cōdemne certaine heresies and their authors, and to approue al synodal decrees, vvhich the authoritie of the Apostolike Sea had confirmed for the rooting out of heresie, & that they testifie so much by their subscrip­tions. epist. 86.

Many things (Christian reader) of good weight & importāce I passe ouer, because I couet to be short, and these matters are now so cleare and manifest to men neuer so litle exercised in these questions, that I do rather marueyle & wonder at the dulnes and passing ether ignorance or shamlesnes of our aduer­saries, then greatly take care how to re­fute so sensible and knowen a falshode. Yet one thing I may not pretermitte, which the foresayd historiographers most euidently affirme, and by plaine demonstration proue, and wherein the primacie of the Romane Church shy­neth as bright, Supremacie of the Rom. Sea in general Coūcels, as before confessed & proued. as the sunne at noone in a somers day, that is, the demeanure of the bishop of Rome in generall Coun­cels. in which the whole church being gathered together, if at any time or place, then, and there, this power is principally to be considered. And haue we any thing there, for our purpose? Is it possible that within the first 500. yeres, [Page 151] in the aunciēt general Councels, ought should be found for proofe of this su­preme authoritie, Iewel in his defence of the Apolo. par. 2. cap. 4. & 1. vvhich is plainelie con­trarie to the auncient Councels, & inuaded the church vnder Phocas, many yeres after the tyme we speake of, except the Apologie of the English Church, and the Protestantes in their writinges lye to notoriously? Luth. Tom. 7. lib. con­tta Papatum pag. 455. It is verie true (saith Lu­ther) and the Pope him selfe knovveth it vvel inough, and nothing is more manifest by al the decrees of the old Councels, The facyng of a lye. and al vvritings and stories of al holy fathers vvhich vvere before the first Pope by name Bonifacius 3. Anno Domini 605. that the bishop of Romes authority vvas no greater then the authority of other bishops.

How the honor of that Apologie & Luther may be saued, I leaue it to M. W. but otherwyse then as of an incredi­ble fowle lye I can not iudge of that as­sertiō, except I would discredite these other writers, who affirme the contra­rie, and proue the contrarie, & that out of most autentical recordes, and that by this very Leo magnus, in M. Iewels iudgement, so greate an enemy of this supremacie. For continuing there nar­ration of the same Popes, Vbi sup. col 781.782. They summoned general Councels (say these writers) they vvere the Presidents in general Councels, they [Page 152] confirmed general Councels, and sometimes in part, sometimes vvholie, they disanulled gene­ral Councels. and this is manifest in Leo his epi­stles and the general Councels thēselues keapt vnder him. Epist. 93. ca. 17. vve haue sent letters (saith he) to our brethren and felovv-bishops of Tarraco in Spayne, of Carthage in Afrike, of Portugal and Fraunce, and haue sommoned them to meete at a general Councel. and Leo sent Paschasinus bishop of Sicilia to be President in the Councell of Chalcedon: vvhich is manifeste in the Acts of that Coun­cel. No lawful Coūcel with out appro­bation of the Romane Sea. And the same Paschasinus the Popes vicar condemned Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexan­dria, for this reason, because he durst hold a Councel vvithout the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike. and Cecropius bishop of Sebasto­polis, saith in the same place, vve may not call the second Councel of Ephesus, by the name of a Councel, because it vvas nether gathered together by the Aposto­like authoritie, nether proceeded it orderly. in actis Concilii Chalcedonensis. See Leo epist. 10. ad Flauianum, and 12. ad Theodosium. Thus Leo condemned the second Councel of Ephesus, and required an other to be gathered, epist. 24.25.28.30.31.32. and vvhereas Anatolius bishop of Constantinople, vvould haue set him self before the churches of Alex­andria and Antioche, Leo epist. 53. vvriteth [Page 153] vnto him most vehemently, and shevveth that to be against the canons of the Nicene Councel, and that he vvil not permit those churches to leese their old prerogatiues: vvhich thing he auoucheth also in his epistle to Pulcheria. and there againe he rebuketh the ambition or insolencie of that Anatolius, and signifieth expresly, that he doth abro­gate and disanulle all the decrees of the bi­shops there gathered together, so many as vvere contrarie to the rules of the Nicene Coūcel. And the Coūcel of Chalcedō (of 630. bishops assembled out of al the world) thus vvriteth to Leo. vve beseech you, that you vvil honour our iudgement vvith your appro­bation, and as vve of zeale haue put our con­sent to these good decrees, Summitas tua filiis. Vbi sup. ca. 10. col, 1262 so let your Suprema­cie fulfill to vs your children, that vvhich is conuenient. Finally, this principalitie of the Romane church, Leo laboureth to persvvade in most of his epistles, as in his epistles to Ana­stasius bishop of Thessalonica, to the bishops of Germanie and Fraunce, to Anatolius bishop of Constantinople, & in sundrie other, vvhere very painfully he goeth about to proue, that singular preeminence vvas geuen to Peter aboue the other Apostles, and that thence rose the distinction of bishops, and especially the primacie of the Romane church, and that therefore he is bound to take the care of al [Page 154] churches. Thus far they. whereby we see, that S. Leo thought this primacy due to the church of Rome, not by de­cree of Emperours or Councels, but by the expresse ordinance of Christ him selfe in the Gospel.

And in all this, can M. W. fynde ne­uer a sentence, clause, or example, for the Supremacie? thinketh he that M. Iewels grāmatical diuinitie of compa­ring wordes and phrases, tempered to­gether with a huge heape of corruptiōs & lyes, wil serue, in the iudgmēt of any reasonable man, against such a troupe of sensible demonstrations, gathered & vrged to this purpose by his owne bre­thren? whē as the greate generall Coū ­cels acknowledge such authoritie, the greatest patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioche, Alexandria, submit them selues to such authoritie, the bishop of Rome, a man of such excellencie for learning, wisdom, and godlines, as Leo was, exercyseth vpon them such au­thoritie, prescribeth to them lawes, Ca­nons, and decrees, gouerneth in their prouinces, and in al other, in Africa, in Mauritania, in Aegipte, in Syria, in Asia, in Grece, in Spaine, in Fraunce, in Germanie, in al parts of the Christi­an [Page 155] world? Confes. Ge­neu. cap. 7. ¶. 12. Leo so mag­nified by M. Iewel, is a verie Anti­christ to Be­za and the church of Geneua. Remembreth he not that Theodore Beza and the church of Ge­neua answere these places, by calling him plaine Antichrist for vsing this au­thoritie? Cōstat Leonem in epistolis, Romanae Sedis Antichristianae arrogantiam planè spi­rasse. It is manifest (say they) that Leo in his epistles doth clearly breath forth the arro­gancie of that Antichristiā Romane Sea. & yet S. Leo in Geneua a verie Antichrist for his writing & behauiour about the Supremacie, for the self same matter, in England is a pure Protestāte. He taught M. Iewel that the authoritie of the bi­shop of Rome, was no greater then the authority of any other bishop, & of thee ô Leo, he learned this heresie. & if he vvere de­ceaued, thou Leo deceauedst him. Surely it was an ouersight, that he forgat to put in the rolle, S. Bernard, the bishop of Ro­chester, and Sir Thomas More. For of them in this case he learned as much as of S. Leo, or of S. Gregorie, who notwithstanding is an other of his mai­sters. But what a froward and ouer­thwart scholer he was, who here againe so blyndly mistooke his maister, I thinke few of his schole-felowes are ignorant, and it is so cleare, that in truth it greueth me to spend tyme therein. [Page 156] and therefore I refer the reader to the same storie, vvhere he shal see a good and large treatise, aboundantly prouīg the same of S. Gregorie, vvhich novv hath bene shevved of S. Centuria 6.6.7. col. 425. Leo. he shal find there confessed by those Protestants who hated the Sea of Rome as deepe­lie, as did ether M.W. or M. Iewel, but were not so extremelie hardned in face and forhead as M. Iewel was, and as M.W. must be, if he take vpon him the others quarel, he shal finde (I say) con­fessed by them and proued in lyke ma­ner, that this S. Gregorie taught, that Apostolica sedes est omnium Ecclesiarum ca­put. The church of Constan­tinople sub­iect to the Sea of Rome before Pho­cas or Boni­facius 3. the Apostolike Sea (of Rome) is head of al churches. lib. 11. epist. 54. Indict. 6. that bothe the Emperour and Eusebius his felovv-bishop, professed that the church of Constan­tinople vvas subiect vnto that Sea. li. 7. epis. 63. indict. 2. that he cited Maximus bishop of Salona in Dalmatia to come to Rome, there to render accompt hovv he came by that bi­shoprike. lib. 5. indict. 14. epist. 25. he a­pointed the bishop of Siracusa to be iudge ouer the bishop of Constantinople. lib. 7. indict. 2. epis. 64. he sent into Spaine, one vvho should restore Ianuarius deposed from his bishoprike vniustly. lib. 11. indict. 6. epist. 50. & 54. he apointeth the bishops of Fraunce, hovv they [Page 157] should cal a synode for the rooting out of si­monie and auarice. lib. 9. indict. 4. epist. 49. & sequentibus. and those thinges vvhich in the synode they should agree on, he vvilleth should be sent to him, & streightly chargeth them, that at the least once in the yere they keepe a synode, according to the canonical de­crees. lib. 7. epist. 110. numer. 2. And Virgi­lius bishop of Arelatum or Arles, vvhom in the French church he made his Vicar and Legate, and preferred before al other bishops, he vvilleth to send to him, al harder contro­uersies. li. 4. ind. 14. epi. 52. The like priuilege he graunteth to Maximianus bishop of Sira­cusa in Sicilia, to be supreme ouerseer of those churches, and to end lesser controuersies and send the greater to him. vvhich priui­lege for al that, he geueth to the person, not to the place. lib. 2. epist. 4. indict. 10. Isychius bishop of Ierusalē, he biddeth to exterminate from his churches the Simoniacal heresie. lib. 9. indict. 4. epist. 40. To Columbus bishop of Numidia and the primate of that prouince he enioyneth, that he vvith other examine the cause of Donadeus deposed by Victor his bi­shop. and if he be guiltie, to binde him to pe­nance, if he be guiltles, that they rebuke Vic­tor, that he may knovv hovv vniustly he hath dealt. lib. 10. indict. 5. epist. 8. vvhen the bishop of Constantinople had condemned a [Page 158] priest of Chalcedon, Gregorie retracteth that sentence, and commaundeth him being inno­cent to be absolued. lib 5. indict. 14. epist. 15.16.17. Finally he affirmeth againe and proueth by scripture, that the Ro­mane churche is head of al churches, caput omnium Ecclesiarum. Greg. in 4. Psal. peni­tentialem, & lib. 12. indict. 7. epist. 32. and so forth, for what should I stand vpon particulars, which are in maner innu­merable there rehearsed. and by these writers it seemeth (and true it is) that his 12. Vide ibi ca. 7. pag. 425.426.427.428.429.430 &c. vntil the pag. 439. bookes of epistles conteyne in effect nothing els, but the exercise of suche vniuersal iurisdiction, practysed by Gregorie the first in al Christian churches, from East to West, frō North to South, in far more ample maner, & with more shew of authoritie, then ap­peareth now in Gregorie the thirtenth his successor. These things I say and very many other of this quality, did S. Gregorie the first, Caluin. In­stitut. lib. 4. ca. 7. ¶. 12.13 a man for humilitie commended of Caluin singularly, of Luther (who seeldome spake good of any Pope) acknowledged for a good & holy bishop. Luth. Tom. 7. aduersus Papatum fol. 455. And Bale sometime an Irish prelate (though afterward a com­mon minister) who rayleth fowly at the most glorious martyrs and confessors [Page 159] Popes of that Sea before S. Gregorie, yet speaking of him, attributeth this vnto him, that he was the best for life and learning, that euer sat in that place. Balaeus de script. Britā. cent. 1. p. 45. Gregorius omnium Romanorum pontificum doctrina & vita prestantissimus.

But against al these examples, con­sisting not onlie in plaine wordes, but much more in manifest deedes, factes, iudgments, corrections, iurisdictions, appellations, excomunications, al eui­dent practises of souerayne principali­tie, M. Iewel hath a number of wordes, and they al depending of one only worde, that is, the name vniuersal, VNIVER­SALIS. which S. Gregorie doth so condemne, as he accompteth him for Antichrist, that would be called vniuersal bishop. and here what a sturre he keepeth, Paules crosse, his replie against D. Cole and D. Harding, the English Apologie and the defence of the Apologie witnesse abundantly. For this is a common storebox, when so euer the Pope com­meth in the way, so far forth, that in one side of a leafe he quoteth S. Replie a­gainst D. Harding pa. 226. Gregorie against this name, no lesse then 19. tymes. and M. W. with his felowes, at this day singeth that song as freshly, as though it neuer had bene heard before. [Page 160] But if ether he or they regarded the searching out of the truth, and sought not continual wrangling about words, they would neuer so blindlie haue snatched at one worde, against so many facts and examples of continual cus­tome, so many wayes testified and ex­pressed by worde and deede. But the answer is easy, and often tymes geuen by S. Gregorie, often times repeted & proposed by the late catholike wri­ters. but because M. W. hath nor per­haps seene the one, and not greatly considered the other, I wil geue him the same, and the true sense of such words, out of one of his owne felowes.

M. Iewels & other pro­testants cō ­mon obiection takē out of S. Grego­rie against the supremacie, answe­red truly by one of their owne sect.Andreas Fricius of Polonia, a man though bearing deadly hatred to the Pope of Rome, yet one that could be content wel inough to haue the like office amōg his Euangelical churches to keepe them in vnitie, which he thin­keth otherwise wil neuer be, handling that matter and laing against him self this old auncient obiection of the Pro­testants, Andreas Fricius de ec­clesia. lib. 2. cap. 10. pag. 570. thus answereth it, & that truly. Some there be (sayth this writer) that a­gainst this office (of vniuersal superin­tendent) obiect the authoritie of Gregorie, vvho saith, that such a title apperteyneth to [Page 161] the precursor of Antichrist. But the reason of Gregorie is to be knovven. & it may be ga­thered of his vvordes, vvhich he repeteth in many epistles, that the title of vniuersal bishop is contrarie, & doth gainsay the grace vvhich is cōmonly poured vpon al bishops. Vniuersall bishop, how & in what sense deny­ed by S. Gre­gorie. He therefore that should cal him self vniuersal bishop, calleth him self the only bishop, and taketh bishoply povver from the rest. VVherefore this title he vvould haue to be re­iected, vvhich is vsurped vvith the iniurie of other bishops. Such sentences to this purpose are oftentimes repeted by S. Saepe eius­modi sentē ­tiae iterātur a Gregorio. Gregorie in ma­ny epistles &c. this title he doth abhorre both in him selfe, and in al other. so far of is he frō graunting the same to the bishop of Constan­tinople. and vvhy so? because bishoply grace is generally bestovved (from god) vpon al bi­shops. and it is no reason that any one should take to him selfe, that vvhich by equal right agreeth to al. This being the true meaning of such places, and this being verie often times geuen by S. Gregorie him selfe, saepe et in multis epis­tolis, you see how iustly we accuse both M. Iewel & you, of wilfulnes and blind­nes. how iustly we obiect vnto you a verbal and talkatiue diuinitie, who could not, or would not see that is which so commonly repeted againe and [Page 162] againe in so many epistles.

Though S. Greg. disliked the name Vniuersall, yet he approued the Su­premacie as agreable to the expresse worde of god.But maketh S. Gregorie ether in this word, or in al his words or workes, ought against the primacie of that church? This writer proceedeth on thus. Verumtamen ex aliis constat &c. not­vvithstanding by other places it is euident, that Gregorie thought, that the charge and principalitie of the vvhole church, vvas committed to Peter by the voice of our Lord. And thus much he vvrote plainely, & almost vvord for vvord lib. 4. epistola. 32. to the emperour Maurice, and confirmed it by testi­monie of scripture. It is manifest (saith Gre­gorie) to al men that knovv the gospel, that by the voice of our Lord, the care of the vvhole church vvas cōmitted to holy S. Peter Prince of al the Apostles. For to him it is said, feede my sheepe. Iohn. 21. To him it is said, I haue prayed for the, that thy faith fayle not. Luc. 22. To him it is said: thou art Peter and vpon this rock I vvil build my church &c. If charge of the vniuer­sal church make the Pope Anti­christ, then our Sauiour made S. Pe­ter Anti­christ. Mat. 16. Behold he receaueth the keys of the kingdom of heauen, povver to bind and loose is geuen to him, to him is committed the charge & principalite of the vvhole church. And yet for this cause Gregorie thought not that Peter vvas the forerunner of Antichrist. Thus he, prouing both by scripture & by reason, that S. Gregorie, though he [Page 163] disliked and condemned that proude name of vniuersal bishop, both in him selfe and others (as doth also Pope Gre­gorie the 13. at this day) yet he nether disliked, nor condemned the supreme charge and gouernment of the church for Antichristian, which him selfe ex­ercised. nether could he so do, except he first cōdemned for Antichristian, S. Peter the Apostle who receaued it, and Christ our Sauiour who gaue it. So tha [...] M. Iew. hath hetherto shewed smal wit, learning, faith, or honestie, in making these mē, S. Gregorie, Leo, Xistus, Anacletus his maisters in that heresie against the supremacie, who haue not only no one word or sillable against it, but contrari­wise haue whole and long epistles, chapters, discourses, examples, and factes, arguments, reasons & scriptures to proue it. And here the reader may gesse, how like I were to cloy him with abundance and store, if I would in like sort go thorough with the other articles, which I might do as wel, and with as great aduantage. But I wil not cast more water into the sea, and there­fore nether wil prosequute in this or­der the other two questions, but only touch them in a word, and so proceede [Page 164] to other matter.

As here against the Pope, so against the real presence, for the zuinglian imagination, M. Iewel likewise chalen­geth al the fathers vnto him, namely those aboue rehearsed, S. Gregorie S. Leo &c. and besides, S. Austin, S. Hie­rom, and S. Chrisostome, then which I thinke he could not haue picked out amongst al the fathers, more heauy and deadly enemies to him, touching any parte of his false faith, and those two partes of the real presence and sacrifice es­pecially. For was there euer besides this wicked man, any Luther, or Bucer, or who so euer was worse then other, S. Gregorie a prieste, vvithout all reason made a minister by M. Iewel. so desperate in lying, that would say S. Gregorie was a minister, and ministred the holy communion as now is the fashion in England? when his bookes in so many places, shew him to haue bene a prieste, and a prieste to celebrate masse, and not to minister communion? vnto whom other protestants commonly attribute the framing of the masse, Bibliand. in praefat. epis­tolarū Zuinglii & Oeco­lampadii. Melanct. li. 4 Chronic. in Henric. 4. fol. 186.187. because of two or three rites which he ordeined therein? Whom for this cause, Theodorus Bibliāder scorn­fully nameth patriarcham caeremoniarum, the Patriarch of ceremonies: Melanchthō, [Page 165] that he horribly prophaned the Communiō, allovving by publike authoritie the sacri­fice of Christes body and bloud, not only for the liuing but also for the dead: Flacius Illyricus, that by miracle he cōuerted a faithles vvoman vvho beleeued not that the body of Christ vvas substancially in tbe Sacrament. Centu. 6. ca. 10. col. 678.679.682. ibi. ca. 13. col. 817.819. ex Paulo Diacono. lib. 2. cap. 41.42. and that euery vvhere be doth inculcate sacri­fices and masse, and by diuers miracles con­firmeth the same: against whom Petrus Paulus Vergerius, for authoritie, place and estimation, as great a Protestant as any in our dayes, hath written a whole booke, entituled de nugis & fabulis Papae Gregorii primi: P. Paulus Vergeri. cō ­tra Grego. 1. and finally (to passe by many others) when your owne English writers protest him to haue bene a per­fite and absolute Papist, & that there­fore your first Apostles and Euange­listes in bringing in this your Gospel, did directly oppose them selues vnto him, and rooted out that which he and his Legate our Apostle S. Austin had planted? Gregorie the first (saith your Chronicler Iohn Bale) the yere of our lord 596. Bale. cent. 1. pag. 66.72. & centur. 8. pa. 678. sent Austine the monke to plante in our churches his Romane religion. But Lati­mer is much more vvorthie to be called our Apostle then Austine. For Austine brought [Page 166] nothing but mans traditions, Marke this confession. Our first A­postles we­re Papistes. masse, Crosses, litanies &c. vvhereas Latimer vvith the hooke of truth cut of those superstitions vvhich he had planted, and cast them out of the Lords vineyard. And doth not M. Horne the late called bishop of Winchester, in playne termes reuile this glori­ous Apostle, and name him most eth­nically a blinde bussard, M. Horne againste M. Feknam. pa. 58. because he was ignorant of your Alcoran, and knew nothing els, and therefore induced our forefathers to no other Gospel, then to the auncient Gospel of Christ and reli­gion Catholike?

And doth the other S. Austin make more for you in this point of your vn­beleefe, then doth this later S. Austin, or S. Gregorie? I know you alleage him much more, but with what hones­tie, I had rather you should heare of your owne father Luther, then of me. In my iudgement (saith Luther) after the A­postles, Luth. Tom. 7. defensio verborum coenae fol. 405. the church hath not had a better doctor then vvas S. Austin. And that holie man hovv filthilie & hovv spitefullie is he man­gled and disfigured by the Sacramentaries, S. Austine intolera­bly abused and corrup­ted by the Sacramenta­ries. that he may become a defender & patrone of their venemous, blasphemous and erroneous heresie? Verely as much as in me lieth, so long as I haue breath in my body, I vvil [Page 167] vvithstand them, and protest that they do him iniury. vvhich thing any man may do vvith an assured and confident mynde, because the Sacramentaries only pul & teare his vvords into their ovvne sense, prouing their appli­catiō by no reason, but only by vayne boasting of their most certaine truth. And concer­ning the rest of the fathers, whereas M. Iewel affirmeth, that they all taught as he did, against the real presence, Lu­ther contrarywise affirmeth, that no one euer so taught, but euerie one taught the contrarie. Thus he writeth in the same booke. This truly is maruelous, Ibid. fo. 391. Nullus Nemo. that no one of the fathers, vvhereof the number is infi­nite, euer spake of the Sacrament, as do the Sacramentaries. No one fa­ther was of M. Iewels o­pinion tou­ching the Sacrament. For none of them vseth such vvordes, there is only bread and vvine: or, the body & bloud of Christ is not there. Surely it is not credible, nay it is not possible, vvhere as they talke againe and againe of these things, but at some time, at the lest once, these vvordes vvould haue slipt out of their pen: it is only bread, Concordes & constātes vno ore. or the body of Christ is not there corporally, or such like. But they al speake so precisely, as though none doub­ted, but that there vvere present the body & bloud of Christ. They al agreably and con­stantly vvith one mouth auouch the affirma­tiue, that it is there. But our Sacramentaries [Page 168] can do nothing els but proclayme the negati­ue, that it is not there. So Luther, prince and father of this Gospel. and so that Luther, supra cap. 3. whose iudgmēt M.VV. preferreth before a thousand Austines, a thousand Ci­prians, and as many churches. and so at the leste, more to be estemed then one M. Iewel, though M.W. stand by him to helpe out the matter.

But this field is so large, that the far­ther I go, the farther I may. & therefore to breake of, omitting S. Chrisostome, who made 6. S. Chrisosto­mes 6. boo­kes de sa­cerdotio. bookes of priesthode, (and neuer a one of ministerhode,) and there­fore is not lyke to be an enemy to the sacrifice, lib. 3. which in one part of that work he setteth forth so excellētly, referring M. chap. 4. W. for the sacrifice to that which hath bene sayde before: for the real presence, to that which may by occasion be touched hereafter, chap. 8 & 9. I wil end this matter, wi­shinge the reader to carie in memorie M. Iewels challēge as an eternal exam­ple of his inexplicable impudency and rashnes. thereby that he learne, not to be moued with the bold coūtenāces of his aftercommers, whose fashion is ve­rie commonly to looke biglie, Tower dis­putation. when in deede (settinge a syde the Tower racke & Tiburne) they can do nothing: [Page 169] and then to crake vnmeasurably, when besydes words and crakes (and lyes) they haue nothing to say. which to haue bene the fashion of heretikes in his time, S. Austin of old noted, Aug. de vti­litate credē ­di cap. 1. and we in our time finde true by experience. And in this present quarel it can not be auoyded, but ether Caluin, Luther, Be­za, Peter Martir, Zuinglius, Illyricus, & Bale, principal Euāgelists & gospel­lers be egregious lyers, who tel vs that the fathers thus taught, and thus belee­ued of the Popes primacy, of the sacri­fice and real presence: or els M. Iewel must take that to him selfe, vnto whom in deede, that qualitie was in a verie high degree an inseparable accidēt. For in that propertie, I beleeue verely he passed any one heretike that euer wrote since Christs tyme.

WHEREFORE leauing M. Iew­el, proceede we on in order to that which foloweth, that is, to Bezaes trāslatiō of the [Page 170] wordes of S. Peter Act. 3. in defending whereof, you draw neere to the vayne I looke for, and shew your selfe to be a scholer of him whose challenge you aduaūce so much. For you do nothing els but dally in ambiguitie of words without any regarde of truth, decea­uing both your reader & your self. You say, pag. 9. vvhē Beza trāslated, [...] by this, quē oportet quidē coelo capi, vvho must be receaued in heauen, he did it onely to auoide ambiguitie of speach, vvhich is found in the other, quē oportet coelū capere, and the sense stil remaineth one. For vvhereas Peter vvil say and teach, How kno­weth M.W. that S. Peter wil say so? that necessarily heauen must receaue Christ vntill the times that all things be restored, this sense Beza deli­uered most faithfullie, in most conueni­ent vvordes. For if heauen shal receaue Christ, then necessarie it is, that Christ be re­ceaued of heauen. vvhich thing cōmon sense might haue taught you. For tel me I pray you M. Martin, if the schole receaue and conteyne you, are you not receaued & conteyned of the schole? Hauing obteyned thus much, you fal into an idle talke, that actiues or deponents may be rendered by pas­siues by example of Cicero, whereof no man doubteth, & then cōclude, that S. Gregorie Nazianzene doth affirme [Page 171] Christū [...]. This being the entier summe of your discourse, glad­ly would I now learne of the rea­der, whether he vnderstandeth hereby what you would say, or what you go about to proue, and reproue? forsooth, that the sense in a Greke writer is not hindered, if a verbe deponent or actiue making the sentence doubtful and ap­plicable to diuerse senses, for playner vnderstanding, in Latin be turned into a verbe passiue. For so did Cicero in translating a sentence of Plato, and so might you do in translating a sentence of S. Paule, animalis homo non percipit, [...] ea quae sunt spiritus. spiritual things are not perceaued of a carnall man. vvhere [...] a verbe deponent in Greke, is vvell expressed in English, by a verbe passiue. You say wel, and like a good scholer. But is this al that M. Martin wēt about to shew, and for which he found fault with Beza? Certes it is al, for ought I can cōceaue by your maner of defence. but the thing it selfe is far otherwise. How dange­rous it is to restrayne the text of scripture, to the parti­cular sense of some one man, or Sect

For first, although in common pro­phane writers, where ordinarily in wor­des and phrases there lieth no hid se­crets or misteries, to expresse doubtful Greke by vndoubtful Latin, when if [Page 172] there be committed an error, it impor­teth not greatly, this is not so material: yet in the word of God, where ambi­guous speaking yeldeth diuers senses, and perhaps bothe, or not that one which is taken, principallie entended, there, for any mā of purpose to restraine that which the holy Ghost hath leaft at large, it is to saucy and malapert, if it be not wicked and impious. For what if the meaning of Sainte Peter be here not that heauen should take Christ, but that Christ should take heauen, to rule and gouerne it euen to the end of the world, according as els-where it is sayde. Mat. 11. v. 27. & cap, 28 vers. 18. Al things are deliuered me of my father. to me is geuen al povver in heauen & in earth. & againe, Cor. 15. v. 26. thou hast put al things vnder his feete, Eph. 1. v. 20 setting him on thy right hād aboue all principalitie, and potestate, and povver, and domination, and euery thinge that is named, not onely in this vvorld but also in that to come. But you wil say this is a false sense. Suppose it be, as perhaps it is not. wil you take vpon you by Ci­ceroes authority, as Beza doth oftēti­mes by Homers and Ouids, to limite that which the Euangelist hath leaft at at large? And see by this rash audacitie what confusion you bring, and what a [Page 173] hotchpoch you make of the scriptures. Suppose some other be of my opinion, and thinke the sense which I geue, to be the onely true, and yours to be the false. shal he be so bold to shut out yours, and thrust in his owne with like necessitie & restraynt as you haue done? if so, then you know the Lutherans thinke as I say. For thus writeth Illyri­cus, and he writeth as it may seeme, di­rectlie against your Beza. Illyric. in Act. cap. 3. ver. 21. Some vnder­stand this place, that Christ is receaued or cō ­teyned of the heauen. vvhich sentence is a­gainst the scope of the Apostle, and should set forth rather the infirmitie, then the glorie & povver of Christ. For so of angels, yea of deuils it may be sayd, that they are receaued or cōteyned of heauē, because the vvorde coelū, sometime in the scripture signifieth the ayer. A goodlie matter. he vvho by vvitnes [...]o the scripture filleth al thinges, vve vvil say is receaued or conteyned in a certen place, almost as it vvere in a prison.

Secondarily, what wicked and vncō ­scionable 2 dealing is this, in spending so many wordes, not to speake any one worde to the purpose, whereunto you should speake al, or els hold your peace & speake nothing. Was not that the point of his reprehension, not be­cause [Page 174] you gaue a passiue for an actiue or deponent, but because you did it in this place, and did it to this end, that so you might seeme by scripture to ex­clude Christ frō the sacrament? For this reason Beza geueth, and for this reason M. Martin reproueth Beza, & Bezaes corruption. and of this M.W. speaketh not a worde, or if he do, it is a mani­fest falsitie. For if M. Whit. sayng that Beza did it for that only cause, to auoyde doubtful speach, oppose him selfe to M. Martin in this, Scripture of purpose fal­sly transla­ted against the real pre­sence. Discoue. pag. 257. it can not be excused frō a playne lye. for so much as in Bezaes behalfe he auoucheth that to be true, which Beza him selfe protesteth to be false. They so conclude Christ in heauē (saith M. Martin) that he can not be on the altar. and Beza protesteth that he so translateth of purpose, to kepe Christes presence thence.

3 Yet a third faulte you haue commit­ted besides, in iustifying this smal de­mie sentence. and that is, whereas M. Martin for the better strengthning of his reason against you, ioyned to it the authoritie of Illyricus and Caluin, you omit them bothe. Discou. pag. 257. This translation of Beza is so far from the Greke (saith M. Martin) that not onely Illyricus the Lutherane, but Caluin him selfe doth not like it. Which wodes [Page 175] if you had ioyned to the rest, if you had but named those men, your slender reasōs in the eyes of your reader, would forthwith haue appeared contemp­tible. And wel he might haue maruey­led, how you durst defend such a trans­lation, which not only Illyricus a fa­mous Lutherā, but also Caluin, a prince amongst the Zuingliās, in plaine speach reprehendeth. whereby a man may see that you seeke not for truth, but only to talke on, and serue the tyme, & abuse the reader.

4 And yet once againe, vnder pretēce of a litle simplicitie, and most rude and simple sophistrie, a fourth fault haue you made, worse then the former, run­ning first from one sense to an other and then from one worde to an other. Recipitur continetur. and so in fine, whiles you would seeme to make S. Peter speake clearly and plainly, you make him speake falsly & heretically. whereof, forthwith I shal haue occasion to treate. The place which you cite out of Nazianzene, oportet Christum a coelo recipi, maketh no more for you, then doth the article of our Creede, ascendit ad coelos, or sedet ad dexteram patris. and I marueile what Ca­tholike beleeueth the contrarie, and [Page 176] therefore I let it passe.

As ye proceede, the reason begin­neth to appeare, why you would so fayne haue that forged interpretation of Beza to stand for good. For now you beginne to frame against the real presence, argumēts drawen from natu­ral and mathematical conditions of a bodie: whereby the reader may learne the more to detest and abhorre the whole race of your heretical transla­tors. Mat. 13. v. 25 For as our Sauiour saith, in the field of his Catholike church in the night, vvhen men vvere a slepe, Euery here­tike transla­teth the scripture in fauour of his heresie. his enemie came and ouersovved cockle among the vvheate, and vvent his vvay, and some time pas­sed, before the cockle thus sowen ap­peared: in like maner these feedemen of the same aduersarie, wicked corrup­ters of the good feede and worde of Christ, first fall a trāslating of the scrip­ture, with many goodlie and plausible pretenses, of gods honor, & the peoples commoditie, and publishing gods bles­sed booke &c. And so while no man thinketh amisse of them, as it were in the night and darknes, being espied of none, among the good seede of god, they mingle & sow their owne wic­ked and abhommable darnel, which at [Page 177] first is not seene, but in tyme sheweth it selfe. For when M.W. so smoothly went away with the matter, and found fault with M. Martins ignorance for dislyking so plaine a thing, when he told vs of actiues and passiues, that there was no difference betwene the first, quem oportet coelum capere, and this second, quem oportet coelo capi, but that this later is more cleare and perspicu­ous, who would haue supposed any great mischeefe to haue bene hidden therein? But now, euen thereof he fra­meth his principal argument, to spoyle the church of Christes real presence. VVith like sinceritie translate the Lutherans for their Lutherish, the Bren­tians for their Vbiquitarie, the Trinita­ries of Pole for their Arian, and Sebasti­anus Castalio for his Academical heresie, sprinkling heare and there many drops of poyson, with which symple soules are daungerously infected, before the mischeuous practyse be of many discouered. But let vs heare M. W. ar­gument, drawen (as he would haue vs suppose) from the former falsified text of scripture, but in deede from A­ristotle and Euclide. Pa. 11. If Christes body (sa­yth he) be natural, and of the same substance [Page 178] that ours is, The zuinglians most vsual & plausi­ble argumēt against the real pre­sence. then can it be conteyned but in one place, and if it be in heauen, it is not in the sacrament. But Christs body is such a body, consubstantial to ours in al things, sa­uing glorie and immortalitie, and that body of Christ is novv conteyned in heauen, as Pe­ter saith, Cōtinetur therefore it is not in the Sacrament, much lesse in infinite Sacraments. This ar­gument feareth not your forces. For if Christs body be together in heauen and in the sa­crament, then Christ hath a double body or rather infinite bodies. but this is false. ergo that. Furthermore if Christs bodie be circum­scribed vvith some certaine place in heauen and reteyneth all properties of a true body, & the selfe same in the sacrament be [...] incircumscript, inuisible, &c. then contradictories maye be verified of the same bodye. But this can not be. therefore the other is vnpossible.

Many thin­ges to be noted in M. W. argumēt.Of this kinde of reasoning, which may be enlarged as far, and amplified by as many circumstances, as ether Geometrie, or Philosophie, or any sense, seing, hearing, tasting, hand­ling, or humaine reason, or common experiment, in the course of the world list to heape together, al depending of one principle, vvhether one body may be in dyuers places, or vvhether Christ be [Page 179] bound to the rules and conditions of nature, many thinges I learne.

First, how much you can make of a litle, and vaunte so lustely of such beg­gerly argumentes, Greate vauntinge vpon smale occa­sion. which being found out first and inuented by prentises and artisans in their shops, thence ad­mitted by ministers into their pulpits, and at length receaued by such as you are, in to the scholes for want of better store, yet rather as rhetorical thē the­ological, rather coniectural then ne­cessary, haue so oft tymes bene refuted by Catholikes, cōdemned by Lutherans refused of Caluinistes, & are withall as cōmon, as are the Postilions bootes.

Secondarily (which before I noted) I learne how careful a Christian man ought to be in dealing with you, whose fashion is, of molehils to make moun­taines. wicked So­phistrie. and if of curtesie one graunt you an inch, straight waies you borow a spanne, and forthwith by force and violence you snatch an ell. For when you so demurely made it to be a trifle, whether a man translated the wordes, quem oportet coelum capere, [...]. vvhom the hea­uens must receaue, or vvho must be receaued in heauen, and so caried away the later against the former, who would haue [Page 180] thought that to haue bene such a coka­trice egge, as where of should proceede such a pestiferous serpent, that would corrupt the vniuersal church of Christ, and destroy the faith, that hath bene since Christes tyme. Conteyned. If Christes bodie be conteined in heauen as S. Peter saith, then is it not in the sacrament. which collection when a man perceaueth, who before of simplicitie found no fault wi [...]h your translation, and made no conscience whether he said, Corruption of scripture. heauen receaued Christ, or Christ vvas receaued in to heauen, he can not now forbeare, but needes he must say, that your argument is false, and you belye S. Peter. And this being your sense, you haue corrupted the word of god, & thrusting in your owne word, Hiero. in Gal. cap. 1. haue made of it the word of the deuil. Great daūger it is (saith S. Hierom) to speake in the church, leste perhaps through peruerse interpretation, of the gospel of Christ, be made the gospel of mā, or vvhich is vvorse, the gospel of the Deuill. And plaine it is that by this corruption & shuffling in conteyned for receaued, and running so­phistically and wickedly as you please from one to the other, you abuse the scriptures & falsifie them intolerably, & make them youre owne word, not the [Page 181] word of god. For S. Peter, in sayng that heauen must receaue the body of Christ, af­firmeth Christes body to be conteyned in heauen, no more then S. Luke writing that Samaria receaued the vvord of God, [...]. Act. 8. v. 14. Luc. 9. v. 48. affirmeth rhat the word of God vvas then conteyned in Samaria, which was most false. Our Sauiour saith in this selfe same maner. [...]. The like whereof he speaketh in S. Matthew of receauing his Apostles. Mat. 10. v. 40 [...]. He that receaueth a child, Apostle, or prophete in my name, receaueth me. and he that receaueth me, receaueth him that hath sent me. Here, who seeth not what impietie would folow, if we should take to our selues M. W. liber­tie, and say, he that receaueth a child in Christes name, he receaueth Christ, he receaueth God, that is, of him, Christ is conteyned, God is conteyned. And albeit here in the thinges compared together there be some difference, yet in the worde vsed by our Sauiour, S. Peter, and the Euangeliste, there is no diffe­rence, and this indifferency should the interpreter haue expressed, and so [Page 182] would Beza haue done, had it not bene for his heresie against the B. sacra, ment.

Thirdly I note the proceeding of your Gospel, and learne how it goeth on according to S. 2. Timoth. 3. Paules prophecie, a malo in peius from badd to worse, from heresie to apostasie, The proce­ding of the new gospel. running continu­ally forward the verie hye way to infi­delitie. When this gospel began in England in the ende of King Henryes daies, those that in other pointes were starke heretikes, and the ringleaders vnto others, See M. Fox. martyrolo­ge in Fryth and Barnes, &c. Tindale, Frith, Barnes, Cranmer, leaft it as a thing indifferēt, to beleeue the real presence. And namely Frith (that glorious martyr) permitted euery man to iudge vvhat they listed of the sacrament, Fox Act. & monumen. edit. ann. 1563. p. 500. if so be the adora­tion thereof were taken away. His rea­son was, because then there remained no more, The real presence approued by M. Foxes Martyrs. any poyson that any man ought or might be afraid of. So that the real pre­sence to this great martyr, seemed no way harmful or against Christian faith, which now to M. Whitaker is a matter so monstruous, that it is against scrip­ture, against faith, against S. Peter, and in steede of one Christ multiplieth many. And how then calleth he the [Page 183] Lutherans, his brethren in Christ, who by this reason haue an other Christ frō him, nay a plain contradictorie Christ against him?

But to answere his argument, and in this al other drawen from like princi­ples, I demaund of M.W. whether he vrge this argument so, that Christs body by course of nature can not be in diuers places and receaue those other contradictory qualities (as he falslie imagineth) or that by Gods power and omnipotēcie this can not be wrought. If the first, then we are agreed, and then may al these blotted papers serue for some other purpose. For against vs and the doctrine of the church, they make nothing. And then M. VV. hath done wickedly, to moue these scruples to idle heads, whereas he should rather haue sought what Christs wil is. If he say the later, that it is aboue the reach of Gods power, where vnto his arguments tende, I replie, that he is an infidell, Many th [...]ges in h [...] scripture vncredibl [...] as Christs presence in the blessed Sacrament. and beleeueth not the first article of his Crede. he beleeueth not other thinges expresly sette downe in the scripture, of the same qualitie, as that our Lady was a Virgin whē she deliue­red Christ, Ioan. 20. vers. 19. that he entred in to his disci­ples [Page 184] ianuis clausis, that in the burning fornace, one and the selfe same fier was so hotte and violente, that it slew those that stode a farre of, Daniel. 3. v. 47. & 48. the ministers of the Kinge, and yet to those that were in the middest of it, Sidrach, Misach, and Ab­denago, it was so cold and temperate, that it resembled ventum roris flantem, a moyst gale of vvinde, Ibid. v. 50. and harmed them nothing. which is as flat a contradic­tion as any he bringeth, and therefore belike, without the compasse of his be­leefe. I saie againe, that he is proceeded farther in infidelitie then his maisters, who notwithstanding were gone far inough, and a man needed not to ouer­run them. For they hitherto were wōt to protest, that they neuer doubted but Christ could do it, mary they supposed and beleeued that he neuer meant it, and so made the question to consist in that, vvhether Christ vvould, not vvhether he could, as may be seene in M. Iewel art. 10 ¶. 9. in fine. Iewel, in the very end of his 10. ar­ticle against M. Harding, 2 and in many other. M. W. argumēt against the Sacra­ment the very roote of Paganisme, & infidelity.

Next let him note, that this his argu­ment is the very shipwracke of Chris­tian religion, & roote of al Paganisme, destroyng our redemption, destroyng [Page 185] our resurrection, confounding and des­troyng al the articles of our faith, al­though it pretend the honor of god: Caluin contra Seruetū pag. 105. as wel writeth Caluin of Seruetus and the Anabaptists. For what is the first corner-stone of the Seruetan and Ana­baptistical buylding against Christes Incarnation? Euen that which M. W. here tendereth them, and was squared before to their handes by Zuinglius & the Sacramentaries. The Anabaptists I say, vrging the selfe same Philosophi­cal and Phisical rules, obiect that the Papistes beleefe of Christes Incarnatiō of the Virgin, besides that it is base and attributeth to much honor to that wo­man, besides this, Calu. Inst. Lib. 2. cap. 13. ¶ 3.4. is also against the ru­les of Phisicke and Philosophie and implieth a contradiction. For, ex arte medica & Philosophia, out of Philosophie and Physicke rules, they fynd that vvomen are [...]. and therefore, to say that Christe had a true humaine body as is ours, and yet of a virgin without the seede of man, was to saye he had a true humaine bodie in worde, & denie it in deed. And if M.W. waygh the matter well, he shal find their argument better then his, and that it toucheth more intrinsecally the essence and origin of our nature, to be [Page 186] conceaued of the seede of man: & that to be formed of a virgin, is much more repugnant to nature, and sith the begin­ning of the world hath bene wrought more seeldō, thē a body to be [...] or [...] whereof he talketh so per­emptorily, or [...], which others of his secte vrge, & is more to the purpose, that is, Petrus spō ­te sua vin­clis labēti­bus eq: car­cere proces­sit clauso. Pauli. nata­li. 4. B. Feli­cis. See the new testament in S. Ihon. 20. v. 19. Luc. 4. v. 29. not circumscript, nor visible, nor local, where of the first was practised in the self same body, in his natiuitye, re­surrection & ascension, and in S. Peter Actorum. 12. The second is more com­mon, and was not only in our Sauiour, whē the Iewes meante to haue throvven him dovvne headlong from the hill, and he passing through the middes of them went his waye, but also in Elizeus, when the hoste of the King of Syria hauing him in the middes of them, 4. Reg. 6. v. 17. yet saw him not, Notū non a­gnouere su­rentes. Feli­cemque ro­gāt Felixvbi cernitur & nō cernitur, ipse nec ip­se uir est, cū sit prope, lō ­ge est. igno­tu [...] notus­que suis fit­ciuibus idē discernete fide vultum credētibus. Paulin. na­tal. 5. B. Fe­licis. & in S. Felix a martir & priest of the citie of Nola, of whom S. Paulinus bi­shop of the same citie writeth, that in time of persequutiō, when the citizens, such as were infidels wel acquainted with him, would haue apprehēded him, they could not see or discerne him be­ing in the middes of them: although (which is more straunge) the faithful at the same instant saw him, & knew him, [Page 187] and perceaued in him no difference or chaunge at al. So that at one and the self same time, he was visible and inuisible, knowen and vnknowen, endued with his accustomed figure, proportion, and lineaments, & yet altered & chaunged and so forth, subiect to other such mar­uelous accidentes, as M.W. fondly and falsly nameth contradictions. The third is so far beneath the omnipotency of God, that by the vulgar opinion of Philosophers, the first heauen being a perfect natural body, is notwithstāding [...] in no place, and therefore much more may we yeld this prerogatiue to Christ the Lord of heauen and earth, whose worde & wil, is the very rule & squyre of nature. And let M.W. see how vrging so vehemently his proposition, Chri [...]tes body is per omnia nostris corporibus [...] sauing glory and immortalitye: and he hath all the propertyes of a true and hu­maine bodye, how he will free him self from the filthy and wicked heresies of the Ebionites & Nestorians. Epiphan. lib. 1. Here. 30. Socrat. l. 7. ca. 32. Who vpon this general proposition, may & must inferre their opinions, that Christ was begotten betwene our Lady & Ioseph as other men are. they may and must infer, that Christ assumpted as wel the [Page 188] person, as the nature of man: the perso­nalitie, being a thing much more nylie, and essentially ioyned to the nature, thē are these accidental qualities of visible and circumscript, which here are ob­iected.

Thirdly, I answere that this absurdi­ty was forseene by the aūcient fathers, who for al that were neuer induced to inuēt this distinctiō that you haue foūd out, that is, to deny the verity of Chri­stes presence. Let vs euermore beleeue God (saith S. Chrisost. in Math. hom. 83. M.W. argu­ment reiec­ted by the auncient fathers. Chrisostom) albeit it seeme ab­surd to our sense & cogitation that vvhich he saith, albeit his vvords surpasse our sense and reason. Thus as in al things vve ought to doe, so especially in the sacramentes, not be­holding those thinges, vvhich lie before our eyes, but holding fast his vvordes. For in his vvordes vve can not be beguiled, but our sense is easely deceaued. Therefore sith he said This is my body, let vs beleeue it vvithout casting any doubt, and vvith the eyes of our vnderstanding conceaue the same. The lyke is vsed by diuers other fathers, which they neuer needed to haue spoken, ne­ther could haue spoken with reason, had their faith bene so agreable to the rules of Philosophie, as you would now make it.

[Page 189] 4 Fourthly, I say that your owne bre­thren and maisters, M. W. argu­ment abhor­red and condemned by the more learned pro­testants. Cent. 4. ca. 4. col. 241. though in other heresies they agreed with you, yet in this kind of argument detested and ab­horred you. So the Historiographers of Magdeburg, in their fourth Centurie where they proue by many authorities of S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Hilary, S. Epiphanius, S. Nazianzen, S. Basil, and others, the verity of Christes presence, dedicating the same to the Quenes Ma­iestie, thus they speake vnto her. Ibi. in pre­fat. pag. 9. And this (most excellent Quene) is not to be ouer­passed, that vvhereas novv there grovv euery vvhere, diuers as it vvere factions of opinions, amonge vvhich, some flatly by Philosophi­cal reasons make voyd and frustrate the testa­ment of our lord, so as they take avvay the body & bloud of Christ touching his presence and communication, according to the most cleare, most euident, most true, and most puis­sant vvordes of Christe, and deceaue men vvith marueilous aequiuocation of speach: principally your maiestie hath to prouide, that the sacramentes may be restored vvithout such pharisaical leauē &c. And Melanch­thō, whom Peter Martyr maketh equal for learning and godlines, with S. Pet. Martyr in dialog. de corpore Christi in loco. fol. 107 Au­stin, S. Hierom, S. Leo, & the auncient fathers, debating this matter with Oeco­lampadius, [Page 190] There is no care (saith he) that hath more troubled my mynde then this of the Eucharist. Lib. 3. epist. Zuinglii & Oecolamp. fol. 132. And not only my self haue vvay­ghed vvhat might be said on ether syde, but I haue also sought out the iudgemēt of the old vvriters touching the same. And vvhen I haue laid al together, I find no good reason, that may satisfye a cōscience departing from the propriety of Christes vvordes. You gather many absurdities, vvhich folovv this opinion (as here we see in M.W.) but absurdities vvill not trouble him, vvho remembreth, that vve must iudge of diuine matters, according to Gods vvorde, not according to Geometrie. And not far after in the same booke. I find no reason, Ibi. fol. 140. hovv I may depart from this opinion touching the real presence. VVell it may be, that an other opinion more agreable to mans reason, may please an idle mind, espe­cially if the opinion be furnished and com­mended vvith argumētes vvel handled. But vvhat shal become of vs intentation, vvhen our cōscience shal be called to accompt, vvhat cause vve had to dissent from the receaued o­pinion in the Church. Then these vvordes This is my bodie, Fulmina erunt. Westphal. in Apol. contra Caluin. c. 19. pa. 194. anno 1558. vvil be thunderboltes. So Ioachimus VVestphalus in his Apolo­gie against Caluine, answering this very argument, the body of man is circumscribed in a place, therefore at one time, it can not be [Page 191] but in one place, therefore not in al places vvhere the supper is ministred: Is not (saith, he) this Geometrical argumēt fetched frō Eu­clides demonstrations, the piller and vpholder of all these Sacramentaries? Plurimos scripturae locos corrum­punt. Doth not this vphold the building of their syllogismes, vvhich corrupt verie many places of scriptu­res? Most truly is verified of the Sacramenta­ries, that memorable saying: The Sacra­mentaries corrupt the scriptures. Take from he­retikes that vvherein they agree vvith Phi­losophers, and they cannot stand. The ground of the Sa­cramen­taries diui­nitie. Take from the Sacramentaries that vvhich they dravv from Philosophie, and hovv smal a quan­titie vvill remaine of the great volumes of al the Sacramentaries? Hovv long vvil it be, be­fore the doctrine of Berengarius fall to the ground? VVel and truly vvrote Tertullian, that Philosophers are the Patriarches of he­retikes. For philosophie brought forth all here­sies, and she begat the error of Zuinglius.

Finally, Iew. defēce of the Apo­log. parte. 4 cap. 4. ¶. [...]. because the English church in their Apologie acknowledgeth Lu­ther for a most excellent man, sent from God to lighten the vvhole vvorld, and M. VV. saith that they vvorshippe him as their fa­ther in Christ, M. W. argu­ment answered at large by Luther. I answere as that excellent man of God and their father answered long ago. His discourse being longe, I wil gather shortly the summe of it, & set it downe in his wordes. If M.VV. would [Page 192] be better satisfied, I remitte him to the maine worke. First, he confesseth this argument to be fundamentum quod habent omnium praecipuū, Luth. To. 7. defens. ver­borū coenae fol, 388. the chief ground & foun­dation of the Sacramentaries. But he asketh, 1 vvhat scripture they haue, to proue that these tvvo propositions be so directly con­trary, Christ sitteth in heauen, and Christ is in the supper. whereas they can bring none, he concludeth, The contradiction is in their carnal imagination, not in faith or the vvord of God, vvhich teacheth no such matter. 2 Next, vvhere-as Gods povver sur­passeth al cogitatiō, & vvorketh that vvhich is to our reason incomprehensible, and vvhich only faith beleeueth: and the same God said, This is my body vvhich shal be deliuered for you, hovv can I persvvade my conscience, (saith he) that God hath nether meanes, nor abilitie to do as his vvordes sound. 3 Then he sheweth, that although in the mind of man, these thinges are contrary, yet in the mind of God, they worke no more repugnance, then Mary bringing forth in her virginitie, is against that vniuersal sentence, Increase and multiplye, or this proposition, Christ is God, ouerthroweth this other, that Christ is man. Out of which thus premised, he falleth in to a vehement exhortatiō, that al Christiās [Page 193] beware of the Sacramentaries in this kind of argument, Ibid. fo. 390. for so much as di­rectly thereby they draw men to Paga­nisme and infidelitie, 4 the principal par­tes of our faith being in like sorte sub­iect to the controle of carnal reason & humaine philosophie. Boni isti Sacramen­tarii (saith he) sua nausea aditum parant ad Christum & Deum ipsum, The Sacra­mentarie heresie, the hye way to infidelity, & denyal of al fayth. & omnes arti­culos abnegandum &c. These good Sacramē ­taries by their lothsomenesse, make a vvay to denie Christ, and God him selfe, and al ar­ticles of our faith. and truly for a great part they haue already begōne to beleeue nothing. For they bring themselues vvithin the com­passe of reason, vvhich is the right vvay to damnation. and them selues knovv, that these Ethnicall cauils, ether are nothing vvorth against this article, or if they cōclude ought against this, they do the like against al. For the vvord of God is foolishnes to mans reason. 1. Cor. 1. and they vvould neuer haue vttered this, if they had any regard of the scripture, and vvere not their harts ful of in­fidelitie, so as their mouth speaketh of the a­bundance of their hart. 1 bid. fo. 391. The vne­qual dealīg of the Sacramentaries in alleaging the fathers. 5 After this he no­teth the vnequal dealing of the Sacra­mentaries. This truly (saith he) is vvorthy of admiratiō, that none of the fathers, vvhere­of there is an infinite number, did euer speake [Page 194] so of the Sacrament as do the Sacramentaries, but cleane contrary. Yet notvvithstanding, if perchaūce they fal vpō some odd place in a do­ctor that soundeth tovvardes their opiniō, as vvhere S. Aug. saith, corpus Christi in vno lo­co esse potest, here (saith Luther) by reason of their preiudicate opinion, they snatch at that, & make much of it, vvhereas othervvise, a­gainst the saings of all the fathers they are most stiffe and stubburne, and sensles, & more vnmoueable, then is any rocke amiddest the sea. and though the fathers all vvith one mouth affirme, yet the Sacramentaries har­den them selues to deny them. 6 Last of all a­gainst Zuinglius and Oecolampadius vsing in their bookes the selfe same reasons, which M. W. vseth here, and triumpheth so insolently, he conclu­deth, Ibid. fo. 397 as I conclude against him. If these be the grounds and reasons, vvhich should certifie vs of truth, approue our faith, and confirme our conscience, Note how deepely M. W. argumēt wayghed with Luther then truly vve are in euill cas [...]. If a man had deliuered me such bookes vvithout title and name, and I knevv not othervvise such excellent and learned men to haue bene the authors of them, I should surely haue thought, that some i [...]sting Comediant, Histrio, aut erro Macho metanus. or Turkish vagabond had made them in despite and derision of Christians. Ve­rily I see not hovv they can be excused [Page 195] vvith any probable pretence, as many other heretikes haue had. For it appeareth, that they play vvith Gods vvord, of vvilfulnes & malice. Frigidae nu­gae & [...]. And I thinke it can not be that such cold toyes and bablinges should in deede moue a Turke or a Ievv, much lesse a Christi­an. But that great lothsomenes and disdaine of the sacred supper, and immoderate greedi­nes to defend their opinion, maketh them so mad or giddie, that vvhat-soeuer they take hold of, though it be but a stravv, yet they imagine it to be a svvorde or a speare, and that at euerie stroke they kill thousandes. This is the terrible argument so mag­nified by M. W. quod impetus nostros non pertimescit, that feareth not our forces, an argument, which plucketh vp the ve­rie rootes of Christianitie, & gain saith many places and histories of the Scrip­ture, and maketh frustrate the testamēt of Christ: an argument carnal & ethni­cal, and for such contemned of the aun­cient fathers, and condemned by the late heretikes of greatest learning: an argument which Luther would neuer beleeue could proceede but from a Turke, had he not seene it in the boo­kes of some of the Zuinglian Sect vsur­ping the name of Christians: such an ar­gument, as he accompteth them here­tikes, [Page 196] wilful and inexcusable, who are ought moued therewith: finally, such an argument, as M.W. can neuer mayn­teine, except withal he maynteine him selfe to be an Anabaptist, an Ebionite, and a Nestorian.

And thus much touching your phi­losophicall reason. wherein I haue stai­ed somewhat the lōger, partly because you crake so much of it, as though it were verie pregnant, partly because it is an argument whereinto both in pul­pit and writyng you gladly fall, & (be­cause it standeth wel with sense and reason) easely deceaue the simple, part­ly also because it toucheth M. M. Iew. challeng tou­ching the real presēce artic. 5. refu­ted by mar­tyrs, Confessors, & doc­tors, of his owne reli­gion. Iewels challenge, which here is disproued suf­ficiently. except these great States and Euangelistes, so magnified by your selues, be so fowly ouerseene, as so ve­hemently to auerre that, which hath no one clause of Scripture, Father, Coun­cel or Doctor to vphold it. And if they do so in this, where they vse such heate and detestation, how may we credite them in any other parte of their doc­trine? how may we be perswaded, but they continually lye and deceaue vs in like sorte? But I trowe, you wil not iudge so rashly, especially of Luther, [Page 197] what soeuer you accompt of Barns, Frith, Westphalus, Melanchthon, and Illyricus, and those auncient fathers alleaged by him and his companions. for, seing the whole church of England commendeth Luther for a man so excel­lent, sent of God to geue light to the vvhole vvorld, I hope that you being but a sim­ple member of thar church, wil not by defending the contrary oppose your selfe vnto him. And certaine it is you can not come from God, if you poore worme resist & withstand that excellent man, whom God sent to be your Pro­phete and Euangelist. which is as mon­strous a case, as if some simple sheepe, should presume to direct his skilful pastor, some ignorant scholer, to teach his maister most learned, 2. Tim. 4. or some Alex­ander a myserable coppersmith should oppose him self against S. Paule, whom Christ had made his gouernor, and fur­nished with sufficient giftes to instruct him and al the world besides. But you haue (I feare) a general salue for such fores, that you beleeue nether Luther, nether yet the church of England any farther then they agree with Gods worde & your owne conceite thereof. And so still the supreme rule & determi­tion [Page 198] of al shal rest in your owne han­des.

pag. 11.After your reasons against the sa­crament, you bring in to like purpose a place out of S. Ciril that Christ is ascended in to heauen, and is absent from vs in the presence of flesh. vvhich if vve did not beleeue, vve vvould neuer say the Crede so oft as vve doe, nor keepe the day of Christes Ascensiō so honorable and festiual, as you I thinke may knovv. Mary if you thinke, there is more pith in S. Cirils vvorde of ab­sence, Mat. 26. v. 11 you myght better haue obiected Christes ovvne vvordes, The poore you shal haue alvvaies vvith you, me you shal not haue, but then for ansvvere I should haue sent you to the note vpon that verse, as I do novv also for this, the reason being al one. For, that S. Ciril vvas not a Sacramentarie, appeareth most clearely by a large discours vvhich he maketh as it vvere of purpose against that maner of reasoning vvhich you haue geuen out in this place. Thus he vvriteth. Quomodo potest hic nobis carnem dare &c. Ciril. in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 13. The Ievves aske, hovv can he geue vs his flesh? Thus they crye out vpon god, not vvithout great impietie, nether remember they, that vvith god nothing is impossible. [Page 199] But let vs making great profit of their sinnes and hauing a firme faith in these mysteries, neuer in such diuine thinges, vtter or so much as thinke of such doubting. for that vvord Quomodo, hovv, is Iudaical and cause of ex­treme punishment, And after a long and good treatise against such peeuish fan­tastical toyes as here M.W. obiecteth for profound arguments, thus he con­cludeth. Yf notvvithstanding al this, thou (Ievv) crye stil, hovv is this done, I folovv­ing thy ignorāce vvill demaund of thee, hovv so many miracles vvere done in the old testa­ment, the passinge ouer the red sea, Moses rod made a serpēt etc. To search by reason how Christ is present in the B. Sa­crament, is to deny al scripture. vvherefore vve ought ra­ther to beleeue Christ, & humbly to learne of hym, then like drunken sots to cry out, hovv can he geue vs his flesh, by vvhich questi­oning thou must needes be driuen to deny the vvhole scripture. In vvhich vvords vve see he reckeneth you amongst the Ievves, & accompteth you neth [...]r ve­rie learned, nor much better then an Infidel, for these stout reasons vvhich here you so magnifie. And Peter M. being pressed vvith the authoritie of this Ciril, Ciril. in Ioan. lib. 10. cap 13. that Christ by the mystical bene­diction, that is, by receauing of the Sa­crament, dvvelleth corp [...]rally in vs (vvhich M. Ievvel after his maner an­svvereth [Page 200] verie learnedly, Iew. art. [...]. ¶. 10. In M.W. translation fo. 414.415. though verie easely, by comparing it vvith an other phrase, that corporally is as much as truly, and truly may signifie spiritually, and that is al one vvith tropically) saith more rudely, yet more sincerely. Martir de­fens. ad ob­iect. Gard. parte 4. pa. 724. The flesh of Christ so to dvvell in vs corporally, that the substance of his body should be cōmunicated vvith vs, that is (as this man interpreteth it) be mingled vvith our flesh, it is not in any case to be graunted, no not if a thousand angels, much lesse if one Ciril said it. For it can not be, that Christs flesh should so be diffun­ded or multiplied in infinite men and places. which sheweth that Peter Mart. tooke not S. Ciril to be of your faith touching this article of the sacrament.

The place vvhich you cite out of S. Damascene, pag. 11. because you direct me no vvhere to find it, I vvil not bestovv the paines to seeke it. & being graun­ted, it is not much to the purpose, and I marueile vvhy you put it in greke as though there vvere some great ter­rible bugge in it. Damascene. That vvhich vvas circumscript (saith he) vvas circumscript, & vncircumscript vncircumscript, and vi­sible visible, and inuisible inuisible. vvhich I take to be as true, as that a spade is [Page 201] a spade, and a mattock a mattock, fier is fier not vvater, and the sunne is the sunne and not the moone. And if you meane hereof to infer your heresy, that therefore Christ is not in the sacrament, frame you the argument, & perhaps it vvil persvvade much. Damascene lib 4. de or­thodoxa fide. c. 14. In the meane season that Damasc. vvas no more of your religion, then S. Ciril, I refer you for proufe to his books de Ortho­doxa fide, vvhere, Few of the auncient fa­thers, argue more vehe­mently and directly against M. W. heresie & argument prouing the same, then S. Ciril. and Damascene whom he citeth. namely in the fourth you finde a verie good and large chap­ter against your Zuinglian heresie. & especially against your philosophical fansies he disputeth thus. If the vvorde of god be liuely & forcible, if vvhat soeuer our lord would, he did: if he said, let light be made & it vvas made, let the firmament be made and it vvas made: if by the vvorde of god the heauens vvere established, and vvith the spirite of his mouth all the povver of them: if heauen, and earth, and vvater-fier, and ayer and al their furniture, and man him selfe vvere perfited by his vvorde: if vvhen god the vvord so vvould, he became man and of the moste pure and immaculat bloud of the holy virgin, framed him selfe flesh vvith­out the seede of man: can not he (in the sacra­ment) make of bread, his ovvne body, and of vvine & vvater, his bloud? No mary can [Page 202] he not, saith M.W. for that is against reason, and so he should haue tvvo bo­dies, one [...], the other [...] the one [...] the other [...], &c. But S. Damascene contēning such ethnical ioyes, proceedeth & cōcludeth, that as god in the beginning said, let the earth bring forth greene hearbes, and hetherto being holpen and strengthened by that precept it so doth, so god said, this is my body, and this is my bloud, and doe this in commemoration of me, and by his omnipotent cōmaundement it is vvrought, vvhich thing onely faith can conceaue. Hovv shal this be done, saith the B. Virgin. the Archangel Gabriel ansvvered, the holy Ghost shal come vpon thee, and the povver of the most high shal ouershadovv thee. And novv demaūdest thou, hovv bread is made the body of Christ, and vvine and vvater his bloud? I ansvvere in like maner, that the holy Ghost commeth vpon it, & vvor­keth that vvhich passeth the capacitie of rea­son, and reach of vnderstanding. Whereby you see, that hovv soeuer circumscript remained circumscript, and visible visible, S. Damascene neuer intended by such visible folies so to circumscribe our f [...]th, or subiecte our religion to hu­maine reason, that Christes presence should be excluded out of the sacra­ment, [Page 203] or the sacramēt should be estee­med a Zuinglian figure, vvhich to in­duce you take much paine, but to very smale effect.

IN the last chapter vve had an example hovv sufficient­ly you are vvont to cōfirme your ovvne faith by scrip­ture, reason, & fathers: here you geue vs an example hovv substantially you ansvvere the fathers vvhich vve vse for confirmation of our faith. Tvvo places M. Martin obiected out of S. Chrysostom against your geometrical opinion of Christes body in one place. you auoyde them so, as you geue out plaine demonstration, that you neuer cōsidered them in the author him selfe, but only tooke the answere at deliuery from M. Iewel without any farther search. Thus you write. pag. 11. To Chrysostom teaching that Christ both leaft his flesh vvith vs, and ascended hauing the same vvith him, [Page 204] I ansvvere, that Christ placed his flesh in heauen, and neuerthelesse leaft vs a sacrament of that flesh. And our fayth enioyeth the same euermore present. For the verie substance of his flesh, Christ no more leaft in earth, then Elias leaft his body, vvhen he ascended in to heauen. For so Chrisostom vvrote a litle be­fore, that Elias vvas aftervvardes double, there vvas an Elias aboue, and there vvas an Elias beneath. Tell me I pray you M. Martyn vvas that Elias body in earth, vvhen he leaft his cloke to Elizeus? you vvill not say so. So true it is vvhich Chrisostome vvriteth, that Christ hath left his flesh vnto vs symbo­lically, and yet hath caried the same in to heauen corporally.

Iewel. art. 6. ¶. 4.5.This is your answere, which I say, you rather allow vs (as may be thought) because Maister Iewell ap­plieth the same to the selfe same place, albeit in my opinion els-where he ge­ueth you a better. Ibid. art. 10. ¶. 2. For labouring to an­swere the place of S. Ciprian de caena Do­mini. Panis iste quem dominus &c. This bread vvhich our lord gaue to his disciples, being changed not in shape but in nature, by the almightie povver of the vvord of Christ is made flesh, after a number of phrases al­leaged against the other partes of this sentēce, cōming to the last is made flesh, [Page 205] he sheweth that nether this proueth the real presēce, & that hystore of lyke phrases. For S. Aust. saith, nos Christi facti sumus, vve are made Christes. Leo saith, Corpus rege­nerati fit caro crucifixi, the body of the man that is regenerate, is made the flesh of Christ that vvas crucified. Beda saith, nos ipsi cor­pus Christi effecti sumus, vve our selues are made the body of Christ. Origen saith in like maner of speach, spiritus sanctus non in tur­turem vertitur, sed colūba fit, the holy ghost is not changed into a turtell, but is made a doue. Thus if you had answered, that Christ departing tooke his flesh with him really, & leaft his flesh behinde him allegorically, that is, the Christian peo­ple, his church, which S. 1. Cor. 12. v. 27. Ephes. 5. v. 23. Paul many ti­mes calleth his bodye, that had bene more probable, more to S. Chrisostoms discourse (& you see what doctors you might alleage for it) thē to say, that Christ tooke away with him his flesh really, & leaft the same with vs symbolically, that is, bread and wyne, which when we receaue at the supper, we remember perhaps that Christe had flesh. But be­cause it was ether your chaunce or choise to geue vs the other, let vs see how handsomly you frame it vnto S. Chrisostoms text.

[Page 206]The summe of your answere is, that as Helias ascendinge leaft his cloke, which for certeine reasons was called Elias, A commentarie cleane against the text. so our Sauiour ascending leaft vs bread & wyne, which is a signe of his body, & for some reasōs is likewise called by the name of his body, but was no more his body, thē the cloke was Elias. And are ye not ashamed thus to dally & abuse the reader? Or can your ignorāce be so grosse, as to thinke that this is S. Chri­sost. meaning? Or cā your reader other­wise deeme of you, then as of a man al­together rechlesse what you say, if euer he reade the place in S. Chrisostome him self? For so far of is it, that S. Chri­sostome hath any such thing, that con­trarywise he ouerthroweth most strōg­ly this your folly, and vehemently vr­geth the cleane contrary. First tou­ching Elias, he hath some of those wor­des which you alleage. As a great inhere­tance (saith he) Elizeus receaued the cloke: and truly it vvas a verie great inheritance. And aftervvardes that Elias vvas double. There vvas an Elias aboue, and there vvas an Elias beneath, meaning (as it is plaine) that he was taken vp in body & soule, and remained beneath in power and operation, for so much as by the cloke [Page 207] Elizeus wrought strange myracles, such as Elias him selfe did before. And so S. Chrisostome saith expresly. prop­terea & in coelum ascendens, nihil aliud quā melotem discipulo reliquit. Therefore Elias ascending in to heauē, leaft to his disciple no­thing els, but his cloke. And would he make a like comparison, and say the same of our Sauiour? Let vs heare his wordes. Thus he cōmeth to speake of Christ. quid igitur si vobis demonstrauero quid aliud quod illo multo maius &c. Chrisost. homil. 2. ad pop. Antio. in fine. vvhat then vvil you say, if I shevv you an other maner of thing much greater thē that, vvh [...]ch al vve haue receaued, vvho so euer haue bene made partakers of the holy misteryes? Elias in deed leaft his cloke to his disciple, but the sonne of God ascending leaft to vs his flesh, And Elias did so, but him selfe being depri­ued of his cloke, but Christ both leaft it vnto vs, & ascended hauing the selfe same vvith him. Therefore let vs not fainte in courage. For he that hath not refused to shed his bloud for vs all, and hath commun [...]cated vnto vs his flesh and the self same bloud a­gaine, he vvill refuse nothing for our salua­tion. These are S. Chrisost. wordes, which tende to set forth, not a simili­tude, but an opposition, not an equali­tye, but a supereminent excellencie in [Page 208] our Sauiour. The great difference betwene Elias lea­uing his mā tel to Eli­zeus, and Christ lea­uing his flesh to vs. I wil shew you an other maner of thing (saith this holy father) far greater then that of Elias. And how so? and wherein standeth that so great and singuler difference? In this. 1 That Elias leaft his cloke: but the sonne of God his flesh, which none but the sonne of God could doe. 2 Againe, Elias leauing his cloke, loste it, and so was bereaft of it: but Christ the sonne of God, (as a worke proper to his diuine maiestie) both leaft his flesh with vs in the world, and yet lost it not, but caried the same flesh with him in to heauen. 3 Furthermore, Elias tooke some paynes for the sauing of his people, but neuer shed his bloud for them, much lesse could he impart to them the same: for this was aboue the compasse or reach of humaine imbecillitie. But Christ both shed his bloud for our redempti­on, and againe imparted vnto vs the self same bloud, as the same doctor sa­yth elswhere. Chrisost. in 1. Cor. ca. 10. hom. 24. Quod est in calice, id est quod fluxit è latere, et illius sumus participes. That vvhich is in the chalice, is that vvhich gushed out of his side, and vve are partakers thereof.

This is the most euident speach and sense of S. Chisostome, and no man I [Page 209] suppose can be so simple, but he may forthwith see, how well this matcheth with the doctrine of the catholike church, & how dissonant it is from the preaching of your congregation: espe­cially if he know your doctrine a right and be not deceaued with your fantasti­cal painted words, which you some­tymes vse to beguile simple sowles, see­ming to aduaunce that very hyghly and magnifically, which in deed your selues esteeme most basely & cōtemp­tibly. For thinke you of your Cōmuni­on otherwise, then as of common bread and wine, withou [...] al grace, vertue, or sanctificatiō, The true o­piniō of the Zuinglians, touching their Sup­per or Communion. with a bare figure of Christ absent, which figure your selues cā not explicate, nor shal be euer able to geue reasō, but you haue or may haue as good figures, at your common breakfastes di­ners, and suppers? This is your faith in that poynt, yf you be Zuinglians, and beleeue as the church of Geneua. Zuing. tom. 2. lib. de ve­ra & falsa relig. c. de Eu­charist. fol. 212. The Eucharist (saith Zuinglius) or commu­nion, or lordes supper, is nothing els but a cōmemoration, in the vvhich they that firme­ly beleeue them selues to be reconciled to god the father by Christes death & bloud, sett forth his liuely death, that is, praise it, geue thankes, and preach. And when Luther [Page 210] obiected to him, that he and his felow heretikes were diuided amongst them selues, Ibid. in ex­egesi ad Lu­therum fol. 362.363. he answered thus. vvhereas thou sayst (Luther) that there are sectes amongest vs, it is false. both I, Carolostadius, & Oeco­lāpadius, Symbola tā ­tum esse. the Sacra­ment, only a figure. and the rest auouch that the bread and vvine be only figures, mary vve shift the vvords of Christ after a diuers maner, verba diuersimodè expedimus. And in an other booke against Luther, It is to be noted (saith he) that Paule 1. Ibi. ad Luth. Confes. res­ponsio. duae fo. 435. & ad Matth. Rut­ling. fo. 155, & ad Theob. Billica. 261. The Sacra­ment no­thing out bread. Cor. 11. after the vvordes of the institution, calleth it no othervvise then bread and the cuppe. For he saith [...] that is, this bread of the supper or that bread, hunc hunc panē qui praeter panem non est quicquam amplius. this bread this bread I say, vvhich is nothing els but bread. Al which he there expresseth by a playne similitude in this sort. Ibi. respons. duae, ad Lu­therum fol. 477. Behold this is the sacramental presence of Christ in this supper, as the Emperour or the King of Fraunce are said to be in the kingdome of Naples, Signa. The Sacra­ment is no more the body of Christ, then a painted scutchion is the Quene of England or kinge of Fraunce. because their banners or signes be there, vvhereas in the meane season, the one of them liueth in Spaine, the other in Fraūce. But the bread and vvine are no more one and the same thinge vvith Christes body and bloud, then those kinges banners be the very kinges them selues, because they note vnto vs the maiestie and povver of the kinges. [Page 211] And that you cauill not, that this is not the faith of your Geneuian church, & so shrowde your selfe in your ordi­narie cloude of wordes, whereby you seeme to speake honorably of this sacra­ment, heare you what Theodore Beza writeth, whom you extoll so highly. Dico impudētes esse calumniatores &c. Beza. in epi. theologicis epist. 1. I say they are impudent slaūderers vvho imagine that there vvas euer any cōtrariety betvvene the doctrine of these most excellent men, Zuin­glius, Oecolāpadius, and Caluine touching the sacramentes. I say also, that the selfe same faith in euerie respecte, is proposed and de­fended in the Churches of Suizzerlande, Sa­uoy and Fraunce, in the Flemmish, Scottish, and (as I thinke) in the English churches also.

Wherefore this being your faith, that in the Sacrament there is nothing but bread in such sort as hath bene declared, I say with Zuinglius panis, How aptly M. W. an­swere and S. Christ. text matche together. panis, & nihil amplius, bread, bread, and no­thing els, now compare your faith with S. Chrisostome, and see how handsom­lie you can patch it together. thus you must needes say. 1 Elias departing out of this worlde leaft his cloke, but Christe leaft a thing of greater power and mi­racle, for he leaft vs breade and wine. [Page 212] 2 Elias leaft his cloke and so loste it, for he caried it not with him, but Christ ascending leaft vs bread and wine, and tooke vp bread and wine to heauen with him. 3 Againe (where in Elias hath no part of cōparison) the bloud which Christ shed for our redemption, that he imparted vnto vs in the chalice. Here you must helpe me thorough, for I know not what you wil say, but sure I am, one of these two it must needes be: ether that Christ redeemed the worlde by wine, which is the bloud of the grape, and so cōmunicated such wine and bread with vs, and this standeth iumpe with your figuratiue supper & Communion: or that he redeemed the worlde with his owne pretious bloud, and so communicated the same with vs in the B. Sacrament, which is our faith, mary you will none of that. In conclusion, aduise your selfe better what you write, and thinke not with such balde toies to shake of such graue authoritie. Regarde the wordes, mea­ning and scope of the author, & so (ex­cept you be to dul) you can not be ignorāt, but that you cleane peruert this fa­ther, & turne him quite vpside downe. For whereas he would infinitely pre­ferre [Page 213] that facte of Christ leauinge the sacrament of his body to his Christians before the facte of Elias leauinge his cloke to Elizeus (for of our cōuersinge with Christ in heauen by faith and vn­derstanding, M. W. quite peruerteth S. Chrisost. sense and sentence. here is no question, & Eli­zeus might haue, and had no doubt his minde in heauen with Elias) by your commentarie and sense, far greater was the facte of Elias then that of Christ. 1 For the cloke was a far better and more liuely figure of Elias, then youre bread and wine is of Christ. 2 By it Elizeus re­ceaued greate grace & strength, Chrisost in hoc loco. as wri­teth S. Chrisostome, as by the which he fought agaynst the deuill and vanqui­shed him. That your bread should geue any grace, zuing. to. 2. li. de pecca­to origin. fo. 121. et ibid. respon. ad D. Baltaza­rem. fo. 105. it is agaynst your whole doctrine, and Zuinglius laboureth to proue it at large in sundrie places, 3 cal­linge it papisticall, to say, that any sa­crament, euen baptisme doth aliquid momenti conferre ad sanctificationem aut remissionem peccatorum, profite any iote to sanctifie or take avvay synne. 4. Regum 2. v. 14. Elizeus by that cloke wrought straunge mira­cles. so did you by your figuratiue bread neuer, nor neuer shall, so longe as the worlde standeth. 4 Briefly, whereas Eli­zeus cloke cariynge with it such vertue [Page 214] and power, was a thing surmounting the abilitie and reach of man, and could not be done but by the omnipo­tencie of god: your bread being no­thing but a signe or banner, as it were a may-pole, or token of a tauerne, by Zuinglius his owne confession, the king of Fraunce or Spaine can make ten thousande as good. And the truth is, they can make much better, because theirs do no harme, wheras yours leade men the hye way to damnatiō. Where­fore youre answere to this place of S. Chrisostome is to to fond and childish.

And hereby we may haue a gesse, how substanciallye you are like to deale with the next, which is taken out of the same father. I must needes write it doune somewhat at large, for the rea­ders better vnderstanding of vs both. It is in his thirde booke de sacerdotio, where he setteth forth the high estate of the priestes of the new Testament, and that acte wherein priesthode espe­ciallye consisteth, that is, the sacrifice: thus he writeth. Chrisos. lib. 3. de sacer­dotio. paulò post initium This priesthode it selfe is exercised in earth, but is to be referred to the order and revv of thinges celestiall, and that for good reason. because no mortall man, no angell, no archangell, no creature, but the [Page 215] holy Ghost him self framed this order. Ter­rible vvere the thinges & dreadfull, vvhich vvere before the tyme of grace in the lavv of Moyses, as vvere the litle bells, pomegra­nats, pretious stones in the breast of the prieste, the mitre, golden plate, The excel­lency of the priesthode of the new Testament. aboue that of the old. sancta sanctorum &c. But if a man consider these thinges vvhich the tyme of grace hath brought to vs, he vvil iudge all those thinges vvhich I called terrible and dreadfull, to be but light, and though glorious, yet not comparable vvith the glorie of the nevv testament, as S. Paule saith. This being laide before, 2. Cor. 3. as it were a preface or preparatiue to that which foloweth, he then cōmeth to that place, out of which M. W. cul­leth certaine wordes. For (sayth he) vvhen thou seest our Lord sacrificed, and the prieste earnestlie intent to the sacrifice, and pouring out his prayers, and the people about him imparted and made red vvith that pretious bloud, Intingi & rubefieri. thinkest thou thy self to conuerse amongest mortall men, and remaine on the earth? And immediatly, ô miracu­lum, ô Dei benignitatem, ô miracle, ô singu­lar goodnes of God, he that sitteth vvith his father aboue, at the self same moment of tyme is handled vvith all mens handes, and deliuereth him self to those that vvill receaue and imbrace him. and this is done [Page 216] playnlie in the sight of all men, vvithout any deceate or illusion. Of this place M. Martin inferreth, that M.W. reasoning, Christ is in heauen, ergo not in the Sacramet, is wicked & refuted by the old fathers. But M.W. replyeth, no. And I vvil geue you your ansvvere (sayth he) out of the same place. Pag. 12. for here Chrysostome affirmeth that vve see our Lord sacrificed in the supper, and the people imparted and made red vvith the bloud, and that this is done in the open sight of all that are presente. But vvho seeth ether our Lord tru [...]y sacrificed, or one droppe of bloud, vvith vvhich the people are made red, so as all see it, as Chrisostome vvriteth. Therefore as vve see Christ sacrificed, and the people embrued vvith his bloud, so vve receaue him in our handes. In these vvordes, Chrysostome vvould both amplifie the digni­tie of priestes, vnto vvhom Christ gaue po­vver to minister the Sacrament of his bodie and bloud, A bad way to make thē afrayde, if they vniuer­sally knew & beleeued the cōtrary, and make the people afrayde, that they vvhich come to this supper, should bring vvith them godlie and religious myndes, as though they should take Christ him selfe in their handes. The substance of the answere is this. Chrysostome in the same place sayth: we see Christ offered, which in truth is not so, but by a figu­ratiue speach: therefore when he saith [Page 217] Christ is in heauen and in the Sacra­ment, it is not simplie true, but by like phrase and figure. But whereunto then tende al these great wordes and perswasions of this father? to honour the priests office, and make the people afrayed. and were there priestes in the church in those days? No. but by priestes you must vn­derstand m [...]nisters. and then, a simili, by the sacrifice he speaketh of, that is the masse, you must vnderstand the Commu­niō, that is by Catholike rel [...]gion, you must vnderstande heresie, and by light, dark [...]es. But I wil go thorough the branches of this answere in order.

First, whereas you make that a thing most assured and certaine that no man seeth Christ offered, except you meane in your English supper, We see Christ offe­red in the church. you are greatly deceaued For in the church Catholike we see Christ offered, and that not in phrase of speach only, as the protestāts may be said to do iniurie to Christ, when they abuse his image, but in ve­ritie and truth of doctrine. And S. Chrysostome with the rest of the fa­thers, neuer thought or spake other­wise. How oft hath S. Chrisostome, Chrysost. in 1. Cor 10. hom. 24. qu [...]d summo honore dignum est, id tibi [...]n terra [...]stendam. That vvhich deserueth most ho­nor, [Page 218] that vvil I shevv thee on earth. and in the same place. The royal body of Christ is in heauē, vvhich novv in earth is set before thee to be seene. I shevv vnto thee, not an­gels, not archangels, not heauens, not heauen of heauens, but I shevv thee the verie Lord him selfe of al these. Perceauest thou not, hovv not only thou seest in earth and tou­chest, but receauest also the soueraine and principall thing that is? And in the same place. This body vvhich thou seest on the al­tar, the vvise men adored in the manger. But it were tedious to note out such places, which are common in euery booke. This rather I would wishe M. W. to vnderstand, that where it hath pleased God in certaine creatures to exhibite his presence after a more spe­cial and singular sort, there in a more special and singular maner, truely we may & ought to beleeue that we see our Lord. God is by essence, power and operation, present in euerie creature, yet in seing a beast or tree, Genes. 32. ver. 30. we may not say as Iacob doth in Genesis, vidi domi­num facie ad faciem, I haue seene God face to face, when he wrestled with the An­gell: or as Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abiu in the mount viderunt deum Israel savv the God of Israel, Exod. 24. ver. 9. and vnder his feete [Page 219] as it vvere a vvorke of sapphyre stone, or as the prophetes many tymes savv God sitting vpon his throne. Which if it be true, 3. Reg. 22. ver. 19. Esa. 6. v. 1. how much more boldlie and truely may we affirme, that we see Christ in the B. Sacrament, where we haue most certaine warrant, that his humanitie & diuinitie are presente after a most singu­lar, and effectual, and substantial maner. Our sauiour talking with the blinde man vnto whom he gaue sight, sayd to him. doest thou beleeue in the sonne of God? Ioan 9. v. 38 he ansvvered & said, vvho is he lord that I may beleeue in him. And Iesus said to him. both thou hast seene him, & he that talketh vvith thee, he it is. and forthvvith he fell dovvne and adored him. This by your opinion must be false, because he only saw the external lineaments of a mortal man, but saw not, nor could see the sonne of God, being him self God: Ioan. 1. v. 18. 1 Tim. 6. v. 16. Exod. 33. vers. 20. and god no man hath seene at any tyme, and not only no man hath seene, but nether can see. for as God him selfe sayth, non videbit me homo et viuet, man shal not see me and liue. Yet as Christ was truth it self, so he taught truely, and by reason of his diuine and eternal person ioyned to that humani­tie, the poore man saw the eternal sōne of God: and so though after a far diffe­rent [Page 220] maner, those prophetes and Patri­arches saw God. And therefore to you it should not seeme straunge, if S. Chrysostome and the Catholikes professe, that truly they see Christ offered. for most true it is. It should seeme no more straunge I say, then it was straunge for Christ to poynte to that which he had in his handes, and gaue to his Apostles, and say withal, 2. Cor. 11. this which you see, is my bodie, and the same, vvhich shal be deliuered for you. which body deliuered for vs, if it were Christ, then the Apos­tles by Christes demonstration saw Christ, and in such sort as we see him. 1 So that first I answere, that your taking that for a thinge plaine and euident amongest vs, which is cleane contrarie & most false, proceedeth of ignorāce of the Catholike faith against which you write, & so cōuinceth you of rashnes to refute that which you vnderstand not.

2 Next I say, that you are as ignorant in the doctrine of your brethren the Lu­therans, for this they affirme as wel as we, though far more absurdlye. For reteyninge stil the substance of bread & wine, yet because of the real presence, they acknowledge that bread to be the body of Christ, and so see the body of [Page 221] Christe, and applie hereunto, that aun­cient rule of our forefathers [...], and thereby adore it, and geue to it godlie honor, and beleeue that they take, receaue, and touche Christe him selfe, and accompte you, not to be their brethren, (though you so basely will needes clayme their kinred) but to be brethren of the old Ethnikes & Apo­stataes, who for like beleefe scorned & mocked the auncient Christians, as you do vs now. So Martin Luther confir­ming that, which in the first place I haue said of gods exhibiting him selfe to vs in creatures, writeth thus. Luth. Tom. 7 serm. de Eu­charistia. fo. 337. Al­though Christe be euery vvhere in all crea­tures, yet vve may not looke for him vvith­out the vvorde. VVherefore he hath appoin­ted vs a certayne vvay to finde him, hovv and vvhere he is to be sought and founde. This they see not, nether vnderstande, vvho say it is absurd to affirme or beleeue that Christ is in bread and vvine, because they vn­derstand not vvhat maner thinge the King­dome of Christ is &c. He is most present in his vvorde, albeit he is not present in that sort, as he is here in the sacrament, by vvhich he exhibiteth to the Christiās his body and bloud by the ministerie of the vvorde ioy­ned in bread and vvine. And that the [Page 222] old Paganes in this kinde of infidelitie were the fathers of our Zuinglian Pro­testants, he sheweth in the same place writing thus. Ibid. fo. 335. The devil laboureth (saith he) to sup vp the egge and leaue vs the shell, that is, the zuingliā Communiō plaine ba­kers bread. from the bread and vvine to take a­vvay the body and bloud of Christe, so that nothing remayne, but playne bakers bread. And here they mocke vs at their pleasure, callinge vs shamefullie, sarcophagos, and haemopotas, eaters of flesh and drinkers of bloud, Infidels and Apostataes forefathers of the Pro­testants, in mocking & scorning the Sacra­ment. and that vve vvorshippe a god made of bread, as they say: as of old that naughtie man, & loden vvith all synne Auerroes sayd. vvho slydinge backe from our fayth, slaun­dered and reproched the faythful Christians, sayng that there vvas not vnder the sunne a more vvicked people, then vvere the Christi­ans, because they deuoured their ovvne God, vvhich vvickednes no people euer is read to haue committed. Kemnit. in exam. conc. Trident. cō ­tra canones de Eucharis­tia. And Kemnitius in his examen Concilii Tridentini, vpon this groūde of the real presence, approueth the custome of the Church in adoringe Christ in the sacrament, by the authori­tie of S. Augustine, and S. Ambrose in Psal. 98. by Eusebius Emissenus, and S. Gregorie Nazianzene, and saith it is impietie to do the contrarie.

3 Thirdly, if you had bene but so con­uersante [Page 223] in Caluine as your profession requireth, you could not so far haue bene ouerseene in this easie distinction knowen to Catholike, Lutheran and Zuinglian, although when Caluine wrote thus, perhaps he was more then halfe a Lutheran, and not so far gone in Zuinglianisme as after. In his little booke de caena domini thus he writeth. Calu. de [...]oe­na Domini inter opus­cula. The bread and vvine are rightely called the body and bloud of Christ, because they be as it vvere instruments, by vvhich Christ doth distribute them vnto vs, vve haue a verie apte example in a like matter. VVhen god vvould that the holy Ghost should appeare in the baptisme of Christ, he represented him in the figure of a doue. Ioan. 1. v. 32. Iohn the Baptist rehear­sing the story, sayth that he savve the holy Ghost descending. If vve looke narovvlie, vve shall finde that he savve nothing but a doue. For the essence of the holy Ghost is inuisible. Yet because he knevv that vision to be no vaine figure, but a most certaine signe of the presence of the holy ghost, he bold­lie affirmeth that he savve him, because it vvas represented in such sort as he could beare. So in the communion, vvhich vve haue in the body & bloud of Christ, the miste­rie is spirituall, vvhich vve can nether see vvith eye, nether comprehend vvith humaine [Page 224] vv [...]. Therefore is it shevved vs by signes, yet so, The Sacra­ment in what sort a figure. that it is not a naked or only figure, but io [...]ned to his truth and substance. Right­lie therefore is it called the body, vvhich it d [...]th not only represent, but also exhib [...]te vn­to v [...]. Thus Caluine, teachinge and pro­u [...]nge by scripture, that truely we see Christ (though not in his owne forme) partly because the sacrament is a figure vvhich hath the veritie io [...]ned vvith it, and therefore may wel haue his denomina­tion of the principal, partly because be­yng inconuenient ether in respect of gods wisedome, or of our infirmitie, to receaue that glorious body in his owne forme (which reason Theophilacte, S. Damascene, S. Cirill, S. Chrisostō, and other fathers geue) god hath ap­poynted these externall sacramentes for instrum [...]ntes, by m [...]anes whereof we m [...]ght truly be made partakers of that, which otherwise we shoulde ab­horre.

But graunt we now to M.W. that it is only a phrase of speach to say vve see Chr [...]st or his body and bloud, how folow­eth his reason, therefore it is also but a phrase of speach to saye, the body is there at all? Suppose a man may stand in argument that the Apostles seing the [Page 225] humanitie of Christ, sawe not the sonne of god, sawe not the creator of the world, will your philosophie or di­uinitie serue you to infer, ergo that per­son or man, whom they beheld, was not the sonne of god? Agayne what logicke, The Protes­tāts by their analogie of faith. of euery place of scripture or doctor con­clude what they lyst. what wit permitteth you from one particular, to conclude as many as you liste? It is a figure when we reade in scripture, god hath hands, face, nosetrils: ergo it is a figure when we reade that Christ tooke flesh of the virgin. It is a figure when Christ said, that he descended from heauen: Ioan. 3. ergo his ascension is not true but ima­ginarie. It is not possible for vs in the height & excellencie of the diuine mis­teries, and the basenes of our vnder­standing and barrennes of our tonge scarce to thinke, much lesse to speake of them, but we shal fall in to some vn­proper termes, as appeareth by the whole course of diuinitie. From which necessitie, he that taketh this licence, which M. W. alloweth to him selfe, & from one word spoken figuratiuelie, at his pleasure will deduce the like of an other, he will make Christian religion as variable as is the raynebowe, as vn­constante as the wethercocke. And yet [Page 226] this lose kinde of talking (for who can call it reasoning) is the verie roote and mother of the Zuinglian go­spell▪ for vpon this piller was erected the sacramentarie heresie in Zuricke, as Zuinglius him selfe signifieth: for thus he reasoned. When Christ sayd this i [...] my body, he spake tropically, because when Moyses sayd, Exod. 12. the lambe is the pas­ouer (which notwithstanding is a text of his owne coyning, as Luther pro­ueth against him) this is a tropical speache. Luther to. 7. defens. ver­borum coe­nae fo. 386. Agaynst which, Luther reply­ing and scorning, sayth it is as valiant & wyse a proufe, as if a man would argue that Sara or Rebecca brought forth children and remayned virgins, because our Ladie did so: or that Pilate and Herode vvere tvvo glorious Apostles of Christe, because Peter and Paule vvere.

But see you not saith M. W. that S. Chrisostome is full of vehemencie and amplification? He is vehement I con­fesse, Impossible to interpret S. Chrysost. of the En­glish Com­munion. & perhaps amplifieth. But where­in is he vehement, or what doth he am­plifie? a lye or a truth? a truth, to witte the dignitie of priests, say you. Then there were priests, and so there was a sacrifice by your owne definition. supra pa. [...]7. and playne it is that S. Chrysostome so much ad­vaunceth [Page 227] the priest in regarde of the sa­crifice. Now this amplificatiō must rise vpon a true grounde, othervvise he may rather be said to magnifie a lye, then to amplifie a truth. Then gather me out of S. Chrisost. any one truth vvhere vpon he doth thus enlarge and vse his vehemencie. Nay consider by your opinion and faith, vvhe­ther almost euery vvorde in this place be not a lye. VVe see Christ sayth he. that is a lye, and novv refuted by you. VVe see him offered, that is a lye, and a blas­phemous lye. M. Iewels 17. article. The priest bēt earnestly to the sacrifice, that is a lye, for there vvas no such sacrifice within six hūdred yeres after Christ. The people receaue the pretious bloud, that is a lye, The 5. artie. for no man beleeued the reall presence vvithin six hundred yeres nether. O miracle (saith S. Chry­sost.) ô singular goodnes of god, he that sitteth vvith his father aboue, at the selfe same momēt of tyme is receaued in the church at the priests hands. that is a lye, The 6. artie. for so should the body of Christ at one tyme be in a thousand places, vvhich is a­gaynst M. Ievvels sixt article, & there fore needes it must be false, so to speake or thinke. What truth novv remay­neth for S. Chrysostome to amplifie, [Page 228] vvhereas euerie vvord he speaketh beyng taken as it standeth, according to your religion is false? Belike he m [...]āt to aduaūce such dealing of bread and vvine as you vse in your congre­g [...]tions, and consequently your mini­sterie vvhich is promoted to so vvor­thie a vocation. But vvhat sentence, vvhat vvord, vvhat sillable hath he to that purpos? yet graunt it be so. Thē your faith and religion being all one vvith S. Chrisostomes (as you tel vs) let your ministers vse such amplificati­on to their people (and you neede not to be ashamed to borovve or learne of so excellent a doctor) and see vvhe­ther both the people vvill not crye out vpon them as false prophetes, and the Commissioners bring them vvith­in the Premunire, for preaching a­gaynst the pure gospel receaued and authorised by parlament. Let them preach that they offer and sacrifice their lord and maister, that they are ear­nest lye be [...]t to performe that dutie of priesthode, that at their hands the peo­p [...]e receaue the pretious bloud of Christ, let such preachers be brought before you M. W. as th [...] publike professor of di­uinitie, and I appeale to your consci­ence, [Page 229] vvhether you vvill allovv such preaching as an amplification of their m [...]nisterio & not condemne it as vvic­ked, and detestable, and blasphemous against the gospel.

6 Finally M. W. could in no place more vndiscreetly haue vsed this ma­ner of ansvvere then here. For S. Chry­sostome so placeth the sacrifice of the church betvvene tvvo notorious sacri­fices, True sacri­fice in the church. and maketh the comparison be­tvvene all three so nighly and exact­ly, preferring alvvayes ours by in­finite degrees of excellencie, that a man vvith halfe an eye may see that M. W. thrust it in rather because he had so read in M. Ievvel, then because he cōsiderately perused the place him selfe. Before the vvords pertayninge to the sacrifice of the church, S. Chrysostome thus speaketh of the Le­uiticall sacrifice. Chryso. vbi supra. All thinges vvere terri­ble and dreadfull about that sacrifice and priesthode: but if you match it vvith this sacri­fice and priesthode, vvherein by the priest, our lord himselfe is sacrificed, all that is nothing as in the vvords set dovvne in the be­ginning appeareth. Immediately after, thus he proceedeth▪ vvilt thou see the ex­cellencie of this holines by an other miracles [Page 230] put before thy eyes Elias and that infinite multitude aboute him, and the sacrifice l [...]yd vpon the altar, the prophete p [...]vvring forth his prayers, suddenly fyer descending from heauen and consuming the sacrifice, all straunge and full of admiration. Ab illis sa­cris ad nostra sacra te transfer, from that sa­crifice turne thy selfe to beholde our sacri­fice, and thou shalt see that ours is far more vvonderfull and passing all admiration. For here is the priest caryinge not fyer, but the ho­ly Ghost, from vvhom grace flovveth in to the sacrifice &c. Wherefore, vvhereas he beginneth vvith a true sacrifice, and endeth vvith a true sacrifice, and compareth the middle vvith the ex­tremes as a most true and excellent sa­crifice, and affirmeth it so to be, and vseth the other tvvo for no other pur­pose, then by the abasinge of those sa­crifices to aduaūce the dignitie of this singular sacrifice: for one to come now and against such euidence, vpon one or other metephorical vvord (vvhich in such diuine things can not possibly be auoyded) to say, al is metaphors, & he meāt no such thing &c. it is an argu­ment nether of witte, nor of learning nor shamefastnes, nor conscience. it is a manifest signe of one, that nether see­keth [Page 231] after the truth, nor careth what he sayth, nor regardeth man, nor feareth god. but passe we on.

BEFORE you come to iusti­fie the corruption of S. Lu­kes Gospel, whereof your graund Capitayne Beza is attainted, very orderly you beginne with the commendation of so singular a personage, sayng that M. Pag. 12. Martin with the rest of his aduersaries, in respecte of him be but Pigmees, vvhom if he could once see, he vvould sovv them vp in a bagge, insutos in culcum al­lideret. and knocke out their braynes, as Polyphemus did to Vlisses companiōs, wherein you speake perhaps truer then you are a­ware. For in deed, in murdering men he hath better skil then he hath in his bi­ble, as cūning as you make him, where­of all Fraunce is witnesse, vnto which he hath bene a knowen Catiline and fierbrand, and hath in deed bene the cause that some good men haue bene so vsed, as you threaten he would vse [Page 232] his aduersaries, Vide orat. Pet. Frar. cō tra sectarios. item epist. Bezae 41. as in the stories of the ciuil warres of Fraunce we reade. Mary that you wishe some man to write a­gainst him, whose tonge he vnderstan­deth, as though such wanted, this argu­eth that ether you are very ignorant, & know litle out of your owne territorie, who thinke there are none such, or els that you are not his frind, who wishe him more enemies: whereas he hath store of such, more then euer he can turne him selfe vnto, and therefore li­eth continually as it were broken in backe and wind, groueling vnder such heauie burdens as he is charged withal. And although I take not vpon me to know much in his affaires (and I wishe withal my hart I knew lesse) yet thus much I am assured of, Writers a­gainst Beza. that not only Catholikes of excellent fame and learning, some of thē renowmed Bi­shops & doctors, haue written against him in such a tonge as he wel vnderstā ­deth, as Claudius Santesius, Espenceus, Vigor, Lindanus, Franciscus Baldui­nus, Michael Fabricius & his nephew Gabriel, but also Lutherans and Cal­uinistes haue plied him with such boo­kes: as for example, Heshusius, Flacius Illyricus, Selneccerus, the Vniuersitie [Page 233] of Iena in Germanie, Sebastianus Cas­talio, Carolus Molineus, besides many other Polonians, his owne scholers, whose names I know not nor list to learne. These Pigmees and dwarfes, how litle so euer they were, in countries Catholike and Lutherish, and in many places professinge Zuinglianisme, haue so put out the eye and diminished the estimation of your Poliphemus, that of the Catholikes he is knowē to haue bene but a wicked sicophāt, of detesta­ble maners, a feared conscience, 1. Tim. 4. v. 2. and meane learning, and of the Lutherans, he is accompted as ill, howsoeuer a­mong the ministers of England, where perhaps Luscus may regnare inter caecos, he is esteemed for a maruelous Euan­gelist, as it were an other Hercules or Atlas, that holdeth vp your gospel with his shoulders.

But let him be as huge as may be, as big and great as you would make him: he had neede be as great as Gargantua, or the great diuel of hell, if he beare a­way that which we charge him withal, though you lay to your shoulders to helpe him as wel as you can. M. Mar. accuseth him that he controleth our Saui­our, setteth the holy Ghost to schole, & [Page 232] [...] [Page 233] [...] [Page 234] correcteth the Euangelist. For whereas the Euangelist by Beza his owne con­fession wrote one thing as vttered by our Sauiour, and therefore most assu­redly our Sauiour spake so in substance and effect, and the holy Ghost guiding the penne and hand of the Euangelist endited so, this your great Giaunt co­meth and shouldereth them all out, altereth quite the text, sayth it is false, and geueth vs a new text of his owne. The point of this con­trouersy, wel to be marked. The point of the controuersie is this, that S. Luke auoucheth, that that vvhich was in the chalice (for to babble about the mettal of the chalice, [...]. is more meete for William Sommer the Kings iester, then for M. William Whitaker the Quenes reader) vvas the nevv testament in Christes bloud, or as S. Marke and S. Matthew write, in meaning and truth al one, for easynes of vnderstanding, to common Christians more plaine, is Christes bloud of the nevv testament, and the selfe same (contayned in the chalice) vvas shedd for vs. So Beza him self geueth vs the translatiō in S. Beza in Mat. 26. ver. 28. Mar. 14. v. 24 Matthew and S. Marke. Hoc (poculum) est sanguis meus noui testamenti, This (cuppe) is my bloud of the nevv testament, meaning by the cuppe (as him self there writeth) tha [...] [Page 235] vvhich vvas contayned therein, vulgata & trita omnibus linguis consuetudine loquendi. by a common kinde of speach and familiar to euery language. So that M. Whitakers grosse affectation of a litle subtilitie, is here more out of season, then in lente vnguentum, or to mingle S. Rom. 9. Paules di­scourse of Predestination, with a tale of Robin Hoode. The matter being wel & at large handled by M. Martin, Discou. ca. 1 numb. 38. c. 17. num. 10. I remitte the reader to him for more particular explication of euery parcel and cir­cumstance, I wil only note the con­clusion, for which al this stirre against S. Luke is kept, & perhaps it is a great reason, why in their late conference in the Tower, See before cap. 2. they haue turned him out of his auncient authoritie, and mat­ched him with Iudith and the Macha­bees, which they esteeme litle better then Aesopes fables. The real presence manifestly proued by S. Luke. The conclusion is, that vvhereas S. Luke most directly affirmeth that vvhich vvas in the cha­lice to be the self same bloud that vvas shedd for our sinnes, hence vve con­firme (as al the vvorlde may see) the old Catholike faith, and refute this nevv, prophane, and bakerlie Commu­nion deuised by Carolostadius and Zuinglius. That this is the reason, vvhy [Page 236] Beza altered the text, him self confes­seth in flat termes. Quum haec verbasi constructionem spectemus, Beza in Luc. 22. v. 10. necessario non ad sanguinem sed ad poculum pertineant, neque tamen de poculo intelligi possint &c. vvhere­as these vvorde (vvhich is shedd for you) if you regard the plaine construction, apper­tayne of necessitie no [...] to the bloud, but to the cuppe or chalice, and yet can not be vnder­stood of the cuppe or chalice (vvhich he speaketh, presupposing his heresie to be true) therefore I haue made this al­teration sayth he. That he neuer found among all his auncient copies latin or greeke, any one reading as he trans­lateth, himselfe also confesseth. Omnes tamen vetusti nostri codices ita scriptum ha­bebant. Albeit I thus translate, yet all our old auncient bookes had it othervvise. that is, so vvritten as it is commonly read, and as the papistes vvould haue it.

Wherefore this beinge his fault, that vpon priuate fansie to serue his peculiar heresie, he hath altered the very letter and text of the Gospel, is he a Chris­tian, is he a common heretike, nay, is he not worse then a Iew, then a Turke, then the worst kinde of Paganes, that pretendinge the name of a Christian will defende suche a vile caitife and [Page 237] monster, directly against the sacred Euangelist & our blessed Sauiour him selfe? and yet forsooth because this man is not only a great piller, but also for some great parte a very coyner of this nevv Gospel, as it vvere their ve­ry Euangelist, (for much of their text is made by him) he must needes be defen­ded, though the old Euangelistes go to vvracke for it. Pardon me (Christiā rea­der) if I seeme somevvhat vehement, their dealing being such, that if men held their peace, the very infātes, Luc. 19. v. 40 yea the very stones vvould speake, as saith our Sauiour. And vvithal consider thou, vvhen they vvil geue ouer those barba­rous Paradoxes, of feminine primacie, of baptisme not remitting sinnes, of their tropical bread &c. vvherein they stāde only against the Catholiks, or at the most, against vs and their brethren the Lutherans, when as they wil not geue ouer, but continevv and mainteyne their trayterous and Satanicall action commenced against our blessed Saui­our.

But if vve may vvithout sinne spend time in hearing what they haue to say against him, let vs attend M. Whitaker and waygh what he dareth vtter in [Page 238] that behalfe. M.W. ar­guing a­gainst the text. of S. Luke. Pag. 13. Thus he disputeth. The vvordes of Luke are. This cuppe is the nevv testament in my bloud: that is, if vve folovv M. Martins interpretation, This bloud is the nevv testamēt in my bloud, vvhich is shedd for you. vvhat sense is there of these vvords M. Martin, [...]. and vvhat doubte bloud is this? See you not here a manifest repetition of the same thing rising of your interpretation? VVherefore seing your sentence is plainely absurde, vvho vvil not rather vvith Beza say there is a faulte in the vvordes, or vvith Basil reade [...]. First of all to beginne, you somewhat mis­reporte M. Martin in sayng that he interpreteth, Hic sanguis est nouum testa­mentum in sanguine meo. this bloud is the nevv testament in my bloud. For though he deduce that by necessarie conse­quence, yet is it an other thing to say he interpreteth it so. The real presence. The interpretati­on he geueth you precisely out of S. Chrysostome, Chris. in. 1. Cor. 10. hom. 24. hoc quod est in calice, illud est quod fluxit de latere that vvhich is in the chalice, is that vvhich flovved out of Christs syde. Leo serm. 11 de pass. The iust bloud is the cup which S. Luke mē ­tioneth. which also S. Leo the greate very diuinelye expresseth. Fudit sanguinem instum qui reconciliando mundo et pretium esset et poculū. he shed the iust bloud vvhich should be both the price & the cuppe to re­concile [Page 239] the vvorlde, the one in his passion on the crosse, the other in the sacramēt at his last supper. whereof though you may truly infer, that the bloud of Christ in the chalice, is the selfe same bloud that flowed out of the syde of Christ, as here S. Leo doth, yet tal­king exactly of propositions, you may finde a greate difference. As if a man pointing to you should saye, this man is a Caluinist or heretike, he sayth in deed, this Caluinist is a Caluinist. yet can you not deny but there is a greate difference in the proposition. VVhere­fore we holde you to the wordes and sense of the Euangelist, as your greate Rabbine setteth them doune. hoc est san­guis mens noui testamenti. This (cuppe) is my bloud of the nevv testament, which is the selfe same without any the least dif­ference, which M. Martin geueth you out of S. Chrysostome. Now what haue you against it? Many faul­tes commit­ted by M.W. in his de­fence of Beza. Oh say you it is tau­tologia, an absurd repetition of the selfe same thinge, for vvhat double bloud is this?

First why lye you so grossly and in­tolerably, as to say here is mention of double bloud? If I say, this Christ is Christ the sonne of God, this Messias is the Messias & Sauiour of the world, [Page 240] this God, is God of heauen and earth, finde you mentioned a double Christ, a double Messias, a double God, as here you finde double bloud, if we say, this bloud is the bloud of the new testa­ment?

2 Againe, lett the reader see, if you be not possessed vvith a sprite of giddines, Esa. 19. v. 14. and what a miserable surgeon you are, who going about to cure Bezaes wounde, woūde your selfe as deepely, and whiles you endeuour to excuse his Atheisme and impietie, runne head­longe on the same rocke your selfe. For what is Bezaes faulte? this, that to helpe forth his Zuinglian heresie, he corrected S. Luke in the later parte of the sentence ( shedde for you) and alte­red that accordinge to his fansie. How doth M. W. mende this? by rayling at the first parte, This cuppe is the bloud of the nevv Testament. for this (saith he) is tautologia. here is double bloud. here is an ab­surd sentence. So that now betwene you and Beza, S. Luke hath neuer a worde right, Beza reprouing and mending the later parte, and you being as saucie with the former. Is not this well de­fended?

3 Now graunt we al these faults of [Page 241] [...]aut [...] ogia, an absurde sentence, an idle re­petition &c. where lie these faults? doubtlesse not so much in the Euange­list, who wrote them, as in our Sauiour who spake them. Suppose I say it seeme harde to your delicate and Ciceronian eares. must therefore Christ be sett to schole to learne his lesson of that fier­brande of sedition, that sinke & gulfe of iniquitie Theodore Beza? and what is the absurditie you find in these words? mary that that vvhich vvas in the chalice vvas shedde for our sinnes, and therefore consequently, it was the real bloud of our Sauiour, which is plaine Papistrye and against our Communion booke. Is it so? Then to hell with your Communion booke, and you to, if that be so opposite to the Gospel of Christ, & you dare mainteyne it by open chec­king and controling Christ the eter­nall wisdome of God.

4 And see what rouel we shal haue in scripture, The Protes­tants by their exam­ple & practi­se, make the scripture more vncer­taine and mutable then any wethercock if this vnchristian diuinitie go forward. And alwayes I desyre the reader to remember, that I am by force constrayned to remaine in this base kinde of talkinge in so plaine a matter, against these enemies of Christ, that seeme to haue lost the common [Page 242] senses of men. S. Iohn the Baptist be­holding Christ saith: Ecce agnus dei, ecce quitollit peccata mundi. Iohn. 1. v. 29 Behold the lambe of God, Behold (the lambe) that taketh a­vvay the sinnes of the vvorlde. Call S. Iohn to M. VVhitakers consistorie, & he wil [...]ke him recant his speach. For first Christ is no lambe, because he hath no woll on his backe. It is the self same reason, which here is vsed against S. Luke, about the me [...]all of the chalice▪ Then being driuen from that, the ad­surditie of tautologia still remaineth. Behold this lambe is the lambe of God, what an idle speache is this? what is this double lambe? therfore sende it to Geneua to be cast a new in Bezaes forge. Chriso to 3. serm. de [...]rin [...]tate. Gen. 19. v. 24. Victor de persequu­tione Van­dalic. li. 2. in sine. Psal. 66. The Catholiks of old time to proue distinction of persons in the dei­tie, vsed that place of Genesis, p [...]uit. d [...] ­mi [...] a [...] domino, our Lord rayned from our Lord: to proue the Trinity of persōs, they vsed the place of the psalme, Benedicat nos Deus Deus noster, benedis at nos Deus. God our God blesse vs, our God blesse vs. This to a Trinitarian, is absurda sententia, and in­duceth a pluralitie of Gods. vvhereas S. Paule saith, vnus Deus, vnus Dom [...]nus o [...] God, Ephes. 4. 7.5. [...] one Lord ▪ what remaineth thē, but that according to the arrest of this, su­preme [Page 243] arbiter, we fall to newe casting of the scripture, and so in short space (no doubt) we shal growe to perfectiō, that is, to the Turks Alcoran, if we be not come so farre already. The scrip­tures are full of such absurdities, which neuerthelesse are absurdities only to carnal cogitatiōs, to Sathan & Sathans ministers: 2. Co. 10. v. [...] but to thē that haue learned in the schole of the holy Ghost, to sub­iect their vnderstanding to the obedience of faith, they are nothing so. And M.W. If other he­retikes should do as Beza ge­ueth them example. within a short tyme we should haue a strāge Bible. if he had in him any droppe of religion & fayth, he should thus thinke. Howsoe­uer I can reconcile two or three Gods with one, the bloud shedd on the crosse with that which was in the chalice, were it bloud or wine, let Christs wor­des stande as he spake them and the Euangelist wrote them, and let vs after­ward in the name of God, be we Luthe­rans, Zuinglians, Caluinists, Trinitaries or Anabaptists, eche according to his priuate spirite, search for the sense as wel as we can. Christes soule went downe to hell, saith our Creede and S. Luke. It is absurde (sayth Beza) and pa­pisticall, Actor. 2. and therefore for soule I haue translated carcas, and for hell graue, whom in so doing the English congre­gation [Page 244] approueth. That Christ ascen­ded into heauen, it is a fansie of Aristo­tle and Mahomet sayth Brentius, Brentius & the Vbiqui­taries haue written ma­ny bookes against the arti [...]le of Chr [...]sts As­cension. and to the Lutherans, it is absurda sententia. shal they now leaue out that word, and put in the text, for ascendit, euanuit or disparuit, he vanyshed out of sight in steede of he ascended, which to them is the true and only sense of the place, and which they may and ought to do by like reason and authoritie?

5 But S. Basil you say, readeth as you translate. graunt he did so. but what translate you? One or o­ther fa­ther [...] rea­ding▪ is no warrant for vs to alter the text of scripture. S. Basil, or S. Luke? if S. Basil, you haue done wel, to folovv your greeke copye. If S. Luke, then do you vvickedly to alter S. Luke vpon coniecture of one greeke doctor, all greeke copies and doctors being to the contrarie. And vvhat if S. Basil in an other place reade otherwise? shal we not make a vvise patching of scripture, if vpon euerie particular doctors cita­tion vve alter the holie text? S. Aug. in many places, S. Bernard, and other good men dravv exhortatiōs for their frends, or monks, or people, and com­monly they do it in the verie phrase of scripture. yet because they knitte toge­ther many sentences of scriptures, that [Page 245] be in diuers places, they must of neces­sitie adde some words or parcels of their owne. Nether is it material, if oftētimes they leaue out one worde or a fewe words. But if by such authoritie we should alter our text, we should in short space haue so many texts, that in deed we should haue no text, because we should haue no certaine text where­unto we might trust. And why remem­ber you not that, which in this self same place M. Martin tolde you out of Beza, who noteth it to be the custome of the auncient fathers in citing scriptures, Discou pag. 261. nu. 1 [...]. to alleage the sense & not to sticke precisely vpō the words. And that therefore how soeuer they reade, that is no certaine rule to reforme or alter the vvordes of scripture.

But here you make your aduantage of M. Martins words, and say, Whit. pa. 13. if Basil cited not the vvords, but the sense of the scripture, thē Beza vvhen he so trāslated, missed nothing of the sense. so M. Martin doth novv plainly acquite Beza, vvhō before he accused. For if Basils vvords geue a true sense, and the interpretation of Beza and ours all agree vvith Basils vvords, then your accusation is false, that vve had corrupted the sense of the scripture. Somewhat you saye, and this hath some appearance, more then any [Page 246] thing that you haue sayde hitherto: 6 yet you reache not home, and you are ouer hasty in your conclusion. S. Ba­sil geueth a true sense I confesse, whe­ther you respecte the particular matter whereunto he applyeth the place, or the generall doctrine of the catholike church. For his wordes are sufficiēt for the one and the other. And so are the wordes in our vulgar Latin and En­glish, and may well be taken as agre­ing with S. Luc. 22. v. 20 Basil. hic est calix, nouum testamentum in sanguine meo qui pro vobis fundetur. This is the chalice, the nevv testa­ment in my bloud vvhich shall be shedde for you. And whosoeuer readeth and taketh these later wordes, as referring them to the bloud of Christ shedde on the crosse, Great diffe­rence be­twene a Ca­tholike rea­ding indifferently one way or o­ther, and an heretike choosing precisely one only way most seruing his herefie. he thinketh very well and truly and no man would euer finde fault with such a sense or citation, if it stayd there. For this nothing impayreth the other truth whereof we speake, that the same bloud is in the chalice. But when there riseth vp a new heresie by one truth ouerthrowing an other, and by one part of the sentence destroyng an other (as it fareth betwixt vs) this cir­cumstance so farre altereth the case, that the old father alleaging the text [Page 247] without any thought or imagination of heresie, did well and christianlike, the new heretike enforcing the same in defence of heresie, doth n [...]ughtely & sacrilegrously. as for example. If some good man as S. Basil or S. Bernard, to induce his auditors to the loue of Christ, had vsed this sentence of the Apostle. Tit. 3. ver. 5. In this appeared the benignitie of our lord & sauiour tovvards vs, that not by the vvorkes of iustice vvhich vve did, but of his infinite mercie he saued vs. This place accor­ding to the sense, had bene well & tru­lye cited. For albeit infinite is not in the text, yet that is no hinderance to the meaning, and although I name not Christ god, In this sort S. Peter 1. epist. c. 2. v. 6 citeth a place out of Esai. 28. v. 16 yet nether that worde hinde­reth any thing, because in a Christian audience, it is all one to say our lord and sauiour Christe, or our god and sauiour Christe. But if there rose vp some Nesto­rian heretike, that should diuide Christ from god, and make two persons of this one sauiour (from which heresie Beza was not farre, Whit. cont. Cam. pa. 135 as you know) now this heresie maketh that citatiō though otherwise good and sound, yet not so perfect and absolute, as it had bene to put in the worde god. Because in this tyme, and against such an heritike, the [Page 248] place thus alleaged is more forcible, & S. Bernard erred not in citing the first, but this heretike playeth the verie he­retike in pressing it against the later. Take an other example, to make the thing more manifest. In S. Luke we reade that the angel thus speaketh to our blessed Ladie. Luke. 1. v. 35 Spiritus sanctus super­ueniet in te etc. ideoque quod nascetur ex te sanctum, vocabitur filius dei: The holy Ghost shall come vpon thee &c. and therefore that vvhich of thee shall be borne holy, shall be called the sonne of god. who doubteth but S. Bernard or S. Thomas, and some auncient copies, albeit they leaue out the wordes ex te, of thee, neuertheles meane the true and perfecte sense of the place, that our Ladie through the power of the holy Ghost, cōceaued of her body, and brought forth the sonne of god? Now ryse your frindes the Ana baptistes, and amongest other heresies spreade this, that Christ brought his flesh from heauen, and tooke it not of our blessed Lady, but passed thorough her as water thorough a cundit pipe, or according to your auncient compari­son when you first began your gospel, Christ was so in her, as saffron in a saf­fron bagge. And they being pressed [Page 249] with this place, answere as you āswere for Beza, that the true reading is to leaue out those two syllables ex te, and so the place proueth nothing. And this they would proue by better argu­ment then you pretend any, hauing for them some auncient copies both greeke and latin, besides the reading of more fathers then one. Can not you in this case easily conceaue, how those fathers and writers gaue a true sense and far from the Anabaptisticall heresie, and yet the Anabaptists are wicked heretiks in vrging this correction of the text? why so? because the fa­thers spake truly, and meant entierly the full truth, although the sense be not so full and absolute to all purposes, and in euerie respecte. namely of this new heresie (whereof these fathers neuer dreamed) as is the text it selfe in his na­turall strength and force, put downe in those words and syllables as it was first by the holy Euangelist: the Ana­baptistes speake falsly and meane de­testably, when by that alteration they will seeme to confirme their heresie & take from the Catholike church so good a groūd refelling the same, which those other fathers neuer entended. [Page 250] This is your very case, and so S. Basil meant truly and simply, and as a Sainte and a Christian, though Beza and you deale in the selfe same matter, falsely, and subtilly, and as it becommeth here­tikes.

7 And yet one step farther, vvhen you haue done & spoke al, al that ye doe & speake, Bezaes cor­ruption in­excusable, for ought M. W. ether hath said, or can say. is nothing to the purpose. For suppose ye sin [...]e many Basils, and ma­ny greeke copies reading as you vvould haue it, yet shall you be neuer for al that able to iustifie Beza, because he cōfesseth, vvhen he so translated he neuer savv any, and therefore vvas not moued by any such reading. And ther­fore your p [...]ying & searching for fyg-leaues to couer his filthines, Genes. 3. can no more serue the turne, then if a man should excuse Iudas for betrayng Christ, by reason of the good, vvhich came thereby to the redemption of mankinde. Because vvhatsoeuer vvas the euent of that actiō, he sinned th [...]rin damnably vvho regarded no such mat­ter, but only for malice and gayne of xxx. pence, sold his lord and maister. and the selfe same is to be saide of this Iudas, vvhose honestie you vvould so fayne sane. For vvhatsoeuer may be [Page 251] the successe of your labours in this ar­gument, he certainely plaid therein the parte of a damnable corruptor of gods holy vvord, vvho for malice a­gainst the truth and loue of his heresie, vvithout any such knovvledge com­mitted so sacrilegious an acte.

And the reason vvhich you make, Wh. pag. 23. hel­peth the matter neuer a vvhit, but so muche the more discouereth your folly. Thus you argue. M.W. argu­ment. If by the cuppe you vnderstande (not the cuppe it selfe, but) the bloud of Christe in the cuppe, is not this a trope? vvhy then are you offended vvith vs, vvhen you your selues graunt that there is a trope in these vvords? Is it lavvfull for you to inuent tropes, & is it vnlavvfull for vs to appoint one necessarie trope? The vanitie thereof. Whereunto I ansvvere, first that this is also from the purpose. For be your Zuinglian heresie most true, as it is moste false, it furthereth you nothing, nor abbet­tereth his rashnes in altering the text. For vve may not make the scripture speake euerie truth in euerie place, much lesse may vve make it speake vile heresie in any place. Then, the forme of your reasoning is so lose, that if a man vvould studie for an argument to make sport vvithall, he could not [Page 252] deuise one more fond and ridiculous.

We allovv of a trope, vvhen vve interprete the cuppe to be the bloud, or the thing conteyned in the cuppe.

Ergo vve ought to allovv your trope, in the other parte of the sen­tence, that the bloud shed for vs, should signifie a cuppe of vvine.

What vvit, reason, probabilitie, or sense, induceth you so to talke? vvhence riseth the coherence and con­nexion of this consequent? Is it this, because in one part of the sētence there is a trope or figure, therefore the other part is figuratiue also? as for example. S. Gal. 2. v. 19. Paule sayth, by the lavv I am dead to the lavv, vvith Christ I am nayled to the crosse. Rom. 6. v. 13 and agayne. VVe that are baptised, are buried together by baptisme in to death vvith Christ. in vvhich sentence the A­postle ioyneth tvvo seuerall truthes, in the first, Christ vvas nayled to the crosse, and I am nayled to the crosse vvith him. in the next, Christ vvas buried, and vve that are baptised, are buried vvith him. Novv is this your argument. S. Paule vvas nayled to the crosse mystically, and this a trope. ergo Christ vvas nayled to the crosse in such maner, and that is also a trope & vvhen the baptised are [Page 253] sayd to be buried vvith Christ, it is a figure. ergo that Christ vvas buried, is likevvise a figure. If this be the knit­ting of your argumēt, you see vvhat pith is in it. Or is it, because of one par­ticular figure you may infer an other? then also you haue your aunsvvere, geuen you partly in that vvhich is hovv sayd, partly before by your father Luther, See before pag. 220. that it is as substantiall a reason, as if I should saie: Peter vvas an Apostle, ergo Pilate vvas an Apostle. the blessed virgin brought forth and remained a virgin, ergo Sara did so. Or meane you that your trope hath as good reasō to support it, as hath ours? Infinite dif­ference be­twene the figure of the Catholikes and that of the here­tikes. if so, vve geue you infinite difference, because vpon our trope, to vvitte, that the cuppe, that is, the mettall, could not be shed or powred out, and therefore the wordes must needes be vn­derstood of the thing conteyned in the cuppe, all Catholikes now liuing, all Catholikes from Christes time, all he­retikes though otherwise most per­uerse & obstinate enemies of the truth, Lutherans, Zuinglians, Anabaptistes, of any secte & fashion, all creatures indu­ed with witt and reason, man woman and childe agree, and (as Beza con­fesseth) [Page 254] it is a trope vulgar and vsuall to all languages and nations. But vpon your trope, where you interprete the bloud of Christ by wine, and refer the later part, not to that which was in the chalice, and so deny the reall pre­sence, no Catholike now liuing, no Catholike euer liuing agreed, the church of God from the beginning hath abhorred it, the very grāmat & grāma­tical cōstruction refelleth it, your owne brethren deteste it, Luther & the Luthe­rans condemne it, yea the Sacramen­taries them selues many of thē, account it a very dull and blunt euasion, so far forth, that Carolostadius the first father of your Sacramentarie heresie, (though he be not commonly so esteemed) thoughte it a more cleanly expositiō, to say that Christ referred those worde [...] hic est corpus meum, Carolost, exposition of Christes words, hoc est corpus meum. hic est sanguis meus, to him self sittinge at the table as if Christ had sayd: iccipite, manducat [...], take ye, and eate, and be merie, for I am he that must die for al. And Hulderike Zuinglius that most excellent man sent from God vvith Luther to lighten the vvhole vvorld, by the iudgement of your English church, Apol. Angl part. 4. ca. 4. ¶. 2. is so vncertaine of your trope, that he al­loweth wel of this exposition, and ge­ueth [Page 255] you good leaue to folow it, and it was allowed of many thousand Sacra­mentaries besides him. Touching Zuin­glius, his wordes are euident. Carolosta­dius pius homo, &c. Zuing. tom. 2. in epist. ad Matth. Rut­lin. de coe­na fol. 255. Carolostadius that god­ly man (saith Zuinglius) doth interprete the vvordes of the supper, as though Christ had directed them not to the bread, but to him self, sayng, take, eate, for I vvill deliuer this body for you. This interpretation he proueth, Scripture applied by heretikes to proue any thing be it neuer so absurd. because the prophetes foretell that Christ should be crucified, &c. And after many places of scripture brought to proue this exposi­tion, he geueth in his owne iudgement thus. Ego hominis pii laudo industriam, de fide gratulor, hanc Carolostadii sententiam qui probauer it, nos minime offendet. I com­mēd the diligence of this godly man, I praise the lord for his faith, if any man vvil folovv this his opinion, I shal lyke vvel of it. So that, great is the difference betwene our trope and yours, as great as is be­twene our doctrine and yours, that is as great, as is betwene truth and fals­hod, light and darknes, heauen and hel: and therefore except you furnish it with better reasons then this, your figure wil remaine a poore, beggerly, heretical shift, deuised by a few of one sect, and contemned by many of the [Page 256] same secte, and infinite of other sectes, when ours shal stand accounted a cer­taine truth, not only to Catholikes & heretikes of al sorts, but also to al men endewed with cōmon wit or reason.

And this is all that M.W. bringeth for the defence of Beza wherein after a number of faultes, errors, ignorances, impieties, he hath so behaued himselfe, that he hath lea [...]t the matter worse then he foūde it. so that in the next writing, he hath not so much to labour for Beza, so Lucifer like controling the Euange­list in one worde, as he hath to shift for him selfe, vvho in a greater peece and more important, hath so damnably and detestably thvvarted the same Euangelist and our B. sauiour, and like a playne Atheist worse then Beza; hath more defaced that first and princi­pal part this is the nevv testament in my bloud: this speach of our Lord and sa­uiour he hath reproued I say, of [...]aur [...] ­logia, vayne repetition, and absurd conse­quence. How much better and more ho­nest had it bene for him and Beza both, to haue folowed the sober counsaile of their father Martin Luther. Luther tom. 7. defen­sio verborū coen. fo. 411. I go v [...]o (saith he) de iris Sacramentariis hoc sanc suaderent &c. I truly would geue the doting [Page 257] Sacramentaries this aduise, Luth. sage counsel to the Sacra­mentaries in this case. that seing they vvill needes be madde, let them play the mad men rather vvholy, then in parte. There­fore vvhereas they must aduenture some­vvhat, let them make short vvorke, and raze altogether out of the supper those vvords, this is my body vvhich is geuen for yovv. For touching their faith and celebration of their supper, they haue no neede of these vvords, but it is all one, if thus they keapte it: Christ tooke bread, gaue thankes, brake it, and gaue it to his disciples, sayng, take, eate, do this in my remembrance. For this proueth suffici­ently, that bread is to be eaten in remēbrance of Christ. This is the vvhole and entier sup­per of the sacramentaries. And then to vvhat end keepe they in the booke, that other super­fluous and vnprofitable text?

Yea as though he had foreseene this desperate boldnes whereunto the Zuin­glians are now growen, he before hand euen particularly and in the self same words, warneth vs of these very reasōs, or rather peeuish and shameles asser­tions, which Beza and M. W. throw forth for singular & mightie argumēts against this clause of S. Lukes Gospel. For what is Bezaes demonstration a­gainst the later part, qui pro uobis fūditur, with which he is so offended? forsooth [Page 258] this: Beza in Luc. 2 [...]. vers. 20. aut manifestum est solacophanes, aut potius quum haec essent ad marginem annota­ta ex Mat. & Mar. postea in cōtextum irrepse­runt. Ether there is some manifest fault in the Greeke, or (vvhich I suppose rather) vvhereas these vvords vvere noted in the margent out of Matthevv and Marke, aftervvards they creapt in to the text. And what saith Lu­ther of this? Luther vbi supra fo. 411 Thus he speaketh to the Sacramentaries. Quid inepti, nihilne con­silii habetis &c. Luther thought it vnpossible that the Sa­cramētaries would euer grow to such absur­ditie as now they defend vvhat ye fooles, haue ye no vvitte? you must venture. Dicite verba illa primum margini ascripta, postea vero ab ali­quo textui inserta, say that those vvordes vvere first vvritten in the margent, and then by some odde felovv thrust in to the text, and not vvritten so by the Euangelist, seing you haue a sure rule to proue al this: and your rule is, A good rule that that is not true, vvhatsoeuer see­meth superfluous and vnprofitable vnto you. And what is M.W. argumēt against the first parte, this (cup) is my bloud of the nevv testament? Mary that this implyeth an absurde sentence, it is tautologia, an idle repetition. Ibid. And what saith Luther of this? vvhereas those vvordes, that shevv the real presence of the bodie and bloud, haue nought to do in the Sacramentaries supper, eodem modo his quoque argumentari licet, mera tautologia est haec verba in cana poni. They [Page 259] might do very vvel here also to make this argument, that it is tautologia, a vaine repe­tition, to put these vvords in the supper, and therefore they ought not to haue any place there, vvhereas the supper vvithout them is described, vsed and practised fully and per­fitly, and no man can shevv any reason or necessitie vvhy they should be there.

This is the proceeding of the Zuingliā gospel. that which their eternal enemie spake in scorne and derision, as a thing so ridiculous & absurd, that they would neuer admitte for shame, that haue these good felowes without shame now re­ceaued in good sooth & sadnes. Wher­fore to help them forward, if M. W. will take a litle paynes in searching old copies, perhaps he may finde some one or other, at lest some aunciēt father, that readeth as Luther wisheth thē to reade. And to geue him an entrance, let him looke in S. Basil, Basil. in e­thic. reg. [...]1. cap. 4. the next chapiter to that which he citeth, and he shall find him to reade thus. Caenantibus illis accepit Iesus panē &c. vvhiles they vvere at supper, Iesus tooke bread, and blessed, and brake, & gaue it to his disciples. And then leauing out the rest, putteth next, et hymno dicto, exierunt in montem oliuarum. and ha­uing sayd an hymne, they vvent forth to [Page 260] mount Oliuet. And perhaps if Beza liue to sette forth his testamēt once againe, well it may be with some good aduise of such brethrē, he wil leaue the words cleane out of the booke, or put in one syllable more ( non) and so mende all, as he hathe done in some other places vpon as smale reason as this, as writeth Gabriel Fabricius: whose words to cō ­clude withall, I wil sett downe in latin, because you shal perceaue, that some man hath written against him, whose tonge Beza vnderstandeth wel inough. The booke is intituled, Gabrielis Fabricii re­sponsio ad Bezam Ve­zeliam Ece­boliam. fol. 17. Gabriel is Fabricii Responsio ad Bezam Vezeliam Eceboliam, printed at Paris an. 1567. In that booke amōgst many other notable things, thus he writeth. Id agis, haec verba toties repetita, (hoc est corpus meum) perinde accipiēda esse ac si dictum scriptūquè esset, hoc non est corpus meum. Et fortasse vt tandem te expedias, et tot commentariorum plaustra facessere iube­as, recurres ad talem emendationem. Et quia nostri correctores dicunt in ipsis etiā Pandec­tis Florentinis saepe deesse negationem, tu tali artificio, statim te liberes, et aduersariis os obstruas, praesertim cum alios multos euange­liorum locos similiter scilicet emendaueris, partim ex coniectura, partim ex manuscriptis (vt ais) exemplaribus. You labour to shevve [Page 261] that those vvords so oftē repeated (this is my body) are to be taken as though it had bene spoken and vvritten, this is not my body. & perhaps at length, that you may ridde your selfe, and dispatch out of the vvay these cart­loades of commentaries, you vvill flye to such a kinde of correction. And because our cor­rectors saye, that in the very lavv bookes of Florence, Bezaes ma­ner in cor­recting the testament. oftentymes there vvanteth a nega­tiue particle, you also vvill vse such a shift to stoppe the mouth of your aduersaries, espe­cially vvhereas you haue already corrected in like sort very learnedly, many places of the gospels, partly by coniecture, partly by hand-vvritten copies, as you tell vs. Some such corrected copies if M. W. cā finde against the next time, it wil ease him of much labour & put vs to much trouble. In the meane season, this I dare pro­mise him, he shall neuer scoure his coate cleane from those spottes with which in this defence of Beza he hath fouly stayned and soyled him selfe, so longe as the old copies of S. Lukes gos­pell stande in force.

[Page 262] AFTer these particular con­trouersies and reprehēsions M. W. commeth now to make a general answere vn­to M. Martyns Discouery, which al­though it be verie short, yet is it verie sweete, to the singular commendation of their English trāslations. The summe is, that al is wel, nothing amisse, euery word standeth right, so as he marue­leth that M. Mart. was not ashamed so notably to publish his owne ignorance & vnskilfulnes to all the world. Thus he writeth. Whit. pa. 14. Albeit heretofore I liked vvell our translations, yet novv I loue them much more, vvhereas I see so fevv faultes, & those so smale & trifling can be found out and re­proued euē of our enemies. For vvhat aduer­sary vvas there euer so blynded with malice that can not perceaue our translations to be disallovved of you, vvithout iudgment, learning, or reason? [...] vve translate some­times instructions, sometimes ordināces, some­times preceptes. [...] images, [...] con­gregation, [...] an elder, [...] to a­mend our liues, [...] misterie or secrete, [...] thankesgeuing, [...] freely be loued, [...] god is not temp­ted vvith euil. He must take and allow in like maner [...] carcas, [...] graue, [...] [Page 263] table &c. Ibid. VVhat is there here that a man can find fault vvithall as not transla­ted vvel and truly? and vvho vvil not iudge him a reprehender to vvicked & importune, vvho vvhen he can finde no greater thing, for these faults, vvhich are none at al, pronoun­ceth that al the vulgar trāslations of our churches are to be reiected & condemned? Haec et ist iusmodi nugae, nostra crimina sunt. These & the like trifles are our faultes. This is M.W. defence of their English translatiōs, or rather a frendly assertiō, that al things in thē are very wel, & therefore the whole booke of the Discouerie is a peeuish de­uise of M. Martin, proceeding only of malice, without iudgment, learning or reason.

To shew the falsitie and malitious wickednes of the heretikes in transla­ting these verie wordes so, were to make an other booke, and it is so well done by M. Martin touching euery particular, notwithstanding any replye yet made, that to hādle the same againe were to cast water into the Terns, or light a candel at noone daye. 1 Only this will I say in general and proue it, that M. Whitaker in affirming thus much, sheweth him selfe not only to be voide of wit, learning and common [Page 264] 2 sense, but also to be void of shame and modestie, 3 that he litle differeth from an Atheist or Sadducee, 4 that he is more hard-faced then the most reprobate he­retikes of this age, the worst of his owne brethren.

1 And first, what wit or learning will allow him amonge Christians to trans­late [...] an image, or amonge Pa­gans [...] a carcas, more then minister talking of the English ministers a slaue or homo a dog. He wil say, that [...] by his primitiue signification and deriua­tion may so signifie. Doth [...] so sig­nifie a carcas? But leaue we the second, talke we of the first, and in that of al other where is like reason. I wil not en­ter in to any new or serious disputatiō touching this vsing or abusing of wor­des: when, by what authoritie, and how far, such mutation is necessarie, or allowable. Only resting my self vpon the Protestants common and vulgar kind of disputing, that is, vpon the first and original deriuation and significati­on of Ecclesiastical words, I wil by manifest and plaine examples taken from their vse and practise, shew how absurd and vnreasonable their dealing is in this behalfe. Vpon this ground, [...] [Page 265] say you is wel translated image, and hereupon because we geue reuerence to images, which reuerence is wel ex­pressed by the word [...] (for the dis­tinction betwene [...] and [...] is nothing, saith M. D. Humfrey, and he refuteth it at large in his booke of M. L. Humfred. in vita Iuel­li. pag. 145.146. &c. Iuels life: & the rest of the protestants of that secte, commonly are of the same iudgement) therefore we are condēned of you iustly as Idololatrae, Idolaters for geuing honour & reuerēce to sacred images which in greeke are called Idols. Let vs note now whether this Idolatrie turne not on your owne head. Honor not you the Quene in her images, The Protes­tants idola­ters. in her cloth & chayre of estate, in her maces, in her seales and letters, in keeping holie her Natiuitie & Assumption to the crowne? I somewhat disaduantage my selfe, for perhaps this in deede draw­eth neere to true Idolatrie. But let it passe with the rest. The Protestantes geue honour to the images of the Quene. Images and idols are al one, ergo the Protestantes are idolaters. Or more briefelie and plainelie thus. Euerie prince in his realme is an image of the true god, that is, and idol of the true god. Ergo the Protestantes in that they [Page 266] worship & serue their princes, worship & serue idols, and so by M.W. iudgment are Idolaters. Examples, wherein the Protes­tants may consider their owne fault in pro­phaning ec­clesiastical word [...]. Againe, church you saie is vvel expressed by congregation. What is congregatiō in greeke? [...], vvhich being a vvord made English by cus­tome as vvel as congregation, it can not be any error to vse that in place of con­gregation. and [...] in greeke, is superintendent or ouerseer in English, & both these translations are vsed & ius­tified by your English bibles. Novv if your knovvledge be so good in the En­glish as I take it, you can not be igno­rant that an ouerseer is as properlie and vsuallie expressed in our language by this word surueyer, [...] supra videre to suruey. which commeth di­rectly from supra videre, to ouersee. And vvhat of al this? Forsooth that it is no error, vvhen vve talke of the byshops of the English church or congregation, to vvhom you dedicated your latin translation of M. Ievvel, if vve say you dedicated it to the most reuerend sur­ueyers of the English synagoge. Euangelium the gospel, in greeke you wot vvel vvhat it signifieth, good nevves or tidinges, and testamentum in hebrevv and greeke, is in English and latin couenant, [...] foedus as Beza commōly trāslateth it, inscribing both [Page 267] his Testaments the greater and lesser printed the yeare 1565, Iesu Christi no­uum Testamentum siue foedus. as properly a bible is nothing els but [...] a booke, for it is the selfe same vvord. If so, then vvhen one commeth to you, and brin­geth you good nevves and tidings that a benefice is befallen yovv, yovv may say, he bringeth you the gospel of a be­nefice, or vvhen your farmer recea­ueth of you a lease vvith a nevv coue­nant, he receaueth a lease vvith a nevv testament, and Lucians Dialogues, be­cause they are [...], therefore they are a bible, almost as good as yours.

But in one example to shevv, hovv voyde of sense & vnderstanding yovv proue your selfe in this discourse, by like reason in euery respect as you can iustifie the aforesaid vvordes, you may and must iustifie the translation of [...] vvashing, as wel as [...] thankesgeuing, the vse of Baal for domi­nus, lord, for it signifieth so precisely in the hebrevv, [...] whence commeth Baalze­bub, the idol of Accaron called in con­tempt, yet according to the true origi­nal, and primitiue signification of the vvord dominus muscae, lord of a flye 4. Reg. 1. And vvhat signifieth [...] diabo­lus [Page 268] in greeke? vvord for vvord calumni­ator, a slaunderer. And angeli [...] messē ­gers, as you translate it, Heb. 1. v. 7. and [...] vvynde, translated likewise so by yow, Ioan. 3. v. 8. and Christ [...] the anointed both in greeke and he­brew, [...] vsed so by yow in sundrie places of the bible. These being all alike, so as you can not find any exception to dis­proue any sillable, and so al approued by your English translations, which now you loue more then euer you did, because they are found to be without al fault, let vs suppose in our grandfa­thers time, some Catholike priest or Byshop in our realme to haue exhor­ted his people to charitie, deuotion, & reformation of their liues. Suppose he spake vnto them in this sorte.

I that am your priest & bishop, placed in this church by the holy Ghost for the feeding of your sovvles, do denounce vnto you in the name of Christ our Lord, that except you with more deuotion come to receaue the B. Sacrament, and performe better your promise made to God in baptisme, you shal be bodie and sovvle condemned to hell: your portion shal be with the deuils, I say with Beel­zebub and his angels. The meaning of [Page 269] this, euery Christian doth know, and no doubt it might, and I thinke would moue a Christian audience. Let vs now after your translations, turne the same into the phrase and stile of the new gospel, and see how it wil sound. Let vs suppose some of your youthful ministers or superintēdēts to make the same exhortatiō. Thē thus must it rūne.

I that am your elder or surueyer and superintendent, placed in this syna­goge by the holy vvynd, for the feeding of your carcasses, do denounce vnto you in the name of the Anointed our Baal, that except yow with more deuotion come to receaue the thankesgeuing, and per­forme better your promise made to God in vvashing, you shal be condem­ned bodie and carcas to the graue, with the slaunderers, I say with the Lord of a flye and his messengers. How deepely this would sinke into the hartes of your Euangelical auditorie, let their owne conscience be iudge. But touching you, if you continue as you here begin, and say, al this goeth wel, there is no fault in it, I appeale to common sense whether you haue not as litle wit and capacitie, as euer man that bare the name of a Christian Diuine.

[Page 270] 2 I say consequently, that hereof it foloweth you haue no shame nor mo­destie. The abuse of ecclesias­tical words, the ruine of al religion. For vvhat Christian, had he ether of these, would not at the first warning, reuoke or moderate so grosse & filthie absurdity, whereby must needes folow the contempt, and plaine euacuation of the whole Church, of the sacramēts, of religion, of Christ? for if the eucharist be rightly expressed by thankesgeuing, & bapt [...]sme by vvashing &c. then when a man with thankesgeuing hath bene at a good breakefast, he hath bene at the eu­charist, and when one of your ministers goeth to be vvasshed & trimmed at the barbers, he goeth to baptisme. But what spend I words in such vanitie? Short­ly thus I say, he that can swalow downe such Camels as these, Mat. 23. v. 24 and auouch such translations to be faultles, and vnwor­thy of reprehensiō, Pag. 15. & forthwith condē ­neth the late translation set forth in this Colledg as the most corrupt that euer vvas made sithence the vvorld vvas created (for so he speaketh) against which him self with al his search and prying ob­iecteth only tvvo faultes, and the same not in the thing nether, but both of thē rising of his ether malice or ignorance, vvhether this mans face and forhead be [Page 271] made of commō matter, and not rather of some harder mettal, such as the Pro­phete Esay describeth, Esa. 48. v. 4. frons aerea frons tua, I leaue to the wisdome of the dis­creete reader.

3 Then that he is a very Atheist and Sadducee, bringing in doubt the im­mortalitie of the sowle & resurrectiō of the body, this also is as cleere and mani­fest. For if this be admitted, To approue the English translations is to ap­proue plain Atheisme & deny God. that vvhen we reade in the latin & greeke, that the sovvle goeth to hell, the English without staggering may turne it as the true meaning and sense, that the carcas, or life, or sovvle is put in the graue, and M. W. as principal professor in diuinitie, by su­preme censure confirme such transla­tion, where shal we haue warrant to proue the immortalitie of the sowle, the last iudgement, the place of hel, & the eternal paines thereof? See (Christi­an reader) for thy owne sake this cor­ruption in the Discouerie, Discou▪ ca. [...] nu. 1.2.3.4. where thou shalt find the causes mouing the here­tikes thus to do. 4 And this fault is so palpable and monstruous, that the very heretikes them selues, I say his owne maisters and brethren, Protestant [...]diuines a­gainst the English trāslations. yea those of his owne Vniuersitie & perhaps acquain­tance, find fault with his pure and fault­les [Page 272] bibles, and flatly pronounce that they leade men the high way to verie Atheisme, worse then Gentilitie, or the schole of Epicure.

Castalio in his notes vpon the Tes­tament against Beza, after many reasons alleaged, Castal. de­fens. contra Bezam. pag. 189. concludeth, that vvhereas in our common Creed Christ is said to haue bene first buried, and then to haue gone dovvne to hell, here manifestlie hel and the graue are distinguished. vvherefore it vvere far better in such hard and obscure places, religiously to speake as becommeth an interpreter of the holy Ghost, then vvhiles vve vvil seeme to knovv al thing, to shut vp the vvay to the truer sense, if perhaps aftervvards vve aspire to more knovvledge. And Flacius Illyricus by diligent comparing of the partes & wordes of the text, refelling at large al Bezaes foolish and blind argumentes, Illyric. in Clau. part. 1. in verbo in­fernus. pag. 598.603.604.605. setteth this downe as a more assured veritie. Non est dubium quin [...] Sheol, sepulchrum, infernus, hic pro ipsissimo loco ae­terni exitii ponatur. There is no question, but the hebrevv vvord Sheol here signifieth the verie place of hel.

See D. Hum. iudgement after, in the 14. chap.But what neede I to go so far as Ger­manie for authoritie, whereas there are of your owne Vniuersities, D. Humfrey for Oxford, & an other for Cambridge, [Page 273] of which, the one refuteth learnedly your impietie, the other inueigheth ea­gerly against your passing impudency in this behalf: though the partie whom I meane, in any other thing seeme as far gone as you. Reade M. Carliles Dispu­tation which publikely he maintei­ned in your Vniuersitie, and printed this last yere, directly against the Apos­tolike Creede, against Christs descen­ding in to hel, and see whether he pro­ueth not that of yow which I saie. In one place thus he writeth. Iob c. 33. v. Carlile in his booke, that Christ went not downe to hel. fol. 144. 22. it is said, than man dravveth neere to the graue and his life to the dead. The En­glish bibles haue. The sovvle dravveth to the graue and life to the buriers. The English translations draw men to thinke that Christs soule peris­hed. vvhat a translation is this, to saye, that a mans sovvle dravveth to the graue? do our sovvles go to the graue? can a sovvle corrupt? do not al that go to the graue putrifie? why should they translate the text thus? Thus he. whereof it foloweth, that our English translators in steede of hel geuing vs the graue, & placing our Sauiours sowle there, teach that it did corrupt and perish. Yet M. W. saith, al is wel, this is no fault, al­though by this his owne doctors ver­dite, they say & teach that our Sauiours sowle perished euerlastingly. Againe [Page 274] Dauid psal. Ibid. fo. 117. 30. geueth god thankes for his health vvhich he had recouered, and there­fore saith. O lord, I thanke thee that thou hast deliuered me from the graue. And this place also haue they (in their English translations) hitherto corrupted, O singular puritie of the English Bibles. depraued the sense, obscured the truth, deceaued the igno­rant, and supplanted the simple. for it is She­ol vvhich they translate, hel. The Geneua bi­ble hath thus. Against the immortali­tie of the soule. Thovv hast brought vp my sovvle out of the graue. And the greatest bible. Thovv hast raised my sovvle vp from the graue. VVhat a translation is this? to say that the sovvle is inclosed in the graue and buried vvith the body, vvhich is an impietie to imagine? Ibid. fo. 120. One place more I vvil note out of the same vvriter. Ps. 86. vvhē Da­uid vvas in great daunger of death by Saul, and deliuered, he geueth god thankes vvho had deliuered him from present death and from the graue. The Geneua bible translateth it thus. So transla­teth the Bi­ble of the yere 1579. Thovv hast deliuered my sovvle frō the lovvest graue. vvherein they offend. For nether can the immortal sovvle of man be in­closed in a graue, nether a spiritual thing in a corporal place. The greatest bible translateth it thus. The English translations leade men to detesta­ble errors. Thovv hast deliuered my sovvle from the lovvest part of hel. VVhereon they ground a detestable error, that they should thinke that Dauid a man of perfect faith, of singular [Page 275] vertues, and such a one as vvas vvritten in the booke of life, should imagine that he e­ther should or could go to hell. Much more hath he against your bibles vvhich you so loue as being perfect and immacu­late, and by verie many plaine demon­strations proueth them to be so filthe­lie corrupted, as they rather resemble Mahomets Alcoran, then the vvord of the holie Ghost, and these fevv (to say the truth) proue it sufficiently. Where­fore vpon these faults and many other such, common in the greatest bible, Ibid, fo. 116. and the bible printed at Geneua, he inferreth against your translations and transla­tors vvith great vehemencie, more then M. Martin euer vsed, that in ma­ny places they detort the scriptures from the right sense, they shevv them selues to loue darkenes more then light, & falsehode more then truth.

Novv tovvching particulars, I thinke it needeles to stand vpō euerie word so cōfidentlie allovved by M.W. Because M. Mart. shevveth by good reason the vvickednes of the heretikes in the de­uising of them, & his reasons stād as yet vnanswered. Yet because M.W. simple mā thinketh there is no more daūger in such alteration, then if a man should in [Page 276] translating of Plato or Zenophon vse the like libertie, and turne [...] gratiarum actio, or [...] a secret, let him learne of Beza vvhom he so aduaū ­ceth, Bezaes true iudgment, what harme is like to ensue by a­busing ec­clesiastical words. what daunger ensueth of such no­ueltie. Beza much detesting in others that fantastical and impious vanitie (though he could not perceaue the same in him selfe) thus vvriteth against thē. The vvorld is novv come to that passe, Beza in Act. c. 10. ver. 46. edit. anno 1556. He (or the printer) hath altered some part of these words in the later edi­tiō an. 1565. that not they only vvho vvrite their ovvne dis­courses, refuse the familiar & accustomed wor­des of scripture, as obscure, vnsauery, & out of vse, but also those that trāslate the scripture out of greeke in to latin, challenge vnto them selues the like libertie. So as vvhiles euerie man vvil rather freely folovv his ovvne iudgemēt, then religiously behaue him selfe as the holy Ghosts interpreter, many things they do not conuert, but peruert. For vvhich licen­tiousnes and boldnes except remedy be proui­ded in tyme, ether I am notablie deceaued, or vvithin fevv yeres, in steede of Christians vve shal become Ciceronians, (that is Gen­tiles) and by litle and litle, shal leese the possession of the thinges them selues. In these vvordes Beza teacheth yovv, that this vvanton noueltie of placing secretes for sacraments, and messengers for angels, and ambassadours for Apostles, and vvashing [Page 277] for Baptisme, and thankesgeuing for Eu­charist, and so forth, vvil come to this end, Chaunge of words indu­ceth chaūge of fayth. that in fine yovv vvil vvith the vvordes take avvay the thinges signi­fied, Sacraments, Baptisme, Eucharist, Angels, Apostles, and al Apostolical doctrine, and so in steede of Christians make vs againe Pagans. Whereof be­sides his vvarning, the vvorld hath to much experience already.

And if our deare countrymen would iudge of thinges to come, by trial and euent of thinges past, they must in their owne memorie finde and feele this to be true which Beza here telleth them. For looke what old words you haue vpon newfanglednes (as it might seeme) altered and taken out of the Bible by the working of Satan, those verie thinges you haue remoued from the hartes of men, and cast out of the churches which you haue inuaded. With the name priest, went away the of­fice of priest, with the altar, that which was the proper seruice of God, & done at the altar. with taking away the word penance, you haue withdrawen the peo­ple from al doyng of penance, and in alte­ring the word church, you haue cut them cleane from the church, & more estraun­ged [Page 278] them from the communion of it, then some barbarous and faithles na­tions that neuer heard of Christ. And so likewise for thinges to come, when they see you pricke at the name of an­gels, and begin to leaue out that, and for Christ, to geue them the anointed, and for Apostles, Ambassadours, and for hel, a graue, let them assure them selues that your purpose is, to extinguish in them al faith and memorie of An­gels, Christ, Apostles, Heauen, & Hel, and to bring thē in to the same lamenta­ble state wherein their aūcesters were, when by blessed S. Gregory then Pope, and S. Austin our Apostle, they were first conuerted.

Wherefore seing reason both hu­maine and diuine proueth that to be true which I haue said touching their notorious rashnes in corrupting the scriptures, The summe of such fou­le and eth­nical cor­ruptions, as by reason are proued and by con­fession of the aduersa­ries are graū ted to be in the [...]nglish translatiōs. seing not only reason but also plaine experience confirmeth the same, seing farther the thing is so cleere by reason, and experience, and al lear­ning, that the verie heretikes confesse it, whereas their owne brethren by plaine argumēts proue their ttanslatiōs to be most vvicked, as vvhich labour to peruert the sentence of the holy [Page 279] Ghost, to detort the scriptures from the right sense, to preferre darknes before light & falshode before truth, to deceaue the simple, to induce the mor­talitie of the sovvle, to make men thinke that the sovvle of Christ vvas inclosed in the graue and so buried vvith his bo­dy, to plant detestable errors, to ouer­throvv Gods eternal predestination, to take avvay the beleefe of hel, and cōsequently of heauen, of the extreme iudgment, and of God him selfe, to make vs of Christians Ciceronians, that is, Ethnikes and Infidels, & with alteration of wordes to take from vs al our faith: whereas this is euident and confessed, and yet for al this M.VV. cometh and saith, al this is nothing, these be no faultes, if the Papistes can find fault vvith no other thing but such toyes and tri­fles, I loued our translations vvel before, but novv shal I loue them much better, haec et istiusmodi nugae, nostra crimina sunt, these & the like trifles be our faultes: I can not other­wise iudg of him, but that he is a very Atheist, a plaine Sadducee, without any feeling and regard of faith and con­sciēce, & as it may very wel be thought, The sect of Libertines far spread. of the profession of the sect of Liberti­nes & Academikes, who of late are so far [Page 280] enlarged, to whom are ioyned very many of the finest and most elegant Sacramentaries, of whom he may reade in Beza, who thinke al these questions, of Christ & his office, Beza de hae­reticis a ci­uili magis­tratu puniē ­dis, pa 41. of his cōsubstancialitie vvith the father, of the Trinitie, of predesti­nation, of freevvill, of God, of Angels, of the Supper, of baptisme, of the being of mens sovvles after this lyfe, Right Gos­pellers. These shew vs what is the true mea­ning of only faith iustifying. who thinke I say al these thinges to be but trifles & thinges in­different and not necessarie to iustification vvhich is obteyned by fayth. For these good Gospellers haue a faith, and a iustifiyng faith, whereby they appre­hend eternal life, without father, sonne, and holy Ghost, without Christ and his passion, or any of these other mat­ters, which are rather suttle pointes of the papists historical faith, then of the lyuelie iustifying faith, wherewith these Euangelical brethren in al secu­ritie are warranted of the certayne fauour of God in this life, and assured glory in the next.

[Page 281] HERE M. VV. draweth to that which is his principal scope in this preface, that is to deface the late Translati­on of the new Testament set forth in this Colledge. For although he spend more wordes against M. Martins Dis­couerie, yet he sheweth far more sto­make against this. whereof before I come to speake, order requireth that I examine his disputation against the decree of the Tridentine Councel, Concil. Tri­dent. sessio. 4. which for veritie and sinceritie iustifi­eth & approueth as autentical, the old common latin edition. Against which decree M.VV. thinketh him self to haue good aduantage, and much honor he speaketh of the fountaines, the greeke and hebrew originals, and much he dis­graceth our latin translation & trans­lator, for differing so much ftom those originals.

First of al before I come to his argu­ments, 3. thinges to be noted in this question. I request the reader to carye in mind three thinges touching this con­trouersie, vvhereby he shal the more vprightly & skilfully iudge betvvene vs and our aduersaries. 1 One is, that M. VV. discourse in this common place of praising the fountaines, maketh against [Page 282] him self and his brethren more then against vs. For vvhereas they pretend to translate after the greeke and he­brue, (as vve do not) and yet in sundrie places svvarue from the greeke & he­brue, M.W. dis­course most against him self. this his long idle talke conuin­ceth vs of no faulte, but it condemneth him and his brethren of greate and inexcusable corruption, vvho preten­ding reuerence to the greeke and he­brevv, yet at their pleasure depart frō both. And this is that vvhereof M. Mar. reproueth them in a great part of his Discouerie. Example vvhereof see thou in his preface Num. 16.17.18.23.43.44.45.46.47.48.49.50, 51. and after in euerie chapter of the booke vvelnie: and so much M. Mar. protested to them in the beginning in plaine termes, Discou. in prefat. nu. 39. sayng. And if they folovv sincerely their greeke and hebrevv text, vvhich they professe to folovv, and vvhich they esteeme the only autentical text, so far vve accuse them not of heretical corruption. but if it shal be euidently proued that they shrinke from that also, and translate an other thing, and that vvilfully, and of intention to countenance their false religion and vvic­ked opinions, making the scriptures speake as they list: then vve trust &c. And of this [Page 283] first riseth a second note, 2 which I wish likewise to be remembred, that their deflecting from the greeke, is alwaies in matter of controuersie, and so dis­crieth their malicious wilfulnes. If there be any in the latin, it is no such thing, but in matters (for any cōtrouersie) mere indifferent, and so quiteth the transla­tour of malice and euil meaning, and iustifieth his vpright and plaine sinceri­tie. 3 And hereof ensueth the third, tou­ching our simple and plaine dealing in folowing the latin, that we decline not from the greeke or hebrue, The greeke and hebrew more aduantageable to the Catho­like cause then the la­tin. Pag. 15. because it more harmeth our cause then the la­tin, as the aduersaries gladly pretend and M. W. verie confidently auou­cheth, but only in respect of the truth it self. And thus much also was he told in the preface of the new testament, to wit, that as for other causes vve prefer the latin, In prefa. no­ui testamen. so in this respect of making for vs or against vs, vve allovv the greeke as much as the latin, yea in sundrie places, more then the latin, being assured that they haue not one, and that vve haue many aduantages in the greeke more then in the latin. And this is there manifested by sundrie and verie euident examples, touching traditions, priesthode, iustification by workes, [Page 284] the real presence, fasting, freewil, the mystical sacrifice, and against their on­ly faith and assurance of saluation, wherein the greeke is more pregnant for vs then the latin. Contrarywise let M. VV. frame against the Catho­like religion, or any part thereof, one argument out of the scriptures, which we refuse to stand vnto vpon this pre­tence, because it is in the greeke and not in the latin, and I am content to excuse him here of a lye. Otherwise he can neuer saue him self from a lye, and a lye in sight, to obiect that vnto vs, which nether he nor any of his can proue, and we before hand haue in pre­cise termes warned him of it, and pro­fessed, and proued the contrarie.

And therefore, although in truth (reader) whatsoeuer he saith, & a great deale more, is answered verie suffici­ently and abundantly alreadie in the preface of the Testament, as thow wilt confesse, if it shal please thee with dili­gence to pervse it, and I accompt it a peece of our miserie in this time, to be matched with such blunt aduersaries whose maner of writing is now to cloy vs with crābe recocta, cole vvorts tvvise, yea tē times sodden, & nether thē selues can [Page 285] bring any new stuffe, nor scoure more brightlie or otherwise mend vp their old, nor refel our answeres & confuta­tions made to them, but dissembling any such matter, as though it had neuer bene treated of before, vse to runne idelly, and ministerlike vpon a cōmon place as M. VV. doth here, which is more against them selues then against vs: yet because it is my lotte to deale with him now the first time, and there­fore am loth to pretermit any thing wherein him self seemeth to put any force, I wil take his argumētes as new, and suppose that he neuer read the pre­face of the Testament against which he writeth, and therefore will likewise hereafter borow some part of my an­swere thence.

Two argumentes he maketh against our latin translation, and consequent­ly against vs for folowing the same in our English. The first is, M.W. rea­sons for preferring the hebrew and greeke be­fore the latin. that the foun­taines, vz, the greeke and hebrew, are more pure thē the latin, which he pro­ueth by certaine sentences of S. Hierō, S. Austin, and S. Ambrose. The other is one particular fault, wherein as he sayth, the vulgar translation is vniuer­sallie false, the greeke contrarie is true. [Page 286] Before his arguments he premitteth certaine interrogatories, wherein he seemeth to auouch (if I vnderstand him) that only to be the word of god, which is written in the lāguage where­in first the holy Ghost by the Prophets and Apostles vttered it. That I misre­porte him not, I will set downe his wordes. Pag. 15. Thus he opposeth vs. Quid in­terpretandum suscepistis? nonne scripturas? Quaenam vero sunt scripturae? If the latin testament be not the word of god, whose word are their vulgar tran­slations? quis nescit dei verbum scriptum illud esse &c. VVhat tooke you in hand to interprete? not the scriptures? and vvhat are the scriptures? vvho is igno­rant but that is the vvritten vvord of god, vvhich the lord committed to his church in bookes and letters? and those oracles of god vvere they vttered by the holy Ghost in la­tin? or can they better or more diuinely be declared in any tonge, then that vvhich the holy Ghost vvould vse? where vnto I an­swere, that if his questions haue such meaning & sense as the wordes beare, and may stand ful wel with his skil and knowledge, then are they not so much fantastical as phrenetical. For accoun­teth he nothing the vvritten vvord of god, but that vvhich is in hebrevv and greeke, and vvas vvritten by the pro­phetes and Apostles in that language? [Page 287] Then vvhat meaneth he, and the rest of his Euāgelical confraternitie so per­petuallie to brag, that they haue geuen vs nothing but the pure vvord of the lord, vvho haue geuen vs nothing but their ovvne contaminated translati­ons in English, French, Flēmish, Dutch and such vulgar languages? Is this the word of God M. W? vttered the holy Ghost his oracles euer in Flēmish or English? why inscribe yow your En­glish testamente, The testamente of our Lord Iesus Christ, An assertiō both foo­lish and im­pious. if nothing but the greeke or hebrue be the written word and testament of god? But let this passe for an example of his singular foo­lishnes, speaking he knoweth not what. See we herein an other example of his notable impietie. The Apo­stles and E­uangelists cited scrip­ture, not ac­cording to the hebrew. Our Sauiour Christ, the Euangelistes and Apostles when they cited places of the old testa­ment, not according to the fountaines & hebrue, but according to the Septua­ginta, cited they not scripture? Rom. 10. v. 18. Linea corū. [...] In omnem terram (saith the apostle Paule) exiuit sonus eorum. Their sound is gone forth in to al the vvorld. whereas in the hebrew now it is far othervvise, and othervvise your selues translate it in your later bible, their line is gone forth. Anno 1575. although in the [Page 288] bible of the yeare 1577. ye leaue the hebrew and folovv vs. Act. 13. v. 41. Take heede (saith the same Apostle) lest that fal vpon you vvhich is spoken in the Prophetes: [...]. Heb. in gen­tibus. See ye con­temners, and vvonder and perish. which wordes in the hebrew are nothing so. Shal we saie this is not scripture, [...] and the Apostle abused his audience, and according to M. VV. diuinitie must needes tel them a lye, when he telleth them, this saith the Prophete, this saith Esaie, this Ieremie &c. because he citeth the wordes not according to the origi­nal, but according to the translation of the 70. which many times much vari­eth from that which we find now in the original? The Apostle S. Iames repro­uing the prowde and loftie mindes of some, bringeth this text of scripture against them. Iac. 4. v. 6. deus superbis resistit, humili­bus autem dat gratiam, translated in your English testaments thus. The scrip­ture offereth more grace, and therefore saith. God resisteth the proude, and geueth grace to the humble. vvhich vvordes are taken out of the Prouerbes of Salomon, Prouerb. ca. 3. ver. 34. but not according to the hebrevv, but after the 70. Caluin. in Iacob. ca. 4. vvhich Caluin cut cleane a­vvay and leaft out of his translation, ether for this reason vvhich you geue, [Page 289] or because (belike) they agreed not vvel vvith his proude and disdainful stomake, Caluin mā ­gleth S. Ia­mes epistle. notvvithstanding they re­maine in the greeke testaments printed at Geneua. But by your argument he doth wel therein, and saueth S. Iames from a manifest lie, who affirmeth the scripture to speake so, whereas by yow, it is no scripture. And then it were wel done of yow to mend your testaments at the next edition, and leaue out this so cleare a falshode, except yow retaine it of policie, that at a neede yow may haue one more reason to refuse this epistle, which we see graueleth yow so sore. I wil not multiplie exāples, be­cause it is a thing most euident, and he knoweth litle that knoweth not this to be the common maner both of some Euangelists, & of S. Peter and S. Paule generallie, to cite the scripture in this sort. VVhereof S. Paules epistle to the Hebrues in euerie chapter almost ge­ueth proofe, 1. Pet. ca. 2.3. & 5. Beza in Ioh. c. 19. v. 37. as likewyse doth the first of S. Peter, and Beza graunteth the same of the Euangelists, & the auncient fa­thers affirme both the one & the other. Ireneus l. 3. cap. 25.

And what neede I to presse M. W. with sentences, whereas I may dispute against him out of whole chapters [Page 290] and bookes. For let vs suppose some part of the old testament to haue bene written first in hebrew or chaldee, as is a part of Daniel, and to haue bene translated into greeke or latin, after­wardes the chaldee or hebrue to perish, the greeke or latin to remaine: as for ex­ample we see in the bookes of Tobie, Iudith, and one booke of the Macha­bees. Hier. prefat. in Tobiam, Iudith. & li. Regum. The two first of which, S. Hie­rom translated out of the chaldee, the third he found (though he translated it not) written in hebrue. And the like is thought verie probably of the songe of the three children. Shal we now be so fond as to imagine, that as so one as the hebrue or chaldee was lost, we lost our scriptures? S. Mat. wro­te the Gos­pel in He­brew. then what saie you to S. Matthewes gospel, which certainly was written by him in hebrue, as wit­nesseth Apud Euseb. l 3. c. 33 Ire­ne. li. 3. ca. 1. Euseb. lib. 2. ca. 18. Papias, Ireneus, Eusebius, li. 5. c. 19. Pā ­tenus, l. 6. c. 19. Origenes, in argumēt. in Mat c. in catal. Sophronius, Mt. gospel in hebrew set forth by Munster and Quin­quarboreus. S. Hie­rom and al antiquitie. Haue we not S. Matthewes gospel, because vve haue not his hebrue text? nay presuppose that a gospel of S. Matthevv in hebrue may be found, as you knovv such a one is extant, and setting aside the autho­ritie of the Church, (vvhich to yovv is nothing) no reason can be brought, but [Page 291] yovv ought as vvel to admit that for the original, as the greeke of S. Luke and S. Iohn: yet dare yovv prefer that before the greeke, and count that the more autētical, & reforme the greeke according to that hebrue? this one ex­ample if M. VV. had the grace to con­sider, and the ground hereof, it vvere sufficient to ansvvere vvhatsoeuer he saith in his idle discourse in praise of the greeke & hebrue for defacing the latin. But let vs examine his reason vvherein lieth the pith of this questiō.

Thus he declaimeth for the puritie of the greeke and hebrue. Pag. 15. VVhereas vve couet to attaine the meaning of the holy Ghost, hovv shal vve do this more assuredly, then if vve heare the holy Ghost speaking in his ovvne vvordes. This is so cleare that the Pa­pistes them selues confesse it to be necessarie, if so be the first original copies vvere pure & vncorrupt. For now they crie that the old tes­tament in the hebrue fountaine, and the nevv testament in the greeke, is most corrupt. & vvhy so? vvhat causeth our Papistes so to refuse the hebrue and greeke fountaine, and to hunt after the litle riuer of the latin edi­tion? vvho doubteth, but it is done for that only reason, because they find the fountaines to be not so commodious for them. For if they [Page 292] had the fountaines fauorable inough, they vvould rather take thence, then from the di­ches and dregges of a corrupt translation. It had bene valiantly done of M. W. by one example to haue made this con­quest ouer vs. Novv because they knovv that certaine des­truction hangeth ouer their heads, if they be called to the fountaines, therefore are they constrained not only to auoyde the spring of the purest and most holesome vvaters, but also they labour to proue that the litle riuers are purer then the fountaines. Here (Rea­der) thou hast many wordes and litle matter, much a doe and smale reason, much craking and boasting of the pure fountaines, by one who from his infan­cie neuer dranke but of the stinking puddles of Geneua lake. In which dis­course of his, three thinges may be lear­ned. 1 First, that he confesseth of vs that we refuse not the fountaines, but be­cause we thinke them to be corrupt. Wherein he saith truly, and whereby thou maist note, that in folowing the latin as we doe, we are lead not as they are, by fansie and panges, but by consci­ence and iudgment. 2 The second is, that he affirmeth it as a thing without al doubt, that thus we say, because the foūtai­nes be not so cōmodious for vs. once againe, because the fountaines are not fauorable inough vnto vs. and yet once againe, be­cause [Page 293] vve knovv there is no vvay vvith vs but death and destruction, if vve he called to the fountaines. whereof because I haue spokē alreadie, I wil say no more. only this may serue for an example what a lustie courage they can shew in bragging, and what a pretie feate they haue, in so few lynes to varie a lye so many wayes. And if M. W. had geuen but one example, wherein he by his hebrue & greeke text could so plage vs, and bring vs certam perniciem, assured des­truction, he had done somewhat like a professor of this new diuinitie, and it were a readie way to end al these con­trouersies. Because he doth not (and I dare warrant him he can not) for the contrarie part, that the greeke is more cōmodious and fauorable to vs then to them, see thou (Christian reader) the preface of the new testament, and thou shalt find it iustified by sundrie manifest examples. and touching the hebrue somewhat shal be spoken hereafter. 3 Thirdly, wherein is the state of this questiō, he telleth vs that the foūtaines are most pure and holesome, the latin edition most corrupt and infected. By the fountaines he meaneth the vulgar hebrue and greeke as they are now [Page 294] commonly printed, which they pretend to folow. By the latin edition, that which is vsed in the Church of Rome, and hath bene these thousand yeres, and is approued by the general Coun­cel of Trent.

To the end thou mayst the better iudge of that which shal be spokē, thus much must I warne thee of before, tou­ching the historical knowledge of this cōtrouersie, that whereas in S. Aug. & S. Hieroms tyme, there was maruelous varietie of new Testamentes in latin, whereof rose some confusion and trou­ble in the Church, that godly and lear­ned man Damasus then Pope of Rome and ruler of the Church, S. Hierom author of our commō edition of the new te­stament, and that by the Popes appointe­ment. tooke order with S. Hierom, that he should correct one before vsed, which otherwise was least faultie, which afterwardes should be commended to the Church by that supreme authoritie. Thus much S. Hie­rom signifieth in diuers places, In catal. in fine, & praef. in nouum testamentum. espe­ciallie in his preface before the new Testament dedicated to the same Pope Nouum opus (saith he) me facere cogis ex veteri &c. You cōstraine me to make a nevv vvorke of an old, that I after so many copies of the scriptures, dispersed thorough the vvorld, should sit as a certaine iudge, and [Page 295] determine vvhich of them agree vvith the true greeke. And afterwardes shewing the difficultie of such a worke, how daungerous it was and subiect to the reprehensions of many, he comforteth him self principally with this: That thou (speaking to Damasus) vvhich art the high priest, doest commaūd it so to be done. Tu qui summus es sacerdos fieri iubes. This vvorke vvhen S. Hierom had accom­plished, and deliuered vp, yet nether vvas his iudgment so absolutely and vniuersally in euery part folovved, that vvithout farther search and trial it was by & by approued. But at length after due examination and some alte­ration of lesser pointes, as we find by S. Hierom him self, being approued by the Pope & allowed by the Church, it grew to a more general vsage, and to be most frequented in publike wri­tinges, commentaries, scholes, and al places of Christian excercise. This is that which we cal the common latin edition, which, albeit it haue some pla­ces translated obscurely, some vnaptly, some copies corrupted by false wri­ting or printing &c. yet comparing it with the greeke now extant, we say it is far more pure and vncorrupt, and no­thing [Page 296] so subiect to cauilling & wrang­ling by great diuersitie of different co­pies. The old te­stament. The like we say of the old testa­ment, a great part where of was transla­ted by S. Hierom by order of the same Pope, most of al corrected and brought in to ecclesiastical vse: sauing the psal­mes, which could not be done so easely because thoroughout Christēdom, the principal part of the Seruice in al chur­ches consisted of them, and therefore could not wel be altered without much trouble and scandal, Aug. de doc­trina Chris­tian. li. 2. ca. 13. & epi. 10 ad Hieron. as we gather by S. Austin, and which therefore we retaine stil as they were vsed in the primitiue church long before S. 4. things hā ­deled in this questiō Hieroms time according to the version of the 70. Touching both these Testaments trans­lated and corrected thus, we say. 1 First, that against them M. W. in his long dis­course of allegations, speaketh neuer a word, and so speaketh neuer a word to the purpose. 2 Secondarely, that they are purer thē are the fountaines which we now haue, whereof this man speaketh so much, and (for ought may appeare) vnderstandeth but litle. 3 Next, that how so-euer some smale faultes may be found in them, absolutely they haue no error touching ether doctrine or maners. [Page 297] 4 Last of al, that to refuse them, and ap­peale from them to the greeke and he­brue as the heretikes do, is the high way to denial of all faith, to Apostasie from Christ his religion, and so to plaine Atheisme. These foure pointes I wil brieflie touch in order.

5 The first is, that M. VV. in al his long talke about the fountaines speaketh neuer a word to the purpose against vs, That M. W. speaketh neuer a word to the purpose. but rather much & al against him self. For if the fountaines were so pure in the times of S. Hierom and S. Am­brose, and the church then troubled vvith the great diuersitie of their latin bibles, reformed one to the puritie of the fountaines and originals, and vve novv find those fountaines and origi­nals differing frō that reformed bible, vvhy shal vve not conclude, that the fountaines haue in the meane season bene corrupted? not so, saith M. W. More probable that the hebrew is corrupt thē the latin. but contraryvvise, rather the latin bibles haue bene corrupted. VVhat reason leadeth him thus to speake? vvhat pro­babilitie moueth him to imagine, that so many hundred yeres, hebrue bookes could continue vvithout error, being vvritten out by a fevv, and they for the most part Iewes, ignorant, enemies [Page 298] of Christ and his Church, destitute of the spirite of God, men geuen ouer in to a reprobate sense, rather then the latin publikely read, expounded by thowsandes in euerie prouince of the Christian vvorld, The church warranted, that she should euer keepe the word of God. garded by infinite good men, by Sainctes for life, and full of the holy Ghost, liuing in that church vvherein properly vvas fulfil­led the prophecie of Esaie made by God to Christ his sonne, & to his Catholike Church in him. Esaie 59. This is my couenant vvith them saith our lord▪ my spirit vvhich is in thee, and the vvordes vvhich I haue put in thy mouth, shal not depart from thy mouth, and from the mouth of thy seede, & from the mouth of thy seedes seede saith our Lord, from this tyme forth for euermore. Wherein God promiseth the Church, that she shal be a faithful and perpe­tual obseruer of his vvord and testa­ment. Which vvarrant you neuer find made in like sorte to the synagoge. But this notwithstanding you perhaps prefer this synagoge before the Church, and Iewes before the Christians, that is in effect, Moyses before Christ, and therefore are content to speake and thinke more honorably of them vvith vvhom you ioyne more nylie, and to [Page 299] vvhom you beare a better affection▪ yet hovv soeuer your minde be there­in, S. Hierom cōmending the hebrue fountaines in his time, maketh nothing in the world for you in these daies, except he say, that in al ages to come, the hebrue should remaine stil pure and incontaminate, and the latin should a­gaine be corrupted, and the Church though warned by the trouble which she susteined in his time about that matter, yet afterwardes should cōtemne so pretious a thing as the written word of God is, and runne in to a far greater inconuenience then before, & through extreme negligence, nether haue the latin bible true which once was refor­med and made agreable to the hebrue, nor yet the hebrue bible true, by which she might once againe mende and cor­rect the latin.

And here let the reader waigh whe­ther we thinking of the Church as we doe, Ioan. 14. & 16. Praise of the Romai­ne Church, for holding fast the true doctrine once deli­uered. thinking of Christes promise and the assistance of the holy Ghost as christian faith teacheth vs, whereby we are most assuredly perswaded that she neuer erreth, nor euer can erre damna­bly, whether we, I say, haue not great reason to support our opinion which [Page 300] here we defend. Caluin. inst. l. 4. c. 6. ¶. 26. Caluin in his Institu­tions recounting certaine causes why the auncient writers speake so reuerently and yeld so much to the Romane church, amongst other putteth this for one. That vvhereas the churches of the East part and of Greece, as also of Africa, vvereful of tumultes and dissensions amonge them selues, the Romane church vvas more quits then other, and lesse troublesome. Vnto this reason dra­wen from humane wi­sedome, set the Christiā reader adde Christes prayer. Luc. 22. v. 32 I haue pra­yed &c. that thy fayth faile not. For as the vvesterne people are lesse sharp & quick of vvit then they of Asia and Africa, so much lesse desyrous are they of nouelties. This therefore added very much authoritie to the Romane church, that in those doubtful times she vvas not so vnquiet as vvere the other, Doctrinae semel tradi­tae suit aliis omnibus tenacior. and the doctrine once deliuered to her, she held and retayned more fast then did all the rest. This grace of constancy in the faith and truth once receaued, when as the aduersaries yeld to the Romane church, The Greeke church not comparable to the Ro­mane. and reproue the Oriental and greeke church for lightnes, inconstan­cie, & mutabilitie in the same kind, we who beleeue the same grace of god to haue stil remained, haue iust occasion to thinke that she was as tenax, as con­stant in preseruing the truth of the bi­bles, as of other parts of religiō, where­in by Caluines verdite she excelled al [Page 301] churches vnder the sunne. And if the greeke churches then, in that prime flower, were so mutable and incōstant and so far inferior to the latin, in this respect especiallie of holding fast mat­ters of religion once deliuered vnto them, with what iudgement or consci­ence can we magnifie the later ages of those Greekes, who much more haue deflected from the Catholike & Apos­tolike faith, haue more decayed in lear­ning, vertue, and al good qualities, haue degenerated almost in to a barbarisme, and are now fallen in to such miserie, ignorance, and slauery, as euerie man seeth: much lesse can we mention in this comparison the Iewes Synagog, who hauing the maledictiō of god vpō them, Math. [...]5. as many times our Sauiour fore­told in the gospel, are not only quite destitute of the graces of god, but also for the most part seeme altogether void of the giftes of nature, of vvit, iudge­ment, policie, and ordinarie humane discourse.

But al this vvil M.W. say, is but con­iecture. and as probablie he disputeth against it for the contrarie part, that in the hebrue and greeke there is no cor­ruption. For if it be so, Pag. 20. that the Ievves and [Page 302] heretikes haue laboured so much herein, vvho can doubt but they haue attempted this especially in these places and sentences of scriptures, vvhich the Church of Christ most vsed for confirmation of her faith and religi­on? There are most euident testimonies of scriptures, by vvhich the Ievves and all he­retikes are refuted. tel vs vvhat in them haue those men peruerted, but that they re­maine vnto vs safe and sound. Neuer vvould other Ievv or heretike corrupt the scriptures, except he thought that might be to him some vvaie commodious for the mainteining of his monstruous opinions. VVherefore seing those places are safe by vvhich the Ievves are re­felled, and the heretikes of al times are killed, this must needes seeme a fained tale, vncredi­ble, and false, vvhich you bring, that the fountaines are corrupted. To satisfie M.W. longing, who would so faine know wherein the Iewes or heretikes haue falsified the bibles, I wil seuerally geue him examples, some sithence S. Hie­roms tyme, and some before, and ac­knovvledged by S. Hierom him self, from whom M. W. taketh most in com­mendation of the hebrue fountaines.

2 That the hebrew bibles are in some places cor­rupted.And that those fountaines are some­what infected, and degenerated from that puritie which they had in S. Hie­roms [Page 303] time and before, I proue by eui­dent reason, manifest experimentes, & plaine confessions of our more learned aduersaries. First touching the hebrue, S. Hierom read and translated accor­ding to the ordinarie reading and poin­ting of his time, Esaie 9. Esa. 9. Puer datus est nobis, et filius natus est nobis, et vocabitur nomen eius, admirabilis, consiliarius, Deus, fortis, pater futuri saeculi, princeps pacis. A child is geuen to vs, and a Sonne is borne to vs, and he shalbe called Admirable, a Coun­seller, God, Strong, Father of the vvorld to come, Prince of peace. And in his commen­tarie expressing euerie word, he ma­keth no doubt of any other reading. Forsake the latin, and go to your Iewes and their hebrue fountaines now, and what find you? pro thesaur [...], carbones. Thus. Puer datus est nobis, et filius natus est nobis, et vocabit nomen eius qui est admira­bilis, consiliarius, deus, fortis, et pater aeter­nitatis vel futuri seculi, principem pacis. VVhereby is taken from Christ, as prin­cipal a testimonie of his diuinitie, as any we find in the old testament. And whence cōmeth this alteratiō, but from the iniquitie of the Iewes, who haue al­tered the passiue, vocabitur, [...] into the ac­tiue, vocabit, & geuē other pointes then [Page 304] were vsed or read in S. Luth. tom. 4. enarration. Esa. cap. 9. Hieromes time. And this, Luther confesseth manifestly. Totus hic textus miserè & sceleratè (saith he) a Iudaeis est crucifixus &c. The Iewes corrupters and crucifi­eis of such places of scripture as appertaine to Christ. This vvhole text is miserably and vilanouslly crucified, & depraued, and corrupted by the Ievves. For as the child him self vvas crucified of them, so by the same men both this place, and Scriptura eius. his scripture, (or scripture appertayning to him) is daily crucified. The prophete attributeth six names to the child and sonne, the Ievves reade the first fiue in the nominatiue case, the sixt in the accusatiue, and they al expound it of Ezechias, 4. Reg. 19. vnder whom God gaue that great victorie against Sēnacherib. And in the same place. The text seemeth to haue bene corrupted by those that put to the points. The letters vvhether ye reade them vvith pointes or vvithout pointes are alone, and the grammer doth beare it vvel, but the Ievves most pestilent men, oft tymes corrupte sentences of the prophetes by their pointes & distinctions. But let it suffice vs that the Chal­dee interpreter, and the 70. thinke as vve do.

Thus Luther, condemning of vile corruption on your pure originals, & ge­uing withal this general rule, that the Iewes most pestilent men haue no consci­ence in that foule abusing, and altering, and crucifying the scriptures, no more [Page 305] then they had in crucifying Christ, and that therefore he preferreth the Septu­aginta and Chaldee interpreter before al the hebrew copies. VVhich reason touching Luther and the Protestantes is nothing at al. For the Chaldee inter­preter is no more the hebrevv original then is Luthers translation. And the translatiō of the 70. which is now ex­tant, besides that it is ful of diuersitie & not of the Catholikes esteemed to be altogether autentical, is much more of Luther and the Protestants condem­ned. For of them thus he writeth in the same commentarie. 70 interpretes digni sunt odio &c. The 70. Luth. in Esa. ca. 53. v. 11. fol. 282. interpreters are vvorthie of hatred, for I can not beleeue, & it is false that they translated and turned the bible by the holy Ghost: for there appea­reth in them manifest vanitie, impietie & studie to corrupt it. Thus Luther. VVhere in though he rayle to fowly, yet hereof appeareth how much he esteemeth of the 70. And the true ground, whereby both Luther and the Protestants hold this so singular a peece of scripture against the Iewes, is nether the Chaldee interpreter, nor the 70. as Luther pre­tendeth, nor the hebrew fountaine which is worse, but that, whereby we [Page 306] retaine al scriptures, that is the chur­ches authoritie and warrant, who tes­tefieth vnto vs that this is the letter of the prophete, as Lyra from whom Lu­ther borowed his answere teacheth. Thus he writeth. In this place of Esaie is proued the humanitie and diuinitie of Christ, Lyra. proba. diuinita­tis & humanita­tis Christi contra Iu­daeos, in fine glos. noui testamenti. but the Ievves ansvvere sayng, it is not in the hebrue, He shal be called, but, he shal cal, and so that vvhich directly expresseth the diuinitie is not referred to the child borne, but to the true god calling him, and the name of the child is put in the end of the place, that is, [...] Principem pacis, prince of peace. But they that thus say corrupt the text. therefore vve must run to the translations. And first that this is false, is proued by the 70. vvho translate, vocabitur, he shal be called, and by S. Hierom. And thus it is read in the office of the masse vpon Christemas daie, and that office for the most part, folovveth the trāsla­tion of the 70. Translatiōs, truer then the original text. And by this translation it is cleare that the hebrue should not be, vocabit, but vocabitur, as these vvil haue it corrup­ting the text. And the same is proued by the Chaldee translation. VVhere the churches authoritie is the supreme groūd & staye, for in deede the other cōuince nothing, as shal better appeare heareafter.

An other example of like corrupti­on, [Page 307] and in as high and great a point as this, against the diuinitie of our Saui­our, I geue you, Ierem. 23. where S. Hierom did reade and translate accor­ding to the hebrew, thus. Ierem. 23. v. 5.6. Ecce dies veni­unt dicit dominus, et suscitabo Dauid germē iustum, er regnabit rex, et sapiens erit. et hoc est nomen quo vocabunt eum, dominus iustus &c. as in our vulgar translation. Behold the daies come sayth our lord, and I vvil raise to Dauid a iust branch, and he shal raigne, as a king, and shal be vvise. & this is the name by vvhich they shal cal him, Our iust lord, or, the lord our iustice. where the name Tetragrammaton, attributed to our incarnate Sauiour, proueth that he is the [...] or lord god of Israel, wherein the two natures diuine and humane appeare most euidently. S. Hierom in the text putteth a double rea­ding, one after the hebrew, an other af­ter the 70. Vpon the place, Hier. in Ier. ca. 23. v. 6. in his com­mentarie he writeth thus. If vve reade according to the 70, Vocauerit eū Dominus, the sense is, he shal be called Iosedech, a iust lord: if according to the hebrue, nomen eius vocabunt, then the sense is, He shal be called the lord our iustice. The thing which I note, is the word, vocabunt, they shal cal him: which in S. Hieromes time was the [Page 308] hebrevv reading, and touching Christ his diuinitie is of that consequence as hath bene said. In the hebrew text now, it is cleane otherwise, and vpon one point and letter chaunged, thus it is to be translated. God ( [...]) vvho is our ius­tice, [...] shal cal him: whereby is lost al the proofe of Christs diuinitie, which that so pregnant a place otherwise should yeld. And that this fault is like­wise committed by the like malice of the Iewes, and the true reading is to be taken from our latin translation, Lyra in the place aforesaid, sheweth in these wordes. Other names of God are communi­cable vvith creatures, but the name Te [...]ra­grammaton is not so, Lyra vbi supra. vvhich signifieth the di­uine essence, pure & simple in it selfe vvith­out relation to external vvorks or creatures, and therefore vvhereas Christ is called by this name in the place of Ieremie, it folovv­eth that he is true God. The Iewes corrupt the letter of the scripture. But the Ievves an­svvere by corrupting the letter, sayng, that thus it is in the hebrevv, Et hoc est nomen eius qui vocabit eum, Dominus iustus noster. And this is the name of him that shal cal him, Our iust lord: so that the name Tetragrāmaton vvhich in our translatiō is turned, Dominus, is not re­ferred to Messias the sonne of Dauid, but to the true God, who called Messias to deliuer his people. [Page 309] And how goeth Lyra against this di­stinction? saith he the Iewes are honest men, & haue kept their bibles pure and vncorrupted, and in respect of them, al the latin bibles are most contaminate, after the paterne of M. VV? Nay, far otherwise. notwithstanding he knew the hebrew bibles and tong in an other maner of degree and perfection (as be­ing him selfe a natural borne Iewe) then M. W. or any of his great clearkes who vaunt so much of a litle, yet he re­plieth thus. Contra istam solutionem non potest argui &c. Against this solution a man can not argue, but by shevving them that here they corrupt the true letter and deny the truth, because they vvil deny Christs di­uinitie. And this might best be done by old bibles vvhich vvere not corrupt in this pas­sage and in others in vvhich mentiō is made of Christs diuinitie, if a man could come by any such. And thus our forefathers disputed against them out of this place and the like. Al bibles corrupt in this place. And although I neuer yet savv any bible of the Ievves vvhich is not corrupted in this place, yet I haue heard of men vvorthie of credit by reason of their life, conscience, and knovvledge, vvho haue svvorne that they haue seene it so in old bibles as it is in S. Hie­roms translation. But if a man can not get [Page 310] any such bibles vncorrupt, then must vve runne to other trāslations, vvhich the Ievves vvith reason cā not deny. And the 70. reade as doth S. Hierom, as appeareth by our Eccle­siastical office. Here againe M. W. may see the foule & monstruous corruptiō of the Iewes in these fountaines and ori­ginals, vniuersally in al their hebrew bi­bles. Vniuersally I say, for if in our daies some one or other print be corrected, that correction hath bene made in res­pect of the latin Church, which hath kept the truth of doctrine, & therefore preserued the true letter, not in respect of the Iewes, vvho altogether (as witnes­seth Lyra) corrupted the true letter, because they vvould deny Christs diuinitie.

One exāple more I geue him in an o­ther kynd, which neuertheles importeth vs as much as do these former of Christ his deitie. It is touching his passion and our redemption, and sheweth that the Protestantes them selues esteeme more of our translatiō, not only then of al the hebrew bibles which are now currant, but also then those that were in S. Hie­roms time. And therefore to answere your misapplied allegations by your owne English translations, confer you your English bibles in the 53. chapter [Page 311] of Esaie, with your hebrew fountaines. Our translation hath thus. Esa. 53. v. 8. Generationem eius quis enarr abit? quoniam abscissus est de terra viuentium: propter scelus populi mei percussi eum. VVho shal declare his genera­tion? for he is cut of from the land of the li­uing: for the sinne of my people haue I smitten him. A plaine testmonie, that God laid vpon our Sauiour, our iniquities, which is the sūme of the chapter: that he there­fore was true man, and withal (as before is declared) that he was true God, whose generation was inexplicable. for so do the fathers cōmonly expound that parcel. So that in this one verse, we haue the true effect of Christs death and passion, besides his diuine and hu­maine nature. The 70. translate it thus, [...], Hierom. in Esa. ca. 53. for the iniquities of my people, he vvas lead to death. The hebrew bibles in S. Hieroms time, did reade thus. Generationem &c. propter scelus populi mei percussit eos. For the sinne of my people he stroke them. The hebrew bibles in our time, though in sense agree, yet in reading seeme to dif­fer, hauing thus: [...] A preuaricatione populi mei plaga, vel percussio ipsis. Because of the transgression of my people, a vvound vvas geuen to them. which inuerteth the sense, [Page 312] and maketh a great alteration, as euerie man may see. The English bible of the yere 1577. Bib. 1577. translateth it: vvhich punish­ment did go vpon him for the transgression of my people. 1579. of the yere 1579. For the trans­gression of my people vvas he plagued. And this sense commonly others folow, as Castalio, the French, the Geneua bible &c. which is the sense & word of our la­tin translation, not of the hebrew text. Only the English translator of the yere 1562. Bib. 1562. foloweth nether the 70. not greeke, nor latin, but the brainsicke fan­sie of his owne head, making a mingle mangle, and thrusting in a patch of his owne. The English translations adde to the text. Thus he goeth to worke. vvhose generation yet vvho may number? he vvas cut of from the ground of the liuing, vvhich punishmēt did go vpon him for the transgres­sion of my people, vvho in deede had deserued that punishment. where in deede he de­serueth a whippe, & plaieth not only a foolish, but also a wicked part, in adding that later sentence to the text, only because he would seeme to come some­what nye the hebrew, which for al that he toucheth not. Luther, vvho folo­vveth the error of the hebrew copies, exclaimeth vpō the Iewes for their old spitful & malicious māgling of this text [Page 313] as of many other. Luther to. 4. in Esa. c. 53. Thus he translateth & cōmenteth vpon it. Propter trāsgressiones populi mei plaga eis. for the sinnes of my people a vvoūd to them. This place is somevvhat ob­scure and hard, because of the novvne of the plural nūber, lamo. The 70. read pro sua iu­stitia, vel potius malitia ductus est ad mortē. For his iustice, or rather malice he vvas lead to death. Wherein I marueile at Luthers reading of the 70. For S. Hierom ci­teth them far othervvise, and far other­vvise is it in the common prints novv extāt, for ought I can find. Which agree vvith the citation of S. Hier. before no­ted. But proceede we on. Our interpreter (saith Luther, meaning the latin vsed in the Church) turneth it thus: propter peccata populi mei per cussi eum. For the sinnes of my people haue I smitten him. An excellent sen­tence, but the Grammar doth not vvel beare it. Much here are vve beholding to the deuil and to the Ievves, vvho haue not only depra­ued filthily, but also cōfoūded this as much as is possible, by their diuisions. And those that studie hebrevv must note this, that the Ievves vvheresoeuer they can, depraue the meaning of the prophete by their vvicked expositions, vvhere they can not do so, by their distincti­ons or diuisions: as in Daniel, The 70. vveeks are abbridged, there a man vvith his fingers [Page 314] may feele their corruption, vvhere they sepa­rate and teare a sunder these thinges that are to be ioyned, The Iewes corrupt the scripture, in despite of Christians. and al this, in despite of the Christians. VVherefore I leaue this to those that be studious of the hebrevv tōge, that they marke the malice of the deuil and the Rab­bines, vvhose only studie and labour is to de­praue, teare a sunder, and turne vpside dovvne the prophetical and Christian sense. In vvhich chapter againe he calleth them corruptores scriptorum propheticorum, corrupters of the vvritings of the prophetes. And in this one place besides the au­thoritie of Luther, besides the general rules vvhich he deduceth, vvilling vs euer to bevvare of the Rabbines and Ievves, vvhose vvhole studie is to a­buse & deface the scriptures in despite of vs and our religion, and therefore smale reason hath M. W. to make so much of them as he doth: [...]. maners of corruption. I note tvvo sortes and maners of their corruption. 1 The first is, by plaine alteratiō of points and letters and sillables. For certaine it is, our translator and the 70. neuer trāslated these hebrew vvordes vvhich now stand in this text, or as vve find in S. Hierom. 2 The second, vvhich speci­ally Luther noteth in Daniel, is by di­uiding vvordes vvhich by the prophete [Page 315] vvere ioyned, vvhich is as vile and des­perate a corruption as may be. So for exāple, Seruetus auoided the authori­tie of the Apostle S. Paule, Rom. 9. v. 5. affirming Christ to be God. For being vrged vvith these vvordes: Ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia deus benedictus in secula: Of vvhom (that is of the Ievves race) is Christ according to the flesh, vvho is God blessed for euer: which contayne a sure testimonie that Christ vvas not only man, as Seruetus vvould haue him, but also God most blessed, he vvel acquainted vvith Be­zaes maner of correcting the testamēt, ansvvered after this Ievvish tricke: that he beleeued vvith al his hart vvhat so euer S. Paule that elect vessel of the Lord had vvritten. Sixtus Se­nensis in bibliotheca sancta. lib. 8. pag. 646. mary it seemed to him that S. Paule said not so, and plea­ded his greeke testament vvhere thus stoode that sentence. [...]. of vvhom is Christ according to the flesh, vvho is aboue al. And there making a ful distinction, then folovveth the rest as a thankesgeuing. The Lord be pray­sed for euer. amen. And thus haue the. Ievves done in very many places of scripture by Luthers verdicte.

[Page 316]Sundrie other particular errors could I note vnto thee (Christiā reader) in the hebrew, had I but a peece of that insolent vaine which many of our ad­uersaries haue, and vvherein they tri­umphe against men of great and excel­lent learning, such as of vvhom they & I shal (I doubt) neuer be vvorthie to be named scholers (example vvhereof take thou Charkes scornful abusing of Father Campian in the Tower, for ig­norance in such trifles as these are) or were I disposed to disgrace the foun­taines and originals, which I am not, but honour them as I may, and sauing the euident truth and faith of Christ, which standeth fast and vnmoueable, though heauen and earth fall, much more though the Iewish Pharisees and Scribes write their text amisse, this cause & faith I say foreprised, I esteeme of them, as of things deseruing much studie and reuerence: because how soeuer some grosse errors, partly of ma­lice, partly of ignorance, haue crept in, yet commonly and for the most part, the text I hold to be true and sincere. And againe I suppose this kinde of writing can not be but tedious to the English reader, whose profit I princi­pally [Page 317] intend, General reasons why the hebrue text can not be so since­re as the ad­uersarie would pre­tend. and therefore will go from these particularities so far as I may, to talke of a few resonable & the same general arguments and questions, wherein M.W. if he haue some part of that wit, intelligence, and modestie, which a scholer & diuine should haue, wil not I hope much stande against me.

1 And first gladly would I learne of him, what reason he and his fellowes haue, why they should thinke the he­brew text to be so inuiolate, so sincere, and vpright? is it because of Gods pro­mise and prouidence, or of mans circū ­spection and wisdome? if because of Gods promise, where finde they any such? how many examples in the scrip­tures haue they to the contrarie? whole bookes of the prophetes are perished, bookes of singular cōmoditie, & made by Gods owne appointment, and they perished then, in that time of the sina­goge, when Iacob vvas the peculiar people of God, and Israel the lot of his inheritance, Deut. 52. v. 9 Exod. 19. v. 6 when of al nations they vvere to God a holy nation, a kingly priesthode, Act. 14. v· 15. when al other people vvere suffered to go their ovvne vvaies, & the Iewes only were in Gods special protection. For touching the bookes of the auncient prophets som­time [Page 318] extant, and now not appearing, we reade cōmonly in the old testamēt. as of Num. 21. v. 14. Liber bellorum domini, The booke of the vvarres of our Lord, Iosue 10. ver. 13. 2. Reg. 1. v. 18. The booke of the iust men, 2. Paral. 20 v. 34. The booke of Iehu the sonne of Ha­nani, ibid. 12. ver. 15. The bookes of Semeias the prophete, and Addo: and 1. Reg. 10. vers. 25. Samuel vvrote in a booke the lavv of the kingdome (hovv kings ought to rule) & laid it vp before our lorde, 2. Paral. 9. vers. 29. and the vvorkes of Salomon vvere vvritten in the vvordes of Nathan the Prophete, and in the bookes of Ahias the Silonite, and in the visiō of Addo the Seer, The Iewes haue lost many & whole volumes of their Pro­phetes: much more may they leese or al­ter points, letters and syllables. and many other which were to long to rehearse. VVhich en­tier bookes of the warres of our lord, of the iust, of those excellent prophets, of Iehu, of Semeias, of Addo, of Samu­el, of Nathan, of Ahias and others, are quite perished, and perished then, when the Iewes were so chosen a peo­ple, such a kingdome, in such order & gouernment, of Kings and princes, and Senate, & ecclesiastical regiment. And now when they are no people, haue no gouernment, no king, no Priest, no comparable regiment, may we reasona­bly thinke their diuine and ecclesiasti­call bookes to haue bene so warelie kept, that euerie parte is safe, euerie parcel sound, no points, letters or titles [Page 319] lost, al sincere, perfit and absolute. If the protestāts will claime this to them by mans wisdome and policie, see how notably they contradicte them­selues. Al the bishops, and princes, Most vnrea­sonable ab­surditie, and contradi­ction. and states of Christendome were not wise inough by the protestants opiniō, these thousande yeres past, to keepe them selues in the true religion and Gos­pell of Christ. But whereas vntil 600. yeres, (as we learne by M. Iewels chalenge) they were protestants and enemies of the Masse, of the Real pre­sence, of the Pope of Rome, and (as M. W. telleth vs here) vniuersally pro­testāts quo ad praecipuas religionis partes, Whit. pag. 9. in the principall parts of religion, they fell from that pure protestant-Gospel to serue Antichrist, to worship bread and wine for God, to adore Images, which is most grosse idolatrie, in steed of a true bible and word of God, to haue our cō ­mon translation, which is most impure & fullest of corruptiō. Al this M.W. tel­leth vs, and he telleth vs in this booke, and it is the common songe of them al. And therefore how is it credible that al this while the Iewes should be so wise, so prudent, so politike, and circū ­specte that they admitted no faults, [Page 320] kept their bible so sincere and imma­culate that there only the water of life was reserued, Whit. pa. 15. and the minde & mea­ning of the holie Ghost vvas to be found no­vvhere so assuredly as there: what is this but to make the Christians al this while more brutish then beastes, and the Iewes almost equal to Angels.

2 Againe, so great likenes and simili­tude is there betwene some hebrew let­ters, Similitude of letters. that excellent learned men haue bene deceaued by mistaking one for an other, as appeareth by comparing the olde translations of the bible with the later, Hieron. in Osee. c. 2. and S. Hierom affirmeth the same of the Septuaginta. This if a man would declare by examples I thinke he might gather some hundreds out of the psalter. I wil note only one verse of a short psalme which also may serue for a higher pointe. In the psalme 109 after our translation thus we reade with the Septuaginta. Psal. 109. v. 3 Tecum principium in die vir­tutis tuae in splendoribus sanctorum: ex vte­ro ante luciferum genuite. The Protestāts for the more parte (as we see by Marlo­rate, Marlorate in Psal. 110. folowing therein Bucere, Muscu­lus, Caluine and Pomerane) translate it thus. Populus tuus cum voluntariis obla­tionibus in die exercitus tui, in pulchritudine [Page 321] sanctitatis: ex vtero ab aurora tibiros ado­lescentiae tuae. Of the yere 1579. The english bible of the last edition differing notably both frō olde and new, from vs and the Protes­tants, translate thus. Thy people shal come vvillingly all the time of (assemb [...]ing) thine armie in holie beauty: the youth of thy vvōbe shal be as the morning devv. which trans­lation is farthest from the hebrew, far­thest from al sense and reason. for who would make youth to rule vvombe and ioyne them together being sundred so far? Of the yere 1577. and the bible geuen out two yeres before, hath scant one worde like, and touching the later part is cleane oppo­site. for thus it translateth In the day of thy p [...]vv [...]r shal the people offer thee free-vvil offeringes: the devv of thy birth is of the vvombe of the morning. there is, youth of the vvombe, and, devv of the morning: here is, devv of the birth, or youth (for that is one word in hebrew) and, vvombe of the morning. If a man would translate it pre­cisely, vsing only the libertie to make choise of diuers significations which the hebrew words yelde, and drawe it so far as the hebrew wil beare, to the sense of the Septuaginta, which I take to be the best, then word for word thus it should stand. Tecum principatus in die [Page 322] potētiae tuae, in decoribus sanctitatis: ab vter [...] à Lucifero tibi ros natiuitatis tuae. How euer it be framed, great difference wil rise of necessitie amongst diuers inter­preters. And whence proceedeth that? one great cause is the diuers significatiō of one word. The first, which the 70. turned [...], tecum, vvith thee, others, po­pulus tu [...]s, [...] thy people, is in the hebrew one word, with so smale a difference of one point, as is possible. The next ex­pressed of the 70. [...] by [...] principatus, may be as well signified by the hebrew, as spontanea oblatio. The third, which the 70. [...] turned [...], S. Hierom, forti­tudinis, the Protestants, exercitus, may truely signifie them al, povver, vertue, strength, liberalit [...]e, and armie: and so au­rora or Lucifer is the same word. [...] But that which chiefely I note in this sen­tence, whatsoeuer other difference was betweene the old hebrew text and the new, is the diuersitie of sense rising through diuersitie of reading, vpon occasion of similitude in the hebrew letters. [...] as for example. The Septuagin­ta read in sp [...]endoribus, or decoribus [...] in brightnes, whom commonly al the Protestants folow S. Hier. in menti­bus, in mountaines, the difference com­meth [Page 323] of the likenes of two hebrew letters daleth and res [...]h. The last word, the 70. rendered by genuite, I haue be­gotten thee. Which word of how great strength & force it is in this place, may be perceaued by vew of the Apostle Paules argument, Hebr. 1. v. 5. who out of that verse word proueth the eternal diuinitie of our Sauiour. S. Hierom translated that word, adolescentiae tuae, as commonly do the Protestants. What is the occasion of this difference? [...] the great likelines of two wordes: the Septuaginta read the first, S. Hierom the second. The prin­tes now vsed though in sense folow S. Hierom, yet misse one of his letters, and therefore come nearer to the rea­ding of the 70. And this verse letter vau for iod, hath certainly made disagree­mēt in some other places. As where the Septuaginta read [...], fortitudinem meam ad te custodiam, Psal. 58. v. 10 [...] my strength vvill I kepe to thee, and so S. Hierom read and translated. now it is in the hebrew, fortitudinē eius, [...] his strength vvil I keepe to thee, to the great peruer­ting of the whole sense and sentence. A like error to that Genes. 3. Genes. 3. v. 15. (if it be an error, as many verie probably rather thinke it is none) ipsa conteret caput tuum [Page 324] for ipse or ipsum, [...] about which the Pro­testants keepe such a stur.

3 But what should I rehearse exam­ples of such smale errors committed by learned men, by Rabbines, by S. Hie­rom, by the Septuaginta, vvhereas the protestants sticke not to charge di­rectly the verie Apostle S. Paule with error in this kind. For whereas S. Paule writeth, That nether eye hath seene, nor eare heard, 1. Cor. 2. v. 9. nether hath it entred in to the hart of man, [...] vvhat God hath prepared for those that loue him, iis qui diligunt illum, whereby we proue that heauen is prepared as a reward for charitie and the workes thereof, and so refel their mathemati­cal solifidian fansie, Pretie āswe­eres & interpretations. many pretie an­sweres they geue vs: as that S. Paule doth after his fashiō very finely writhe the place. Luther in Esa. ca. 64. Illyric. in 1. Cor. ca. 2. v. 9 So Luther, Paulus sententiam commodè detorsit. Illyricus, That to loue, is as much as to beleeue, and so charitie as much as faith, and then, to be saued by only faith, why may we not interprete it, To be saued by only charitie? Qui diligunt (saith he) p [...]nitur pro iis, qui ad eum supplices fide confugiunt. Fides per effectum suum di­lectionem declaratur. Those that loue him, that is those that by faith humbly flye vnto him. Faith is noted by his effect, that is chari­tie. [Page 325] But Peter Martyr goeth an other way to worke, and thinketh that the Apostle read not right. Thus writeth he. Diligentibus se, habet Apostolus, Martyr in 1. Cor. ca. 2 fo. 46. Prophe­ta vero dixit expectantibus: et diserimen ag­noscitur prouenisse a magna similitudine duorum elementorum [...] et [...] &c. The Apos­tle hath the vvord louing, the Prophet hath, S. Paule missed in read­ing Hebrue. trusting or expecting: and it is vvel knovven that this difference grevve from the great similitude of tvvo hebrevv letters [...] and [...], [...] for so much as among the hebrevves the same verbe vvritten vvith one letter signifieth to trust or expect, vvith the other, to loue ve­hemently, vvhich Paule folovved In which censure (Christian reader) besides his sacrilegious contempt in diuinitie (wherein thou maist learne to care the lesse for their condemning and railing at the fathers, when they are so sawcie with this singular Apostle) besides this prophane wickednes in diuinitie, I say, he fowly belieth the Apostle against al humanity. For the secōd word, which he obiecteth, hath no such significatiō: & if he meant some other word somewhat resēbling the first, as other of his brethrē gesse, yet nether cā they serue his turne, for so much as the grāmatical rules wil not beare such construction, [...] as against [Page 326] Erasmus and him, Beza in 1. Cor. ca 2. v. 9. Beza hath truely noted. But graunt we to P. Martir, that which he would haue, let S. Paule, I wil not say indued with the holy Ghost so abundantly, The Protes­tantes attri­bute more to the Iew­ish scribes, then to S. Paule the Apostle. Paule that piller & foun­dation of the Church, so directed by God, as he could not erre: but only Paule brought vp from his infancy in the law of Moyses, in cōtinual studie of the law and Prophetes, at the feete of Gamaliel, Act. 22. so noble a scholemaister, let this Paule be deceaued in reading the Hebrew, then how intolerable is their peruersitie, who wil not suffer so much to be iudged of the common, base, vulgar & ignorant scribes, so maliti­ously bent against Christ and al Chris­tianitie, as before is noted.

4 But hovvsoeuer M. W. speaketh of his fountaynes and origin [...]ls, knovv thou (Christian reader) that other of his side far more skilfull then he, with­out any contradiction acknovvledge vvhat soeuer I say. Castalio defens. suae trā slatio. pag. 227. Sebastianus Casta­lio by occasion defending him self agaynst such a one as M. W. seemeth to be writeth thus. Videtur esse in ea opinio­ne (sicut et plerique omnes Iudaei, et nōnulli hac in parte Iudaizantes Christiani) vt in hebraicis bibliis nullum vsque mendum ir­repisse [Page 327] putet &c. M.W. opinion touching the Hebrew vncorrupt, is luysh. This good felovv seemeth to be of that opinion (as in maner all Ievves are, and some Christians dravving to Iu­daisme in this respect) that they thinke no error euer to haue creapt into the hebrevv bibles, that God vvould neuer suffer that any vvord should be corrupted in those holie bookes: as though the bookes of the old testa­ment vvere more holie then those of the nevv, in the vvhich nevv, so many diuers readinges are founde in so many places, or as though it vvere credible that God had more regarde of one or other litle vvord or syllable, then he had of vvhole bookes, vvhereof he hath suffered many, I say not to be depraued, but to be vtterly lost. This Iudaical superstition &c. Hetherto Castalio. And D. Humfre. lib. 1. de rat. in­terpre. pag. 178. Hum­frey in his first booke de ratione interpretandi, sayth. Iudaismus quot locos depraua­uerit &c. The Ievvish superstition, hovv many places it hath corrupted, the reader may easely find out and iudge. Lib. 2. pag. 219. And in the next booke. I like not that men should to much folovve the Rabbins as many do. Nam quae Christum verum Messiam promittunt et annūciant, ab [...]istis turpissimè c [...]nspurcata sunt. for those places vvhich promise and declare Christ the true Messias, are most fil­thely depraued by them. And Conradus Pellicanus sometime professor of he­brew [Page 328] in Zuricke, writing vpon the 8 [...] psalme and those wordes of our tr [...]n­slation, Conuertuntur ad c [...]r, vvhere, [...] cor, the protestants according [...]o the hebr [...]vv prints novv, haue [...] gesseth vvel, [...] & no doubt ri [...]htly that the difference came through the great likenes of tvvo letters [...] and [...] and prefe [...]reth our reading before the he­brewes & vvithal accuseth the Iewes of al times not only since Christ, but also befo [...]e, of n [...]glig [...]nce in cō [...]e [...]uing thei [...] holie bo [...]kes. Thus he vvriteth. The old interpreter seemeth to haue read one vvay, Pellican to. 4. in psal. 85. vers 9. vvhereas the Ievves [...]ovv reade an other. vvhich I say, because I vvould not haue men thinke this to haue proceeded from the [...]gnorance or sl [...]uthfulnes of the o [...]d in­terpreter. Rather vve haue cause to finde fault for vvant of diligence in the Anti­quaries, The Iewes at al tymes negligēt in conseruing the scriptu­res. and faith in the Ievves, vvho both before Christs comming and fithence, seeme to haue bene lesse carefull of the psalmes, then of their ovvne Talmudicall songes. And a­gaine in the same volume, vpon that verse of the psalme 108. Quis deducet me in ciuitatem munitam? Idem ibidē in psal 108. vers. 11. quis deducet me in Idumaeam? vvho vvill bring me in to the sensed citie? vvho vvill bring me in to Idu­maea, vvriteth thus: The Syriake interpre­ter, [Page 329] ether folovving, or finding out, or i [...]er [...]a­sing the fables of the Ievves, translateth this verse after this s [...]r: vvho vvil bring me in to that vvicked Rome? vvho vvil bring me in to that Constantinople of the Idumeans? sol centiously do the Rabbines of the Ievves abuse their authoritie, In vulgo le­gend is legis suae transla­tionibus. not only in their com­mentaries, but also in the translations of their lavv, vvhich cōmonly are to be read, vvhere­by the miserable people reading so, is easely seduced. VVhere besides our principal purpose, vve may learne vvithal, The Protes­tants & Ie­wes resem­ble one the other in many pointes both of fayth and maners. that the Iewes haue one tricke of the Pro­testāts, vz, in to their bible & cōmuniō bookes or such like vvherein is con­t [...]yned their maner of Se [...]u [...]ce, to thrust besides the text, glaunces against the Pope and Church of Rome: as [...]n deede the hatred of Christ, Christi­anitie, and that Church, commonly runneth together. The like testifieth Munster alleaging these vvordes of Ab [...]n Ezra against the Christians. F [...]vv there vvere that beleeued in that man, Munster. in Gen. ca. 27. vvhō these (Christians) haue made their G [...]d, and vvhen Rome did beleeue in the time of Con­stantine a [...]d altered the vvhole lavv, and put in his banner the signe of the crucified man, by the persvvasiō of that Monke of Idu­maea, that is the Romane bishop (so Aben [Page 330] Ezra expoundeth it) there vvere none through the vvorld, that obserued that lavv, besides a fevv Idumeans: and here of it com­meth, that the kingdome of the Romanes is called the kingdome of Edom. Wherein a man may see and compare together the Iu [...]aical and Protestantical vayne in rayl [...]ng at the Romane Church, and those that liue in the vnitie of it. To the I [...]wes vve are Gentiles, to the Protestantes vve are Idolaters. In the Ie­wes speach and sense, it is al one to say, a Romane, a Catholike, or an Idumean, that is a Gentile: so is it in the speach and sense of the Protestan­tes, saue that in steede of Catholike, sometymes they vse the vvord, Papist. The Ievves peruert their diuine Ser­uice vvith the manifest abuse of scrip­ture, Where is now becom the canon of Carthage Counsel. 4. cap. 47. so much vr­ged by M. Iewel, that nothing should be read or sung in the church beside Canonical scrip­ture? against the Romane faith and Church: and do not our Ievvish Pro­testantes much more? Cal to remem­brance (Christian reader) their Ge­neua, or rather Gehenna psalmes sung in their cōgregations, vvhere (as they tel vs) nothing soūd [...]th but gods vvord & the Canonical scripture, & see vvhe­ther in any old Greeke, Hebrew, Latin, or English psalters they find praying a­gainst the Pope, & to be deliuered frō al Pa­pistrie. [Page 331] That the Pope, as wel as the Turke, vvould thrust our of his throne, Bad time, & worse reasō. our lord Iesus Christ, Gods deare sonne. vvhether in any old Creede, ether Apostolike, or made by Apostolike or honest men, they are taught to beleeue, release & pardō of their sinnes (vvhich is in these mens diuinitie, perfect & entier iustification) and that only by faith, as in their rim [...]ng Creede vvithout rime or reason they sing. Fi­nally as the Ievvish Rabbines thrus­ting once in to their peoples eares, that Rome is Edom, and the Romane an Edomite, m [...]ke that al scrip [...]ure spo­ken against Edom, soundeth against Rome: euen so the Protestants telling their people, that Rome is Babylon, and the Pope Antichrist, make them forthwith beleeue, that vvhatsoeuer the scripture hath [...]gainst Babylon & Antichrist, that maketh iust against the Romane Church, the Pope and Catholikes.

But to returne to our original mat­ter, and to drawe to an end of this que­stion, touching the pure fountaines & originals: for plaine and euident de­monstration how true that is, I referre M.VV. to these two general experimē ­tes, which at his leasure he may vew and [Page 332] consider of. 5 One is, the great diuersitie of reading, which in many places of the hebrew old testament we find. Great varie­tie in the Hebrew bibles For example whereof, let him peruse Exod. ca. 2. losue 22, and 23. Iudic. 3. the first of Samuel ca. 10, 17, 22, 28. 2 Samuel 7. Esa. 14, 33, 54, &c. and Munsters no­tes vpon those chapters, where he shall find the reading and sense oftentymes as far disagreing as blacke and white. And Munst. in his preface forewarneth the reader thereof. Munster in praefat. bib. [...]omi primi. Sometymes (sayth he) euen amongst the hebrvves in one sentence I haue found diuers reading. For sometymes dissensions are sound amongst thē, some thin­king this to be the true reading, some thin­king contrarie.

6 An other experiment is, that the he­brew printes wante now somewhat, which certainly was in the first origi­nals. Example whereof may be the Psalme 144. ps. 144. which being made accor­ding to the hebrew alphabete and ha­uing the verses in number answering to the hebrew letters, the first begin­ning with Aleph, the second with Beth, the third with Gimel, &c. (as doth the Psal. ps. 33. 33.) & therefore should certainly haue 22. verses, as hath that other, this lacketh one verse in al hebrew copies, [Page 333] & so wanted it euen in S. Hieroms t [...]me. The Hebrew bibles vn­perfit. and euident it is, that the error is in the hebrew, where lacketh the 14. verse which should beginne with Nan, as it is very playne by the translation of the 70, and by our common Psalter. [...] Fidelis Dominus in omnibus verbis suis, & sanctus in omnibus operibus suis. Which verse in he­brew should haue begun with that let­ter, [...] which of al the alphabete only mis­seth. So as most certaine it is, that the hebrew is faultie. And thus to end this matter of the hebrew fountaines & ori­ginals, I wil gather that which I haue said in to a fevv conclusions & vvithal ansvvere M.VV. allegations.

1 The first is, that this opinion of the Protestants detracting so much from the latin bibles, The protes­tants opini­ō iniurious to the holy Ghost. and yelding so much to the hebrevv, is Iudaical, iniurious to the Church, to the holy Ghost and state of the nevv testamēt, as vvhereby they professe to thinke more religiō & care of Gods word to haue bene resident in the Iewish synagoge, thē in al the King­domes, Princes, Pastors & Prouinces of Christianitie, for these thovvsād yeres.

2 The second, that albeit S. Hierom in his tyme so soone after the great perse­cutions, the Church being troubled vvith that most busye, terrible and po­tent [Page 334] heresie of the Arrians against the diuinitie of Christ and the holy Ghost, Although S. Hierom appealed from the la­tin to the Hebrew, yet the like rea­son is not for vs now. vvhen as yet the Canon it selfe com­prehending the sacred bookes of scrip­tures, by general authoritie vvas not confirmed and receaued, vvhē (as saith S. August. de doctr. Chris­tiana. lib, 2. ca. 11. Austin) there vvas in [...]umerable va­rietie of latin trāslations. ( Qui ex hebrae [...] lingua scripturas in graecam verterunt, nu­merari possunt, latini autem interpretes nullo modo) and they infinitely differing a­mong them selues, as in the same place he noteth, when for these causes there vvas not, nor vvel could be any one vniforme translation approued: al­though at this tyme S. Hierom might iustly appeale from them al to the he­brew as in cōparison being most pure & incorrupt: yet nether then were the he­brew copies simpliciter faultles, as hath bene shevved by playne examples and demonstrations, by the very Protestāte bibles, and by confession of the best & learnedst among them. and S. H [...]erom, 3 though M. W. seeme to ground him self most vpō him, acknovvledgeth so much. S. Hierom thought the hebrew bi­bles to be in some places corrupt and faultie. For examining tvvo places of Deuteronomie vrged by the Apostle S. Paule in his epistles, both differing in that point vvhich he most presseth, frō [Page 335] the hebrew bibles extant in S. Hieroms daies, he resolueth in fine, that the he­brew vvas corrupted, othervvise then the Apostle read it. The one place is: Gal. [...]. v. 1 [...]. Deuter. 21. v. 23. Scriptum est, Maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno. It is vvritten, Cursed is euerie one that hangeth on tree. in vvhich short place compared vvith the original in Deute­ronomie, there is somevvhat to much, and somevvhat to litle. To much, be­cause here is omnis, euery one, and in ligno, on tree, which are not now found in the Hebrew, [...] though both in the Greeke of the Septuaginta. To litle, because there is in the hebrew, Elohim, which wanteth in S. Paule, maledictus Deo or Dei, cursed of God is euerie one so hanged. S. Hiero. in [...]al c. 3. Hie­rom answereth thus. My iudgement herein is this, ether that the old bookes of the Hebrevves had othervvise then they haue novv, or that the Apostle put the sense of the scripture not the vvordes, or (vvhich I ra­ther suppose) after the passion of Christ both in the Hebrevv and in our bookes, the name of God vvas added by some mā, that he might make vs more infamous, vvho beleeue in Christ accursed of God. The other place is this. Scriptum est, Maledictus omnis, Gal. [...] v. 10. Deutron. 27. v. 26. qui nō permanserit in omnibus quae scripta sun [...] in libro legis, vt faciat ea. Cursed is euerie [Page 336] one that abideth not in al thinges vvhich are vvritten in the booke of the lavv to do them. Where the Apostles argument hanging principally vpon the two wordes omnis and in omnibus, euerie one, and in al thinges, both which are in the Septuaginta, [...] and [...] nether in the hebrew, he thus answe­reth the matter. Hier. in Gal. cap. 3. I am vncertayne, vvhether the Septuaginta added, omnis homo, and in omnibus, or vvhether it vvere so in the old hebrevv, and aftervvard put out by the Ievves. Thus t [...] suppose I am moued for this reason, because the vvordes, omnis, and in omnibus, The Iewes conuicted by S. Hier. of corrup­ting of the scriptures. al, and in al, as necessary to proue that they be al accu [...]sed, vvho are of the vvorkes of the lavv, the Apostle skilful in the hebrevv tonge, and m [...]st cunning in the lavv, vvould neuer haue so sett dovvne, had it not bene so in the hebrevv. VVhere­fore I perusing the hebrevv volumes of the Samaritanes found there vvritten the word [...] as much to say, as omnis siue omnibus, al or in al, and so that to agree vvith the Sep­tuaginta. In vayne therefore haue the Ievves razed that out, lest they should seeme to be accursed, vvhereas the more auncient ex­amples of an other nation, testifie that it vvas vvritten so. Thus S. Hierom.

3 Thirdly this I gather, that since S. [Page 337] Hieroms time much more haue the hebrew bookes bene corrupted, and that not in smale ind [...]fferent matters, which might better be borne, but in very hye pointes touching the diuini­tie and humanitie of our Sauiour, tou­ching his passion and the redemption of the world. And therefore when S. S. Hierom praysing the hebrew bi­bles of his tyme, no­thing iusti­fieth these of our time. Hierom speaking of the puritie of the bibles before his birth, is applied to iustifie the copies written so many a­ges after his death, and so consequent­ly to iustifie al their new English, Flē ­mish and Germane interpretations made according to some hebrew co­pies as they pretend, this is as iust as Germanes lippes, according to our english prouerbe, whose hartes & mindes & religions we see to differre infinite­ly. This is to answere of chalke, when the question is proposed of cheese.

4 Next this we see that the condition of the hebrew tonge is such, that errors are very soone cōmitted therein by rea­sō of smale points of distinctiōs, of let­ters so nighly resembling one an other. Wherevnto ioyne we the malice of the Rabbines. their hatred of the Christi­ans and Christian religion, whom Lu­ther confesseth to be as very crucifiers [Page 338] of the word of Christ (especially such places as most appertaine to him) as they were of Christ him selfe, and that they employe their studie herevnto. And if we consider withal, how in time of the law thorough their default they lost whole bookes & volumes of their diuine Prophetes, we shal fynde smal reason to moue vs to beleeue, that since Christ, they should become so ho­ly, and deuout, & watchful, & circum­spect, as M.VV. by commending their fountaines and originals would make them.

5 Finally al this hath bene declared not only by plaine reasons, factes, ex­amples, demonstrations, but also by plaine confession of those, whom our aduersaries principally reuerence and honour, and in this matter were most skilful, by Munster, by Pellicane, by Sebastianus Castalio, by Luther and such others.

And hereof may the reader easely learne an answer to that questiō, An argumēt commonly made for the puritie of the he­brew bibles which many frame as a matter of intricate dif­ficultie, whē these corruptions should come in to the hebrew bibles, whether before Christs time, or betwene that and S. Hieroms, or from S. Hieroms [Page 339] time to vs. 1 Not the first say they, be­cause thē Christ would haue obiected that vnto them, as he did other faul­tes. 2 Nor the second, because S. Hierom had the hebrew veritie, as he oftē spea­keth. 3 Nor the third, because our hebrew bibles agree with those of S. Hierom. The āswere I say is easye, The an­swere. because whe­ther part of the three so euer a man take he can not misse. 1 For errors grew in those bibles, some before Christ, more after Christ vntil S. Hieroms age, and yet more from S. Hierom afterwardes. Very probable, that Christ no­ted the Iewes for corrupting the text of scripture. Ioā. 21. v. 25 And wel it may be that Christ obiected the same vnto them, though it be not recorded in the Testament, as certaine it is, many thinges he preached vnto thē and reproued in them, whereof no written record is extant. And wel it may be that both Christ obiected and the Euangilist noted so much, when he writeth as spoken of our Sauiour, in­forming his Apostles, and reiecting the doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees: You haue heard that it vvas sayd to them of old, Thou shalt not kill. Exod. 20. v. 13. Mat. 5. v. 22. v. 28. you haue heard that it vvas sayd to them of old, Thou shalt not cōmitte aduoutrie. Exo. 20. 32. 14. It vvas sayd also, VVhosoeuer shal di­misse his vvife, let him geue her a bill of di­vorcement. [Page 340] Deut. 24. [...]. Againe you haue heard that it vvas sayd to them of old, 34. Thou shalt not commit periurie, but shal performe thy othes to our Lorde. 38. Exod. ca. 20. v. 7. You haue heard that it vvas sayd, An eye for an eye, & a tooth for a tooth. Exod. 21. v. 24. You haue heard that it was sayd, 43. Thou shalt loue thy neyghbour and hate thy enemy. Leuit. 19. v. 18. Where our Sauiour ioyning this later precept, Thou shalt hate thy enemy with those other preceptes of the law & written in the law as, Thou shalt not kil. Thou shalt not cōmit aduoutrie. He that diuorceth his vvife, let him geue her a bil of diuorcement. Thou shalt not cōmit per­iurie. Thou shalt performe thy othe. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: sheweth playnly that the pharisees taught this la­ter to be the law of god as wel as the former, & therefore no marueil if they put it vnto the law with the rest, as by christs words it seemeth most lykely they did. And whether this were so or not, cer­taine it is, through the intolerable neg­ligence and iniquitie of Priest, The whole law for ma­ny yeres to­gether lost by the Iews Prince and People, that in the tyme of Manas­ses, not one peece or parcel, but the whole law was lost for many yeres to­gether, as appeareth in the booke of Kinges, 4 Reg. c. 22. & at length, as it were by great [Page 341] chaunce was it found out againe in the tyme of Iosias, which crime our Saui­our for ought we reade, neuer charged them with al. And therefore if likewise he neuer charged them with this, it were no great marueil.

2 More corrupted might it be after Christ, by how much that nation was more alienated frō the fauour of God. And S. Hierom him selfe acknowled­geth some corruption, howsoeuer in comparison he truely accompte the hebrew most pure and sincere in such sort and for such reason as hath bene touched. And S. Iustinus the martyr in his cōference with Triphon, talking of the very hebrew bibles, not of the translation of the 70. only, as some ansvvere ( Ex scripturis quae pro confessis apud vos habentur testimonia petam, Iustinus martyr tom. 2. pag. 141. saith he, I vvil bring proofes of that vvhich I say from those scriptures vvhich your selues ac­knovvledge for such) of their corruption he geueth three examples. S. Iustine the Martyr conuinceth the Iewes of mangling the scriptu­res. One out of Esdras. A secōd out of Ieremie. A third out of the Psalmes. Out of Esdras, this. Esdras spake vnto the people. This Pascha is our sauiour & refuge. Esd. [...]. And if you shal per­svvade your selues, and this shal enter in to your hartes, that you shal humble him vpon [Page 342] the vvood, and after hope in him, this place shal not be desolate for euer, saith our lord of hostes. But if you vvil not beleeue in him, nor heare his preaching, you shal become a scorne to the nations. which place is in like maner cited by Lactantius. Apud Esdram ita scriptum est. Lactant. lib. 4. cap. 18. Et dixit Esdras ad populum. Hoc Pascha saluator nost [...]r est et refugium nostrum &c. The place out of the prophete Ieremie is this. Ex Iere­miae responsis haec verba recîderūt. Ierem. ca. 11. Ego vt agnus qui ad sacrificandum &c. Out of Iere­mies ansvveres this haue the Ievves cut avvay: Whole sen­tences cut out of the bibles by the Iewes. I as a lambe that am lead to be sa­crificed, and against me they deuised coun­sels sayng, come, let vs cast vvood vpon his bread, and let vs take him avvay from the land of the liuing, and let there be no more memorie of his name. VVhich place con­taineth the prophetical foreshewing of a double veritie. First of Christs cru­cifying vpon the crosse, to which pur­pose the words are plaine. The real presence. Then of his true presence in the blessed sacrament. for the Prophete calleth Christs na­tural body vpon the crosse by the name of bread, in respect of Christ first pro­mising the same body for euerlasting foode to his Christians in forme of bread, Ihon 6. and then after accomplishing [Page 343] the same promise by actual deliuery of the same body in such forme at the time of his last supper. Mat. 26. And the place is so expoūded by the aūcient fathers, Hierom. in Ieremi. ca. 11. Tertul. in lib. contra Iudaeos. Oecolamp. in Ierem ca. 11. as for example by S. Hierom, and by Tertullian most euidently. And Oe­colampadius in his commentarie vpō these wordes, cōfesseth it to haue bene the common sense and interpretation of the auncient and Primitiue church. The third place out of the psalmes, is this. Psal. 95. Ex nonagesimo quinto etiam Dauidis psalmo haec pauca verba recîderunt, a ligno. Cum enim scriptum esset &c. Also from the nynetie and fifth psalme of Dauid they cut avvay these fevv vvords, From the vvood. For vvhereas it vvas vvritten, Declare ye among the nations, that our lord hath raig­ned from the vvord, they leaft thus much on­ly, Declare ye among the nations, that our lord hath raigned. Of these three places thus defaced by the Iewes, the first at this time is extant in no hebrew bibles, nor to my knowledge in any greeke translation. The second is in al the he­brew now corrected & restored by the Christians. For S. Iustine noteth that it was not cleane abolished out of al he­brew bibles, & the fault was but fresh­ly committed in his daies. Resectio istae [Page 344] saith he, Iustinus vbi supra, pa. 142 ex Hieremia, ad huc in quibusdam exemplaribus quae in Iudaeorum asseruantur synagogis, scripta reperitur. Non enim ita diu est, quod haec verba recîderunt. This peece so cut of from Ieremie, is as yet found vvrittē in some of. those copies that are kept in the Ievves synagoge. For it vvas but of late, that they cut avvay these vvords. By vvhich vvordes also it is euident that he meaneth the very hebrevv bi­bles, not the translation of the 70. on­ly, vvhereas he so precisely nameth such as vvere preserued in the Ievves syna­goges, In quibusdā exemplari­bus. some of which retayned styl that parcel, but most vvanted it. and manifest it is that the Ievves nether in our time keepe so honorably the translation of the 70. in their sinagoges, & much lesse did they ke [...]pe it in S. Iustines daies, vvhen (as appeareth by the vvhole dis­cours and manifest vvordes of this au­thor in this same place) they much more detested it. The third, a ligno, is vvanting in al greeke and hebrevv bi­bles, & is only reserued in our ecclesi­astical Breuiarie, & certaine Doctors, as Tertullian, Lactantius, Cassiodo­rus, August. in Psal. 9 [...]. and S. Austin, vvho notvvithstan­ding so readeth it, as though it vvere the common reading in the churches [Page 345] of Africa in his time, and maketh no mention of any other reading, vvhere those vvords should be leaft out.

3 And from S. Hieroms time vntil our daies very probable it is, that these er­rors and corruptions haue multiplied, not only for the general and particular reasons already touched, but for this especially, that whereas since that time the Iewes obstinacie, barbarousnes, im­pietie, and ignorance in their owne tonge hath much increased, the Christi­ans notwithstanding haue not had any great occasion to handle much or ex­ercise that language, & therefore haue had smaler regard to bookes written therein, without which as first of al, they perfectly receaued the Christian faith, and planted it in these partes of Christendome, so without it, haue they as perfectly continued in the same, and now enlarged it euen to the extreme corners of the world, Our first preachers & forefathers perfecte Christians without he­brew bibles and without the which they haue for these thousād yers liued most christiāly as Saintes, & chri­stianly as Saintes finished their tēporal liues, & after liued with Christ for euer.

And now touching M. W. pag. 19.20. question demaunding how the Church hath faithfully conserued the bookes of scriptures, who thus findeth fault with [Page 346] the hebrew bibles as corrupt, I answere as before, The church hath faith­fully cōser­ued the scri­ptures, not­withstāding the corrup­tion of the hebrew bi­bles. that the Church hath most faithfully conserued the scriptures, al­beit not in this or that tonge, which the wanton curiositie of euery fantastical heretike coueteth. We haue the true word and gospel of Christ, though per­haps we haue not ten words in that lāguage which our Sauiour spake. And then why may we not haue the law & the prophetes, though there were ne­uer an hebrew bible in the vvorld? Againe vnreasonably demaundeth he of our church for hebrevv bibles vn­corrupt, vvhich perhaps neuer had any such, and neuer vndertooke to keepe the vvord of God in that language more then in Arabike or Syriake, no more then she vndertooke to keepe S. Matthevves Gospel in hebrevv, or S. Paules epistle to the hebrevves. But if she deliuer faithfully to the Christians, [...]he office of the true Church. that vvhich she receaued of Christ and his Apostles touching al parts of Chris­tian faith and religion, be it vvritten or vnvvritten, in one language or other, she performeth that, vvhich Christ com­mitted to her charge, and vvhich is suffi­cient for the saluation of euery Christi­an, and vvhereby she proueth her [Page 347] selfe to be the House and Church of the li­uing God, 1. Tim. 3. vers. 15. the sure Piller and ground of truth, the Spovvse of Christ, Eph. 5. c. and faythful mother of al Christians.

M. D. D. Whit. in the defen­se, &c. tract. 2 pag. 87. tract. 7. pag. 257.265.266.285.287.289. Whitgift thinketh it vntolerable that the English ministers should ap­point, vvhat maner of apparel is cōue­nient for them selues to vveare, vvhat ceremonies or rites should be vsed in their poore Seruice. He by many arguments taketh from them al authoritie in such matter, & vvil haue the vvhole Ministerie altogether to depend & be directed by the superior magistrates, the Quene and the Lordes of her Coū ­cel. No more reason that euery parti­cular man should pre­scribe the church in this, then that euerie subiect should prescribe the prince how to rule his realme. Then hovv much more vntolera­ble is it, that some one or other single minister should appoint the vniuersal Church & gouernours thereof, in what maner and fashion the word of God must be kept, in what language, as it were in what kind of paper or parche­ment he wil haue it written. As if some busye headed felow in a cōmon welth not contented to be ruled & preserued by his Prince in true religion, iustice and quiet possessiō of his owne, should farther take vpon him to prescribe vvhat maner priestes, hovv qualified, and in vvhat Vniuersitie brought vp, [Page 348] should preach vnto him the vvord of God, & minister the sacraments: vvhat sort of men should exequute vnto him iustice, and examine his cases of law: by what capitaynes, of vvhat byrth, countrie and experience, by vvhat kind of defence, open force, or secret policie, fight by sea, or rather land, strength of horsmen or footemen, he vvil be mainteined in peace and quietnes.

The protestantes can not possibly be­leue any bi­ble deliue­red them by the Cath. Church in what lan­guage so euer.And vvhat meaneth he to require for pure bibles in any language of our Church, vvhich he holdeth for Anti­christian, and the prelates thereof and al other Catholikes, for members of Antichrist. For vvhiles he thus thin­keth, vvhat soeuer bibles, hebrevv or not hebrevv, Greeke or Arabike vve offer him, he can by reason yelde no more credite vnto them then to our latin, no more then to our traditions, or any other thing proceeding from vvarrant and credite of such profes­sed enemies of Christ: as vvel and lear­nedly proueth S. August. de vtil. credendi ca. 14. Austin in his booke de vtilitate credendi. Much more a­greable to reason & Christiā diuinitie is it, for him and his to resort to their ovvne church of elect & predestinate, [Page 349] or hovv so euer he list to terme them, vvhich hath so florished these many hundred yeres, by vvitnes of their ecclesiastical stories, by report of M. Fox in his Actes and monumentes. Fox actes & monumētes edit. 1563. pag. 44.45.91.101.102.103.108.141 140.235.251 Let him resort to the brethren of Lions, to VVycleffe, and the VVycleffis [...]es, to Robert Rigges, Iohn Puruey, Henry Crompe, Iohn of Chlum, Iohn Scut, William Havvlam, Richard VVich, Iohn Hus, alias Iohn Goose, the Hussites and Thaborites of Bohemia and such other, The pro­testantes church and succession. vvho (as they tel vs) vvere glorious pillers, & doctors, and maintainers of their church and Protestant-gospel, and like glistering starres shined in the face of the Christiā world. And that I tye him not to particular mē, or one only pro­uince of Bohemia, in many other pro­uinces and kingdomes of the world hath their church continued, as most confidently writeth D. Whit. in the defens. &c. tract. 8. chap. 6. pag. 465. VVhitgift a­gainst T. C. who framing an argument against the Archbishops authoritie drawē from this supposition, VVhat if the vvhole church be in one prouince or in one realme, vvhich hath bene, Act. cap. [...]. and is not vnpossible to be againe, M. D. VVhit. an­swereth it thus. To your supposition if the [Page 350] vvhole church &c. How stan­deth this with the in­uisibilitie & general, suppression of the Church, which the Tower disputers so painfully labour to proue? The second days confe­rence. I say that if the skie fal you may catch larkes, as the common pro­uerbe is, making it as vnpossible a case to haue the church of Christ in one on­ly kingdom, as it is vnpossible for the skie to fal. And presently in the same page: Do you not knovv, that the church of Christ is dispersed thorough the vvhole vvorld, and can not novv (after Christs ascension) be shut vp in one kingdome much lesse in one prouince, except you vvil become Donatistes? He that is not vvilfully blinde, may see in to vvhat straightes you are driuē vvhen you are constrained to vse such im­possibilities for reasons. And M. VV. in this booke telleth vs, Whit. cōtra Sander. p. 47 that there neuer wanted mightie States, & Princes, and nations, who withstoode the bishop & Sea of Rome as they do now. Nullis temporibus defuerūt (sayth he) nec Episcopi, nec Presbyteri, nec Imperatores, nec populi &c. There neuer vvanted at any time, nether Bi­shops, nether Priestes, nor Emperours, nor nations, nor Priuate men, vvhich had not rather be condemned of your church for here­tikes, then to mainteine the Catholike com­munion of your Apostasie. wherefore ha­uing so large a scope, let him repayre to that his owne church and successi­on of Protestantes, and of them seeke [Page 351] for the true written bible, of whom he receaueth the sense and meaning of the same, not to our church and suc­cession of Catholikes, whom he chief­ly condemneth for erring in the true sense, and then reproueth as bitterly for corrupting the true text.

The conclusion of al is this. if as a Christian, as an obedient child of the Church, and willing to learne, A short and true answer to M. W. de­maund. if thus he demaūd of the Church for true bi­bles, she can serue him with more va­rietie of such, & in mo languages, then it wil stande with his ease to reade. Such demaunders wil neuer be satisfied, nether can they, while they remain so mynded. Mat. 22. v. 18. Mat. 7. v. 6. If he demaund this as an heretike, as a rebellious Apostata, as to picke qua­rels and maintaine strife, the Church hath nought to do with him. She an­swereth as our sauiour answered the Pharisees. Quid me tentatis hypocritae? & as he taught his Apostles: Nolite dare sanctum canibus. She sendeth him to his owne scattered and diuided cōgrega­tion, in to whose communion he hath thrust him selfe, & vnder whose false banner he fighteth against her, vvhom the vniuersal Christian vvorld, in al times and ages vntil our daies, hath acknovvleged, for the only, true, ca­tholike & apostolike church of Christ.

[Page 352]And hitherto of the hebrevv foun­taines and originals, vvherein I haue sta [...]ed somevvhat the longer, first of al that the reader may see that not vvith­out iust cause I charge M.W. vvith a manifest lie, pag. 16. in saing vve flee the he­brevv, for that vve knovv it to con­taine the assured bane and destruction of our cause. He may here perceaue in part, We honour & esteeme of the he­brew bibles notwithstanding we al­ter not our fayth vpon pretence thereof. vvhat reason, vvhat argument, vvhat conscience moueth the Church thus to prescribe, and vs to folovv the Churches ordinance herein. That vve nether feare, nor contemne, nor refuse it, but for the vnderstāding of the true sense, studie and honour it as much as he, though vve hange not our faith vpon it so, as if the Ievves depraue a text touching Christs diuinitie, vve therefore vvil denie him to be God, and if they raze out the only text, that foreshevveth the maner of his passion and crucifying, vve vvil not for al that geue ouer our faith, that in such sort he vvas crucifyed for vs.

Secondarely thus I haue done to sa­tisfie M· VV. d [...]maund, who chalen­geth vs so confidently, to shevve any error in the originals. vvho affirmeth so peremptorily those places to be [Page 353] safe and vntouched, which appertaine to the proofe of our Christian religion. Which how true it is he now seeth, if he wil beleeue ether reason, or his owne maisters. Besides that his argument is ouer slender, when he wil conclude those originalles to be pure, because there is no corruption in matters of cō ­trouersie, as though there could be no errors, but those which proceede of wilfulnes and malice against Christian religion: The Protes­tants, par­tial iudges for the Iewes a­gainst the Christians and Church Catholike. as though the Iewes could not erre by negligence, ignorance, and other humane infirmitie, by which Caluine, Beza & the rest of that knot can imagine very many, and the same very grosse errors to haue crepte in to our latin bibles. But true is the old pro­uerbe, Graculus graculo, Like wil to like as I haue said. Of the Iewes for neare alliance and brotherhode they iudge so diuinely, as though they were halfe goddes, who neuer erred. ether of ma­lice▪ ether of wilfulnes, or ignorance, or slowthfulnes, or want of due consi­deration, or thorough any kind of like ether sinne or imbecillitie. But of the Christian Catholike Church, of the Bi­shops and Pastors, by whom they haue that peece of Christianitie which [Page 354] yet they retaine, they deeme most wic­kedly: them they accompt more disso­lute, more irreligious, more careles & negligent in matters diuine, then the worst people that liue vnder the cope of heauen. These in the same kind haue erred, both of malice, and of wilfulnes, and of contempt, and of negligence, by al maner of faulting, voluntarie & inuoluntarie, wherevnto a man may possibly fal.

Thirdly, some reason mouing me thus to doe, was because nether M. Martin in his Discouerie, much lesse the preface of the new testament (han­dling only such thinges, as were incidēt to that booke, that is, geuing reason why in that translatiō the latin vulgar edition vvas folowed before the com­mon greeke testamentes) had any oc­casiō to treate of this matter. For albeit M. Discouer. c. 22 num 9.10.11.12▪ & in the pre­face nu. 39. Martin proueth errors in matters historical to be in our cōmon hebrew bibles, yet he maketh no stay therein but rather presupposing the hebrew text to be altogether true, as the ad­uersaries pretend, he so much the more discouereth their wilfulnes and peruersitie, who in their translations depart sundrie times frō those hebrew [Page 355] originalls, which they seeme to mag­nifie as altogether faultles and vnspot­ted.

One principal corruption of great moment and importance he obiecteth out of the 21. psalme, In the pre­face to the reader, nu. 44. and c. 22. num. 9. where the pro­phet saith in the person of Christ, They haue pearced my handes and feete, which by the Iewes being maliciously altered by mutation of one or other letter in to, As a lyon my hands and feete, without wit, reason, or common sense, where­by is euacuated the best and clearest prophecie in the whole body of scrip­ture touching the maner and fashion of Christs crucifying, who besides M. W. would so blindly haue dissem­bled it, & yet stil sing vs the old song of the pure fountaines?

It is written that not long sithence, certaine euangelical Anabaptistes late­ly conuerted from Iudaisme, reading that place of S. Peter in Castalios tran­slation, Act. 2. v. [...]5. Iesum Nazarenum scelestis mani­bus comprehendistis, et ad palum alligatum sustulistis, Iesus of Nazareth you haue ap­prehended, and binding him to a post or stake, so made him avvay, Sixtus [...]e­nens. in Bi­bliotheca sancta. lib. [...]. pag. 648. vpon this text fel to a great and daungerous conten­tion among them selues in their con­gregations, [Page 356] whether Christ were pear­ced hand and foote with nailes as the Church beleeueth, or were only bound hand and foote to a gibbet, as the fashi­on among the Turkes is now a daies, & as the other two theeues were done to death which were crucifyed with him. And remoue the traditiō of the Church (which these good felowes care not for) and this place of Dauid, The Protes­tāts secret­ly begin to disproue the Chur­ches fayth touching the maner of Christs crucifying. and cer­tainly out of the old testament it can not, perhaps nether out of the new, be clearely proued to a contentious here­tike, that he was crucified in such sort as the truth is, and we beleeue. For as the heretikes now a daies at home in our coūtrie gladly abhorre the name of the crosse, & al signes or memories there of, & both in priuate talking & publike preaching and writing, Calfh. a­gainst the crosse. rather vse the name of gallovves or gibbet: so others a­brode in their commentaries vpon the scripture much vrge the same, and wil­lingly take and prosecute al cōiectures and gesses, that tende to the proofe thereof. Marlor. in Psal. 22. v. 17 So for example Marlorate fa­uouring (as it plainely appeareth) Cas­talios translation and the Iewish rea­ding, writeth expressely. De foss [...]one ma­nuum ac pedum Christi, in historia passionis [Page 357] Christi, nihil memorarunt Euangelistae. Of pearcing Christs handes and feete, in the sto­rie of Christs passion the Euangelistes make no mention. as much to say, as there­fore we are not bound to beleeue it. For by these mēs doctrine, we are bound to beleeue nothing, which is not proued by scripture. And the self same affir­meth Wolf. Musculus, vz, Muscul. io Ma [...]. cap. 27. that the Euangelistes make no declaration that Christ should be put to death in any such maner. And it may wel be that M. W. accounteth this for a trifle, ne­ther careth greatly which way Christ died, so that he confesse him to haue di­ed one way or other. Bucer. in Psal. 22. v. 17. For so touching this place writeth Martin Bucer that great Rabbine and Apostle of Cam­bridge Vniuersitie in the sacramētarie heresie, & M.W. first predecessor in that profession & chaire which he now pos­sesseth. His wordes are these. Although it be novv in the hebrevv bibles, As a lyō my handes & feete, yet Felix Pratensis vvitnes­seth, that he read, Foderunt, [...] They pearced my handes and feete in a certaine commen­tarie, vvhere vnto the Ievves geue as much credite, as to Dauid him selfe. Sed cum Iudae­is ob voculam ego nunquam contend crim, But I for my part (saith Bucer) vvould neuer [Page 358] contēd vith the Ievves for so trifling a vvord. And Zuinglius in his Tigurine transla­tion in deede contendeth not, but striketh it quite out, and putteth in for it, Tanquam leo, As a lyon, translating it more like a Iew and sworne aduersa­rie of the gospel, then a Christian. For whereas the euangelist writeth, apply­ing it to our sauiour, Os non comminuetis ex eo, Ioā. 19. v. 36. A bone of him you shal not breake, he translateth this place of the psalmist cleane opposite to the euangelist thus, Zuing. tom. 3. in E [...]chi­rid. psalmo­rum. Psa. 21. Concilium pessimorum frangit manus meas et pedes meos instar leonis. The Tigu­rine transla­tiō, wicked and Iuysh against the crucifying of Christ. to like pur­pose is the translation of Leo Iudae Cinzit me, [...]cu leo ma­nus meas, &c. The assembly of vvicked men breaketh my handes and feete like a lion. By that wicked interpretatiō secretly also furthering the detestable opinion of other his brethren before touched, against the maner of Christs crucifying.

But to let this passe vvhich requireth a larger discourse, how soeuer M. W. like or dislike the opiniō, here of I con­clude, that these fountaines, which he calleth, Pag. 16. Most pure and holesome, are in ma­nie respectes impure and pestilent, and haue in them far greater errors mali­ciously thrust in against matters of such height, thē he and his felowes shal find in our latin bibles so long as they shal [Page 359] be able to reade one letter in thē. The con­clusion. They haue errors against Christs diuinitie, they haue errors against his humanitie, errors against his passion, errors against the force of his redemption, and many other errors against other partes of our religion. These errors Luther him self confesseth, Lyra a Iew borne acknow­ledgeth, reason and experience cōuin­ceth, S. Iustine to Triphon a Iew a­uoucheth and approueth, S. Hierom by plaine demonstration sheweth: and to passe by others, Castalio accompteth M.W. halfe a Iew for thinking so superstitiously, as here he pretendeth. And except he can bring better arguments, then hitherto he hath, he geueth vs oc­casion to thinke him not only scarce halfe a Christian, but also scarce halfe a wise man, who of so difficile & hard a point pronounceth so rashly, so vnpro­bably, and so vnreasonably. Whereof I inferre, that not so lightly as these fel­lowes imagine, but with great and di­uine wisdome, the general Councel autorized the aūcient latin translation so corrected and amended, as in the Ca­non of the same Councel it is appoin­ted: although peraduenture whē those fathers so decreed, they intended not [Page 360] this comparison, in to which by the importunitie of our aduersaries we are now drawen.

IT resteth now that I finish the other two partes which as yet remaine of the last chapter, touchinge the ex­act veritie of our latin translation, & the impietie in appealing from that to the greeke and hebrew. But before I come thether, reason requireth som­what to be spoken of the new testamēt in greeke, as hath bene spoken of the old in hebrew. And it may be that the Protestantes find more fault with vs, for that at the least in the new testamēt we leaue not our old latin and folow the greeke, in which tonge the Euāge­listes vvrote. To iustifie our doing [Page 361] herein, much may serue of that vvhich hath bene said in the last chapter, much more may be seene in the preface before mencioned of the nevv testa­ment, vvhereof as I said I vvil make my aduantage for breuities sake, be­cause I perceaue this trifle riseth and increaseth betvvene my fingers more then ether my self, or others vvould haue it. VVherefore I vvil gather to M. VV. handes the summe of that which is there spoken, The preface of the new testament. because he see­meth neuer to haue read it, and after adde one or two short obseruations of mine owne & so passe away.

Tē reasons there shal he find, Reasons to iustifie the latin testa­ment, in cō ­parison of the Greeke. why we in our translation folovved rather the latin then the greeke: the tenth reasō vvhereof may be subdiuided in to ten reasons more at the least, prouing the latin to be purer then the greeke, by most cleare examples, fortified vvith the authoritie of Tertullian, of S. Hierō, of the Ecclesiastical historie, of Caluin, of Beza, of Erasmus, of the English translations and translators them selues. VVhich discourse is con­cluded vvith this approbation of that excellent man Theodorus Beza. Beza in prae­fat. noui te­stamenti anno 1556. Hovv vnvvorthely (saith he) and vvithout cause [Page 362] doth Erasmus blame the old interpreter, as dissenting from the greeke? he dissented I graūt from those greeke copies vvhich Eras­mus had gotten, The greeke printes now in vse are not sufficiēt to disproue the Latin testament. but vve haue found not in one place, that the same interpretatiō vvhich he blameth, is grounded vpon the authoritie of other greeke copies, and those most aunci­ent. Yea in some number of places, vve haue obserued that the reading of the latin text of the old interpreter, though it agree not some time vvith our greeke copies, yet is it much more cōuenient, for that it seemeth he folow­ed some truer and better copie. After this, folow eight other reasons shewing our latin translation to agree generally with the greeke or with more graue & sufficient authoritie thē are the greeke copies now extant: after which folow many examples wherein Beza particularly chargeth the greeke copies of corruption, whom in that case the en­glish trāslations folow. Al which ma­keth most euidently for vs & iustifieth our doing. For if in truth (euen by the confession of our greatest aduersaries) our latin be purer then the greeke, if our latin be framed exactly though not to the vulgar greeke examples now vsual, yet to more auncient and perfect examples as Beza hath obser­ued, [Page 363] if the greeke testaments haue in them many faultes, errors & corrupti­ons, as Beza in word auoucheth and by manifold examples sheweth, if this be so true that our english translators them selues at their pleasure leaue the greeke and folow our latin, with what face, reason, or conscience, can M.W. crie vpon the pure and vncorrupt ori­ginals, which him self and his masters proue to be so impure and contamina­ted? With what honestie can he cal vs to the greeke, from which them selues depart so licentiously? Vnto these I wil ioyne only three short obseruati­ons, which the diligent reader perhaps may amplifie by verie many particular examples, and so wil come to confer our translator with our aduersaries.

1 The first may be the difference of our greeke copies now, from the old, whereof let this be an example. Beza in Ioā, ca. 7. v. 53. Beza reiecteth the whole storie of the adul­terous womā whereof mentiō is made in the eight of S. Ihon. His reason is, Veteres illi reiecerunt. be­cause the old fathers did so, and it was not in the old greeke testaments: which he proueth by the authoritie, of S. Chry­sostom of Theophilact, of Nonnus, and S. Hierom. and amongst 17 old copies of Henrie [Page 364] Stephen, one vvanted it, the rest had it, but so, Beza doub­teth of a part of S. Iohns gos­pel. that in their reading there vvas maruelous varietie. whereof he inferrteh, Tāta va­rietas lectionis facit vt de totius istius narra­tionis fide dubitem. This great varietie of rea­ding maketh me to doubt of the truth of the vvhole matter. Yet notwithstanding this cōtrarie practise of the old greekes and greeke testaments, and infinite va­rietie in the copies, the new printes haue it (for ought I can find) vniuersal­ly and agreably: and in al our english testaments (trāslated after the greeke) it is as canonical as any other part of S. Iohns gospel. So that herein appea­reth a great diuersitie betwene the old greeke testaments and the new, and therefore daungerous it is to folowe these new, if we can not do it but with condēnation of the old: & yet as daun­gerous is it to folow the old, if we can not do it without condēnation of that which the church holdeth for a part of S. Iohns gospel. Bez. ad Eph. 3. vers. 14. The like noteth thae same writer in the epistle to the Ephes. the 3. chap. In graecis no extat. a parcel whereof in S. Hierōs time VVas not in the greeke bookes, but only in the latin. but (saith Beza) In omnibus veteri­bus libris et scholiis quoque graecis haec parti­cula additur. Novv it is added in al the old greeke copies & scholies also.

[Page 365] 2 A second obseruation may be the rash & vnconsiderate additions which haue bene made in the greeke text. Additions rashly made to the gree­ke. an example whereof may be taken from the same Euangelist and the ende of the same chapter, Ioan. 8. v. 59 where in the greeke is added this peece, Exiuit e templo, [...]. Transiens per medium illorum, et sic praeteriit. touching vvhich thus writeth Beza. Beza in Ioā. cap. 8. v. 59. These vvords are found in verie auncient copies, but I thinke as doth Erasmus, that the first part is taken out of Luke the 4. v. 30. and creapt into the text by fault of the vvri­ters vvho found that vvritten in the margēt, and that the later part [...] vvas added to make this chapter ioyne vvel vvith the next. And thus to thinke I am moued not only because nether Chrysostome nether Au­gustine make any mention of this peece, but also because it seemeth not to hāg together ve­ry probably for if he withdrew him selfe out of their sight, hovv vvent he through the mid­dest of thē? etc. & so forth disputeth against this parte as altogether vnprobable & not likely to be true. Yet is it now ge­nerally in most greeke copies, how beit the english translators leaue it out of their testaments. Of the yere 1561. 1562. 1577. 1579. The reason I take to be, because howsoeuer they bragge of [Page 366] their greeke and hebrew originals, the truth is, No certain­tie in the English translations they translate nether the one nor the other (except sometimes some few words for a shew) but only take that, which Beza in latin deliuereth vn­to them. And yet (whereof I marueil) the freshest translation which profes­seth to folowe Beza, anno 1580. & inscribeth the booke thus: The Testament of our Lorde Iesus Christ translated out of greeke by Theodore Beza, and Englished by L. T. put­teth this in, which Beza leaueth out and against vvhich Beza disputeth so earnestly that it can not be scripture, Scripture made Cano­nical & not Canonical according to Bezaes fansie. as being contrarie to it self. But for ex­cuse of the English translator it may be (and true it is) that Beza one yere thought thus, an other yere thought otherwise. Of the yere 1556. Of the yere 1565. And so in one Testament of his, held that for false & Apocryphal, which in an other Testament he gaue out & autorized as sacred & Canoni­cal. Vnto this place thou maist referre that peece which the Protestāts so glo­riously sing and say in the ende of the Lords praier. For thine is the Kingdome, the povver, and glorie for euer and euer. Amen. which as Erasmus disliketh, confessing it notwithstanding to be, Eras. in An­not. In omnibus grae­cis exemplaribus & nulla latino, In al greeke [Page 367] testaments and no one Latin, so Bullinger himself counteth it to be a mere patch sowed to the rest, by I knowe not whō, and alloweth wel of Erasmus iudgmēt, Bulling. de­cade 5. ser [...]. 5. reprouing Laurentius Valla for fin­ding fault with the latin editiō because that lacketh it. Non est (saith he) quod Lau­rentius Valla stomachetur &c. There is no reason vvhy Laurence Valla should take the matter so hotely, as though a great part of the Lordes praier vvere cut a vvay. Rather their ras [...]nes was to be reproued who durst presume to peece on their toyes vnto the Lords praier. Assuere suas nuga [...].

3 A third obseruation may be, Parcels of importance heretically leaft out of the greeke. that the greeke testaments omit vpon light occasions, often times that which they should not, and which the latin retaineth for autentical & canonical. Before cap. 10. pa. 248 Luc. 1. v. 35. Example where of may be the place be­fore noted of the incarnatiō. Quod nas­cetur ex te sanctum, vocabitur filius dei. That (saith the Arch [...]ngel to our bles­sed ladie) vvhich of thee shal be borne ho­ly, shal be called the sonne of God. In which sentence the two syllables, ex te, [...], what force they cary against the Ana­baptists hath bene declared. Now con­sider the gener [...]l corruption of the greeke cop [...]es in that behalf. Of them thus writeth Carolus Molineus a great [Page 368] Protestant in his new testament. Carol. Mo­lin. in nou. testament. part. 1. I haue read, exte, in most aūcient bibles, of vvhich one copie I haue, printed at Lions▪ the yere 1479. and that is the old vndoubted reading. for so reade the old and nevv Breuiaries and Romane offices. But Erasmus, vvhom Bucer and Bullinger folovv, seemeth only to haue fallen vpon a copie in this part vnp [...]rfite, the error vvhereof is spread a broade in many co­pies both greeke and latin printed at Basil, Zuricke, Paris, and Lions, you and at Gene­ua also in the ordinarie glosse vpon the three first Euangelistes set forth the yere 1549. and 1554. but novv of late the Geneuians, especi­ally Theodorus Beza haue acknovvleged and mended this error. See the greeke testament of Ba­sil print of the yere 1536. 1540. 1543. Zuri [...]. 1547. Gene­ua 1565. 1576. how it is mended I know not, but sure I am in the text of any greeke copie I could neuer yet for it, and Beza in his mending doth shew so notable a tricke of an Anabaptist as may be. In the annotations of his testa­ment, he writeth of this peece wel and christianly thus. Beza in tes­tamēt. 1556. in Luc. 1. vers. 35. Exte, [...], of thee. so I found it vvritten in some bookes of the old edition, and in the booke of Complutum, and in many places of Epiphanius. And Athana­sius in h [...]s epistle to Epictetus bishop of Co­rinth, shevveth that so vve must reade. For thus vvriteth he. The Angel said not simply that vvhich shalbe be borne in thee, but of [Page 369] thee, [...]. that vve should beleeue that vvhich vvas borne, by nature to haue bene formed of her. By which reasons he proueth that to be the true reading in the greeke, the latin testaments generally concurring therewith. Beza furthereth the A­nabaptistes against Christs in­carnation of the bles­sed Virgin. But how now amēdeth he his testamēt? thus. where­as before it was in the margent of some greeke testamēts, as appeareth by the print of Iohn Crispine the yere 1553. he leaft it cleane out both of text and margent of the greeke testaments which after this were printed in Geneua, as appeareth in the two prints of the testamēt set forth by Beza him self the yere 1565. in greeke and latin, and the greeke testament printed after that by Henricus Stephanus the yere 1576. so that the other true reading remaineth only in the latin, which against an Anabaptist, or any other Protestant making no accompt of the latin, farther then it agreeth with the greeke, is nothing worth. And there­fore the english bible of the yere 1561. in this point drawing towards Ana­baptisme, as also the bible printed the yere 1577. leaueth it cleane out.

An other error of like qualitie, though not of like quantitie and great­nes [Page 370] is in the 36. C [...]rol Mol. in testamēt. par. 64. verse, ca. 17. of S. Luke vvhich (as the same man sayth) vvanteth in Euthimius an auncient greeke vvriter & in Theophilact, and in al the copies prin­ted at Basile, and in the translation of Zu­ricke, and in the bibles printed at Geneua, nether Erasmus, nor Sanctes Pagninus, nor Bucer, nor Bullinger, nor Brentius, nor Cal­uin, reade it. sed habetur in meis antiquis, et in vulgari aeditione. but it is in my old bi­bles, and in the vulgar edition. Hereof it riseth, that Erasmus in sundrie places would leaue out verses, because they were not in his greeke copies, Beza contrariewise would put them in, be­cause he found them in his. For exam­ple. Mar. 11. v. 26 Of that sentēce Mar. 11. v. 26. Quòd si vos n [...]n dimis. ritis, nec pater vester qui in caelis est, dimittet vobis peccata vestra, Eras­mus writeth, Beza in illū locum. that in the greatest number of greeke testaments this verse is not read, ne­ether in Theophilacte. Nos tamē in plarisque vetustis exemplaribus reperimus, atque ad [...] in Theophilacto Romano (saith Beza) yet I found it in most of the auncient copies, & in The ephilact printed at Rome. A sm [...]le stu­dent with meane diligence may en­large this by verie many examples, & the greeke testaments of our time for the greater multitude cōming through [Page 371] the handes of heretical printers, speci­ally in the beginning of this tragical heresie, ministreth great store & vari­etie of cutting of, and leauing out, and such like false practises.

4 But the last and principal reason why we prefer our latin translator be­fore al other, is this which I shal now speake of. Flacius Illyricus finding fault with the church which was about 400. yeres after Christ in S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostoms time, for igno­rance in the hebrew tong▪ treating of this matter how the testament should be faithfully translated, Illyric. in clau. par. 1. praefat. Vnus (saith he) popularis meus Hieronymus linguarum egre­giè peritus fuit &c. Only my countryman Hierom vvas maruelous cunning in the tōgs. If S Hier & the Church in his time were desti­tute of these helpes, is Illyricus & the rest of that cru [...] furnished with them? he indeuoured to illustrate the scriptures, both by his translations and commentaries. But he in deede being ignorant of mans sickenes & Christ the phisition, and vvanting the keye vvhich openeth the scripture, that is, the difference betvvene the lavv and the gospel, being also destitute of Christ vvho openeth the dore, he did litle good. The like defect vvas in Lyra not lōg before our time, vvhere­as othervvise he tooke great paines to set­forth and expound the holy bible. Out of which censure this I gather, not how [Page 372] arrogantly and impiously these men despise and contemne the principal doctors and Primitiue church, but that al skil & knowledge of tonges serueth not to make a man interprete the testa­ment as he ought, Religious sinceritie principally to be regar­ded in an interpreter of the scri­pture. except withal he be of sounde religion towardes God, in­dued with his grace and spirite, voide of partialitie and affection, and with single & sincere minde coueteth to ex­presse the sense and meaning of the ho­ly Ghost.

If by these rules we examine and scanne our old interpreter, we shal manifestly finde that he is to be pre­ferred both before al the interpreters of our time whosoeuer is counted best, yea put thē al together, as also be­fore the greeke testaments which now are currant. For that his knowledge was sufficient in the greeke tonge, and therefore erred not for want off kil, the thing it self speaketh, and it is confes­sed by al his and our aduersaries, Pelli­cane, Our old in­terpreter had varietie & choise of good gree­ke copies. Beza, Castalio, Molineus, as shal appeare hereafter. That he had good stoare of greeke copies, & those truer and perfecter then we haue com­monly now, Beza likewise in plaine termes confesseth. his words are ci­ted [Page 373] before. Pag. 362. & he geueth this general rule of him, that amongst the old greeke ex­amples which he vsed to the furni­shing of his new testament, two he had which he calleth, The second & the eight, vvhich lightly neuer disagreed from our vulgar translation. Vpon the first of S. Marke he vvriteth thus. Beza in Mar. ca. 1. vers. 2. In prophe­tis [...], so vve found it vvrittē in al our greeke bookes, sauing the second & the eight, in vvhich vve reade, Hiero. de optimo ge­nere inter­pretādi. c. 3. Augu. quest. 57. vet. & nou. test. Epiph. cōtra haereses. li. 2 Chrisost. ca. 1. Marci. [...], in Isai the prophete, and so did the old interpreter translate the place. And that it should be so, is proued most clearely by the Syriake bible, S. Hier. S. Austin, S. Epiphan. & S. Chrysost. specially de­fending this place against Porphitie. Againe in S. Luke, Eiectis for as omnibus, [...], Bez. in Luc. cap. 8. v. 54. the old interpreter reade not this, yet vve found it in al our old bookes, excepting the secōd and eight, quorum miri­ficus est cum vulgata editione consensus. Be­tvveene vvhich and the vulgar edition there is a vvounderful consent.

But because al this serueth not in this diuine vvorke, The religi­ous fidelitie & sinceritie of our old interpreter▪ except the minde be rightly guided and voide from al passions, in this parte principally our interpreter by al reason must needes be iudged soueraine and excellent, be­cause [Page 374] liuing so longe before the na­mes of Papists and Protestants vvere knovvē, he could not vnequally bend to one side against the other. and his precisenes and religious vprigh [...]nes is often times singularly commended by the aduersaries them selues. Vetus in­terpres (saith Beza) videtur summa religi­one sacros libros interpretatus. Beza in 1. c. Lucae v. 1. The old inter­preter seemeth to haue inteepreted the holy bookes vvith marue [...]ous sinceritie and religiō. And Molineus. Molin par. 30. I gerrimè a vn gari con­suetaque lectione recedo, quam etiam enixè defendere so [...]eo. I can verie hardly de­part from the vulgar and accustomed rea­ding, vvhich also I am vvont verie earnest­ly to defend. And [...]o vse one domestical vvitnes, Humfred. de ratione in­terp lib. 1. pag. 74, D. Humfrey thus speaketh of him. Proprietati verborum satis videtur addictus vetus interpres, et quidem n [...]mis anxiè, quod tamen interpretor religione qua­dam fecisse, non gnorantia. The old inter­preter seemeth sufficiently bent [...]olovv the proprietie of vvords, and he doth it in deede to carefully, vvhich notvvithstanding I sup­pose him to haue done not of ignorance, but of religion and conscience. Hereby is vvel and perfitly iustified the sincere and vpright dealing of our interpreter, vvhose fault ether is none, or if it be [Page 375] any, it is this, that in folowing the exact signification of the greeke word, he was to scrupulous and carefull, to full of conscience and religion, which is a very good fault, if it must be called a fault, and commended and iustified els where by D. Humfrey him self. Humfred. ibid. pa. 175. Liberi­us (saith he) in aliis prophanis licet expa­tiari & degredi a verbis: in canonica scrip­tura nulla licentia est tolerabilis. non enim concessum est homini dei linguam mutare. In prophane vvritings a man may range a­brode more freely, & depart from the vvords: in canonical scripture no such licence is tole­rable. for man may not alter the tonge of God.

Against this man so learned, Protestant translators of the new testament al partial, in fauour of their seue­ral heresies, and so al false & cor­rupt. hauing good greeke copies, & folowing them exactly and vvith such religion let now any Protestant oppose any of his nevv translators, whom by manifold reasōs, trials and experiments, I can not disproue and plainly shevv, that for one error of our interpreter, he hath at least a score. And in reason hovv can it be othervvise, vvhereas they al being here [...]ikes, and ech addicted to some peculiar sect (sauing Erasmus, vvho notvvithstanding vvas far out of the vvay) and therefore full of pride, arro­gancie, [Page 376] selfvvil, and geuen to that par­tial humor vvhereof his heresie most consisted, drew al places, especially in­different, to serue that veyne. Luthers excellencie in interpreting, is of the greatest number of Protestāts thought very singular, so as not only the Lu­therans but euen the Zuinglians geue him great praise, Sleid. li. 17. in fine. as vve learne by Slei­dan. Brent. in A­polog. conf. Wirten. cap. de horis ca­nonicis. Habemus sacra biblia (saith Brentius in the Apologie of the Wirtenberg Cō ­fession) a Luthero in Germanicam linguam diuino beneficio tā perspicue cōuersa &c. vve haue the holy bibles through the great bènefite of God turned by Luther in to the Germain tonge so clearely, that his translatiō yeldeth to none, ether greeke or latin. Yet hovv elegāt and sincere a translator he vvas, vve may coniecture by Emserus, Bey viert­z [...]hin hun­dert ketzer­lycher lugē. Lindan. du­bitant. dial. 1. pa. 79. vvho ga­thered out of his translation Fourteene hundred fovvle lyes and falsifications. But because the authoritie of this man being a catholike vvayeth not much with M.W. and to vvrite out those lyes vvere to fil vp a good booke, vvhich I am not disposed to do at this time, to make short worke, both in this & the rest I wil stay my self vpon the authoritie of such men, as I knovv M. VV. honoreth for singular instruments of the Lord [Page 377] in setting forth the gospel, such as he vvel knovveth, speake not of partia­litie but of conscience. And vvho can iudge of Luther better then his coa­postle Zuinglius, Luthers trās­lation ful of corruption, in fauour of Luthera­nisme. vvho is so far of from approuing his translation, that he ac­counteth him a fovvle corrupter and horrible falsifier of scripture to make them serue his heretical fansies, and in that kinde reckeneth him for a very Arrian and Marcionite. Thus he vvriteth. Zuing. to. 2. ad Luther. lib. de sacra­mēto fo. 412 Thou doest corrupt (Luther) & ad­ulterate the vvord of God, folovving herein the Marcionites and Arrians, vvho of old vvere vvont commōly to raze out of the scrip­tures such places as seemed to be against their doctrine. This fault he exemplifieth in Luthers translation thus. VVhereas these vvords of Christ, [...] Iohn 6. he should haue translated thus, That flesh profiteth nothing, there he leaft out the Ger­mane article, (das, that) ansvvering the greeke article ( [...]) to the intent those vvordes should not precisely and determinately be re­ferred to the self same flesh, of vvhich Christ had spoken a litle before, and spake of stil, for thus he translated it &c. And after many vvordes spent against Luther for his malitious vvickednes, he thus conclu­deth. See hovv thy case standeth Luther, Ibid. fo. 143 [Page 378] that in the eyes of al men thou art seene to be a manifest and common corrupter, Manifestus & publicus sacrae scrip­turae corruptor & adul­terator. and per­uerter of the holy scripture, vvhich thing thou canst neuer denie before any creature. Hovv much are vve ashamed of thee, vvho hetherto haue esteemed thee beyonde al mea­sure, and novv trye thee to be such a false fellovv. Two fitte A­postles for such a church as they erected Betvvene vvhich tvvo (most excellent Apostles of the english con­gregation) thus chiding, I knovv not who is of vs, more to be abhorred and detested. whether Luther, vvho plai­eth the part of an Arrian and Marcio­nite in mangling & defacing the scrip­tures, or Zuinglius vvho so eagerly striueth to proue that the flesh and hu­manitie, and consequently the incarna­tion of our most blessed Sauiour is vvorth nothing.

But to let that passe, and proceede to talke of our translators, M. W. be­cause he is a Zuinglian, therefore by likelihode reckeneth thē for more ex­quisite in geuing forth their testamēts. No transla­tion of scri­pture made by a Zuin­glian▪ can possibly be good. Graunt that be so in the iudgment of him and his companions: hovv can vve be induced so to thinke of them, vvhereas Luther their common father, holdeth them for most ignorant and foolish, & (to vse his ovvne vvords) as [Page 379] senselesse and brutish, as is any stocke or beast, in geuing the true sense of the scripture. who calleth them commonly touching d [...]uinitie and matters theolo­gical, stultos, srolidos, stupi [...]os, stipites, asinos, Ibid. apud Zuingl. fol. 388.389. truncos, antichristos, impost [...]res, stipites, asi­nino intellectu, and so forth many like raylinges vnworthy to be heard amōgst the vilest creatures that liue, much lesse amongst two such Arch apostles, had they in them any parcel, Particular translations of diuers protestātes. I wil not say of Apostolike or Christian, but of ciuil or humaine grauitie. But I wil discend vnto some of their particular Testa­ments set forth by Zuinglians, to find out if it may be, one whic [...] may be pre­ferred before our commō. That which was set forth by Oecolampad us (as I suppose) and the Diuines of Basi [...]e, The transla­tion of Ba­sile wicked. is of many vvel allovved. And vvil you haue vs refuse our old, a [...]d take that? but Beza chargeth vs in any case not to do so, and geueth his rea [...]on, Bez. in resp. ad defens. & respōsio. Castalion. because that Basile tr [...]nslatio [...] is in multis locis im­pia, & a spiritus sancti sententia prors [...]s discrepans, In many places vvicked, and alto­gether dis [...]greing from the mind of the holy Ghost. Wil you vvishe vs rather to take Castalio, vvhom D. Humfred. de rat. inter­pret. li. 1▪ pa 62 63.189. Humfrey matcheth vvith the best, and praiseth his bible [Page 380] as most painfull, most diligent, most thorougly conferred, Gesner. in Bibliotheca Sebastia. Castalio. examined, sifted, and polished? and Conradus Gesnerus simply pre­ferreth it before al, as the best that vvas euer yet set out by the Protestants. Vertit biblia (saith he) ita diligenter ac sū ­ma fide ad hebraica & graeca exemplaria &c. vt omnes omnium versiones hactenus aeditas longo post se interuallo reliquisse videatur. Cast alio bath translated the bible so dili­gently, and vvith so singular fidelitie accor­ding to the hebrevv and greeke, that he see­meth far to haue surpassed al trāslations of al mē vvhat so euer haue hetherto bene set forth. Yet this notvvithstanding, Beza in test. an. 1556. in praefat. & in Mat. c. 3. 1. Cor 1. Mat. 4. Luc. 2. Act. 8. & 10. vve can not possibly so esteeme of it, considering that Beza in so many places of his notes condēneth it not only for false, corrupt & peruerse, but also for pestilēt, sacrile­gious Ethnical, & Turkish, such a one as cōtaineth the very seede, The transla­tion of Ca­stalio, Ethnical, & laieth open the high vvay to manifest Apostasie frō Christ. To come neerer home, Caluin I suppose by M. W. iudgment should succede in place of our olde. but so should vve make as euil a chaunge as if vve tooke any yet mencioned. Caluin in his transla­tiō, altereth and addeth to the text of the gos­pel. For Caluin vvhatsoeuer grace or good qualitie othervvise he had, vvas as savvcie and malapert in altering the [Page 381] text of scripture as any of his felovv sectaries. so vvriteth of him, his ovvne brother Carolus Molineus. Carol. Mol. in sua trans. testam. noui parte 11. fo. 110. Caluinus in sua harmonia textum euangelicum desui­tare facit sursum versum, vt res ipsa indicat, vim infert literae euangelicae, et illam in mul tis locis transponit, et insuper addit literae. Caluin in his harmony (which is the very letter of his translation) maketh the text of the gospel to leape vp and dovvne, as the thing it self shevveth. He vseth violence to the letter of the gospel, and in many places cleane transposeth it, and besides this he addeth to the text. that is, he geueth vs a text of his ovvne making.

What remaineth for vs to do now, but to sticke to our old, seing the Pro­testants them selues thus disswade vs from taking any new? But there remai­neth yet one sure felow whom I sup­pose M. W. could be content to sub­stitute in place not only of our aunci­ent edition, but of Luther, Occolam­padus, Castalio, yea and Caluin him self, that is Theodore Beza, whom the english congregation seeme most to folow. Bezaes trās­lation more disagreing from it self and worse then any of the rest. But he must tel vs what testa­ment? of what yere? of what date? be­cause certaine it is, that the first editi­ons [Page 382] d [...]ffer notoriously from the middle and the middle from the later, as hath bene touched before, & of al testamēts set forth by any her [...]t [...]ke, no one hath bene more refuted & cōuinced of fowle and wilfull corr [...]ptions▪ and that by the ver [...]e heretikes them selues, then those of Bezaes. Before c. 10. witnesses whereof are (besides Catholike vvriters noted be­fore) Selneccerus the Germane, and the Vniu [...]rsitie of Iena, Carol. Moli. in testam. part 8 13.14 21.23. Se [...]astianus Casta [...]io in a vvhole booke, and Caro­lus Molineus in v [...]rie many places of his not [...]s vpon the nevv testament vvhich he set forth. VVhere often times he reprehendeth Caluin and Beza. Part. 26.30.40.64. often times of Beza he saieth, that he, de facto mutat textum. Altereth the text not only in sense, but in the verie word and letter. Againe, Theod. Beza Mat. Part. 64.65.66.74.99. 10. v. 10. & Luc. 9, 3. defac­to mu [...]at textum, A prety way to rocōcile places that seeme to disagree. vt hos ita conciliet. Sed non p [...]acet mutari textum qui ab omnibus et antiquis et recētioribus doct [...]ribus retinetur, quum sacile cōciliari possint. Beza in S. Mat­thevv chap. 10. v. 10. and S. Luke chap. 9. v. 3. actually changeth the text, so to make a reconciliation betvvene the euangelists. But I like not that, so to change the text vvhich is retained of al doctors both old and [Page 383] nevv, and othervvise they may vvel be recō ­ciled. and whether they may or may not surely that is a very mad way of recon­ciliation. And commonly that writer preferreth our vulgar editiō, before Erasmus, Molin. in Luc. 17. Bucer, Bullinger, Brentius, the Tigurine trās­lation, Pagnines, etiam Iohannis Caluini et omnibus aliis, yea bef [...]re Iohn Caluins to, Our old translation better then al Protestāt translations Carolus [...]olincus. and all other. And in the same place. Here Erasmus did vvel to folovv the old edition, and it had bene better for Beza to haue done so to. And againe, Peccat Beza antiquam versionem mutans, Iohānis 3. v. Vide ibi. in Ioan. 7. v. 35. 19 et 43. And the like is very common in Castalio, Beza malè reprehendit veterem interpretem. Castalio in defens. pag. 179.174.18 [...].183.188.198.202.206.213. Melius transtulerat vetus inter­pres. Iniustè reprehendit veterem interpre­tem &c. vniustly and vvith out cause Beza reprehendeth the old interpreter. The old in­terpreter had translated it better before. And touching Beza he saith, Castal. de­fens. trans. pag. 176. that to note al his errors committed in translating the new testament, Opus esset nimis magno l [...]bro, It vvould require a very great booke. And hauing noted certaine faultes of Beza committed only in the first ten chapters of S. Matthew, Ibi. pag. 182 183. Bezaes in­numerable corruptions in the new testament. thus he con­cludeth. In his decem Matthaei capitibus (in quibus tamē plurimae quae merito reprehēdere potuissem praetermisi) quam prolixum passem [Page 384] &c. I trust I haue shevved sufficiently by these ten chapters of S. Matthevv (in vvhich notvvithstanding I haue omitted very ma­ny things vvhich iustly I might haue repre­hended) vvhat a long register of his errors I could gather out of his vvhole vvorke. For this is true, that oft times he erreth not only in vvords (vvhich is not so daungerous, and might be tolerated) but also in things, and the same most vvaightie: and oft times he en­forceth by vvrithing not the sentences only, but also the vvords of the holy vvriters to serue his error. So Iohn 1. v. 12. he corrupteth a most not able place and of greatest moment touching freevvil &c. And in fevv to speake al (for I should vvrite out vvhole treatises & bookes, if I vvould shew the vile abusing of scripture com­mitted by that vvretch of damnable memorie, Before c. 10. vvhom our english Protes­tantes cheefely extolle, as by M. VV. vve learne) thus much Castalio noteth and shevveth by manifolde examples, Beza then especially corrupteth the text, when he thereby may most dishonour Christ. that Beza then principally laboureth in peruerting the scripture, vvhē it ap­pertaineth most to the benefite & vertue of Christs passion and our redemption. Thus he vvriteth vpon the 6. chapter to the Romanes, and these vvordes of our latin text, Rom. 6. v. 6. Vt destruatur corpus peccati, [Page 385] in the english translation, That the body of sinne may be destroyed, both agreing ex­actly with the greeke, Castalio vbi sup. pa. 192. [...], Beza (saith Castalio) turneth the Word [...], Eneruetur, may bevvea­kened, and reprehendeth the old interpreter, Erasmus, and me, for translating, may be des­troyed. for this honest man, vvil not haue sinne to be distroyed by Christ, but only weakened, vvherein he doth plainely diminish the benefite bestovved vpon vs by Christ, Id quod multis aliis in locis eum facere animad­uerti. vvhich thing I finde him to do in many other places.

I wil not bestowe time in disprouing our english bibles, which for the most part are nothing but corrupt gutters, flowing from these forenamed corrupt and stinking lakes. English trā ­slations set forth in schisme, al faultie. Yet if otherwise any man list to disproue them al and sin­gular, there is nothing more facile & easie. For whereas in our time since the gospel (as they cal it) began in our country, King Hen­ries bibles. we haue had three kinde of diuers bibles, vnder kinge Henrie, kinge Edwarde, and the Q. King Ed­wardes. Maiestie that now is, king Henries bibles as cor­rupt, were corrected by king Edwarde & the duke of Somersets appointmēt, as by comparing them is easie to see [Page 386] and the Protestants I thinke wil not d [...]y Eduardus sextuo (saith D. Humfred. de sat inter. li. 3. pa. 523. Hum­frey) procerum consi [...]is, et suasu episcopo­rum, biblia emitti curauit castigatiora et purgatiora, ac legi publicè et omnibus in templis baberi mandauit. King Edvvard by the aduise of his noble men, and m [...]t [...]on of his bishops, caused the bibles to be set forth more corrected (then vvere his fathers) and more purged of faults, and commaunded the same to be read publ [...]kly, and to be had in al churches. The bibles set forth in our time. Next, that the bible set forth by the Quenes authoritie, correct those of king Edward, is shewed in many pla­ces of the Discouerie, & requireth for proofe, no more but that the reader cō ­fer one or other epistle of S. Paule, for examples sake that to the Romanes, The yere when it was printed, is not put in the print. in The nevv testamēt of our Sauiour Iesu Christ, faithfully translated out of the greeke, and perused by the cōmaundement of the Kings M. & his honorable councel & by thē autorized, & printed [...]ly R [...]ch. Iugge, with the same epistle in The nevv testament of our lord Ie­sus Christ, translated out of greeke by Theodo­re Beza, and englished by L.T. and printed by Christofer Barker the yere 1580. Cum gratia et pri [...]ilegio. and now that al these are very falsely translated, and the best con [...]aine wicked, and horrible, and ethnical errors, this hath bene shewed [Page 387] before at large by manifest demonstra­tion, Before c. 11. and the confession of our aduer­saries them selues, and so no waies are they to be opposed to our bibles.

And what can M.W. now say against vs? or whom would he haue vs to fo­low? Perhaps his last counsel is that at least we should our selues fall to trans­late, and so accordinge to the original greeke, fashion our selues a new testa­mēt, seing we can like none of theirs. Not possi­ble to put forth any translation more indif­ferent then our aunciēt. But nether may we thus do. First, be­cause we beleeue our testament to be truer then the common greeke copies now extant, wherein as he seeth we stand, and that not without reason. Secondarily, because we are perswa­ded that had we true originals, we could neuer make a translatiō in these partial times, more sincere, vpright, indifferent, and freer from reprehensiō then is this which we haue already.

Finally and for a conclusion, Note this. let the Christian reader note this, Few faultes are foūd by any protes­tants in our old transla­tion, which, by other Protestants are not iustsied. that where­as commonly euerie secte of our ad­uersaries, in wordes & general termes findeth fault with our translation, few or none of them shew any error or fault in particular, but lightly there is some one of their owne brethren [Page 388] which standeth with vs in defense of our testament against that reprehen­der, which no doubt proceedeth of the manifest sinceritie which our trās­lator vsed, and the inuincible force of truth which so breaketh forth in des­pite of her aduersaries. Laurentius Valla first of al carped at out common edition, Bulling. de­cad. 5. serm. 5. but his rashnes is iustly repro­ued by Erasmus, Bullingere, Beza, and sundrie others. Erasmus next fel in to that veyne, Bez. in prae­fatio. noui testamenti an. 1556. but how vnreasona­bly let Beza speake. Quam immeritò (saith he) multis in locis reprehendit Eras­mus ve [...]erem interpreteni tanquam a graecis dissentientem? Hovv vniustly in many pla­ces doth Erasmus reprehend the old interpre­ter as dissenting from the greeke? Then came Luther for the Lutherans, and Castalio and some other for the Zuin­glians, and euerie one had some tooth against our interpreter. But both in particular, Beza doth iustifie those pointes, which they accounted erro­neous, as may be seene in verie many places of his notes, Supra. Our old translation better then any of the protestants▪ Beza. and in general, pre­ferreth him before any interpreter that he euer sawe. Vulgatam aedu ionem (saith he) maxima ex parte amplector, & caeteris omnibus antepono. The vulgar editi­on [Page 389] I embrace for the greatest parte, and pre­fer it before all other vvhatsoeuer. There remaine only certaine faultes which Beza imagineth, & which in his notes sometime he reprehendeth, but they for the greater number, and such as be ought worth, are so wel defended by Castalio, and Carolus Molineus (to let passe our owne writers) that if M. W. would gather in to a heape al the faultes which are obiected against our testament, and afterwardes take away those which are to be taken away by the iudgment of Beza, of Caluin, of Castalio, of Molineus, and such other Protestan [...]s who haue set forth their owne new translations against others of their brethren, I weene the number remaining would be so smale, that it would shame M. W. him self as ob­stinate as he seemeth, to compare with that, any of their English testa­ments which soeuer is most exquisite.

Wherefore to cōclude this, as before touching the hebrew, so here touching the greeke, and al other translatiō, the reader may see a few rea [...]ons amongst infinite, The Coun­cel of Trēt. vvhy the holy Councel of Trent hauing in it multitude of ex­cellēt godly & learned men (with whō [Page 390] to compare any, or al these diuided and scattered sinagoges of Lutherans, Zuinglians, Anabaptistes, or such like, were impietie and sinne before God, and intollerable iniurie before man) decreed as in the Canōs we reade tou­ching the old auncient translation. which decree standeth vpon many cleare and most euident reasons, whe­ther we compare it with the hebrew and greeke now extant, or with any of these new heretical versiōs, be it of Lu­ther, of Oecolāpadius, of Basile, of Ge­neua, of Caluin, of Castalio, of Beza, of Molineus, The later translatiōs of heretiks as likewise al other their proce­dings, are worse then the former, according to S. Pauls prophecie, proficiētes in peius. 2. Timo. c. 3. v. 13. of the English after King Henries allowance, or King Edwardes, or that which the english congregation now best alloweth, which of al other is the vvorst, most contaminate, and most dravveth to Paganisme and Atheisme, as hath bene shevved. And that vve es­teeme more of our old translator then any of these, not only reason, experien­ce, conscience, diuinitie and humanitie requ [...]reth vs so to do, not only our duety to the Church of God, our ho­nour to our holy and learned forefa­thers, our faith in Christs promise & assured confidence of the assistance of his holy Spirit requireth the same, but [Page 391] also in this our opinion vve are vvar­ranted by the manifest approbation of our most capital enemies, In appro­uing our old transla­tion, we are warranted by the Pro­testants thē selues. those that haue some learning more then the rest, of Luther, of Zuinglius, Castalio, Beza, Molineus, D. Humfrey & others, vvhō M. VV. dare not controle (as I suppose) hovv vvel soeuer othervvise he thinke of him self.

And novv may I vvith more facilitie ansvvere his secōd reason, and vvhere­in for some part I grounde the exact perfection of our latin translation, & affirme, that howsoeuer some smale fault may be found in it, absolutely it hath no error, ether touching doctrine or touching maners. For vvhy should I not so gather, when as I see the aduer­sarie being so eager, yet with al his search and studie findeth one only fault in it. whiche I wil set downe in his owne wordes, because I wil not di­minish the force of his argument. Pa. 17.18. M. W argu­mēt against the old trās­lation. Very absurdly haue you done (saith he) vvhen in translating the testament in to English, you had rather fol [...]vv the latin translation then the greeke original, and that so obstinatly that although al the greeke examples reade othervvise then is in your vulgar editiō, yet you prefer that before them al. I vvil geue [Page 392] you one example. In 1. Cor. 15. v. 54. Paule saith, [...]. This parcel in your translation is omitted. for vvhat reason? because it is not in the latin vulgar edition as they cal it. But it is in the greeke exemplars, & in the most auncient edition Siriake. and vvhat if Hierom read it not? yet Chrysostome and Ambrose him self read it, vvhich men vvhereas they liued vvith Hierom, hereof it folovveth assuredly, ether that Hierō dealt not faithfully here, or that his version vvas corrupted aftervvards. vnto which thus I answere. The an­swere.

1 First, that this omiss [...]on if it be any, could not proceede of malice or set purpose, for so much as there is no losse or hinderance to any part of doc­trine by reading as we reade. for the self same thing is most clearely set downe in the verie next lines before. for thus stande the wordes. 1. Cor. 15. v. 53.54. This corruptible must doe on incorruption, and this mortal, im­mortalitie. And vvhen this (corruptible hath done on incorruption, and this) mortal hath done on immortalitie. where thou seest the words which I haue put downe inclo­sed within the parenthesis to be con­tained most expressely in the sentence going before, which is in al our testa­ments, so that there is no harme or daū ­ger [Page 393] ether to faith, doctrine, or maners, if it be omitted.

2 Secondarely, if we prefer our latin edition before the greeke, and thinke that peece repeated, not to be of the text, what reason we haue so to do, hath bene shewed in part, and Beza by his exam­ple iustifieth our doing. For so him self doth more thē once. vpon S. Beza in Luc. ca. 20. v. 28. Luke he thus writeth [...]. Omnia quae vidi exemplaria ita scriptum habent. Al the greeke examples vvhich I haue seene, Beza praeferreth our la­tin transla­tion before al greeke examples. reade so. But the old interpreter readeth other­vvise, et rectius vt opinor, and better as I suppose. Againe in the same gospel. [...]. Haec verba deerant in omnibus ve­tustis cod [...]cibus, Ibi. c. 7. v. 31 quae tamen prorsus videntur requiri. These vvordes vvanted in al the old (greeke) bookes, vvhich for al that seeme ne­cessarie. Testament of the yere 1577, 1579. and 1580. & the Scottish great bible of the yere 1579. And therefore he supplieth his text vvith them out of our translatiō, and so do the english translators, who seldome depart frō him but like good scholers turne in to english, his latin.

3 Thirdly, that it was of old in some greeke copies as we reade, is plaine by S. Hier. who translated thus. And why should M. W. suspect any vnfaithful­nes in him, seing he put the self same wordes and sense in the next line im­mediatly [Page 394] going before? and that it was not corrupted since, appeareth by the common reading of most men in al later ages. And how vnlearnedly ar­gueth he against S. Hierom from the authoritie of S. Ambrose and S. Chry­sos [...]ō reading otherwise? Must there­fore S. Hierom be vnfaithful, or the Church after him, because S. Chrysos­tom or S. Ambrose haue those few vvordes more then he? vvhy may he not far more reasonably, more like a logician and like an honest man to in­uent an other part and make a better diuision, that ether S. Hierom dealt not faithfully, or els his greeke copies had not that peece repeated, vvhich I thinke to be most true & certaine.

4 Againe vvhy should he rather cor­rect S. Hierom by S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose, then contraryvvise th [...]m by S. S. Hieroms translatiōs more autē ­tical then the reading of many doc [...]ora. Hierom? vvhereas by common intendement and probabilitie, S. Hie­rom framing a publike translation for the Church by supreme authoritie, had more varietie of copies and examined the same more narrowly, then doth or­dinarily any other, vvho expoundeth the scripture, ether by vvay of home­lies to the people, as doth S. Chrysos­tome, [Page 395] or by vvay of commentarie, as doth S. Ambrose. And truely writeth Beza, that whosoeuer by such autho­ritie of one or other father, would go about to alter the ordinary trāslation, except he vse an other maner of iudg­ment, wisdome, and diligence, then we see vsed by our aduersaries, he wil rather corrupt the scripture then cor­rect it. And his reason is very good & pregnant. Beza in prae­fat. nou [...] te­stamen. an. 1565. Neque enim (saith he) scripto­res illos seu graecos seu latinos, existimandum est quoties locum aliquem citarint, toties vel libros inspexisse vel singula verba nume­rasse. For it is not to be supposed, that those vvriters ether greeke or latin, vvhen they had to cite a place, alvvaies ether vevved the booke, or numbred the vvords. For this had bene a matter of infinite labour & not necessarie &c. To which infinite la­bour notwithstanding, and vewing the booke, & numbring the words S. Hier. in his translatiō was of necessitie boūd, as was nether S. Amb [...]n or S. Chrisost.

And yet S. Chrysostome maketh li­tle for you, if you compare wel his owne discourse and text together. Nay he maketh cleane against you and approueth our reading. For though he haue those wordes in the second place [Page 396] yet he hath them not in the first, and repeateth them not, S. Chrys iustifieth our latin rea­ding. but only once rea­deth them in his text according to our latin. And therunto agreeth his com­mētarie, & therfore qu [...]te ouerthrow­eth [...]l that you vvould build vpon his credite. Thus they stande in him. For this corruptible must do on incorruption. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. ho. 15 And vvhen this corruptible shal do on incorruptiō & this mortal immortalitie, thē shal be fulfil­led &c. And whereas you adde that S. Ambrose readeth as you do, S. Ambrose vntruly ci­ted. you must pardon me, if I beleeue mine owne eyes better then your reporte. Cer­t [...]inely S. Ambros. in 1. Cor. 15. Ambrose in his commenta­rie vppon that place readeth as we do. So readeth S. Austin de ciuitate Dei, cited by S. Beda in 1. Cor. ca 15. Bede in his commentarie vpon the same chapter, though S. Aus­tin reade also as M. VV. would haue it according to the greeke. And with S. Bede, and after S. Bede so reade the rest of the Catholike interpreters and doctors, Haymo, Anselmus &c.

5 Farthermore in this verie place as I thinke▪ most appeareth the sinceritie of our latin translatiō. For as we keepe our text according as S. Hierom and the Church then deliuered it, so not­withstanding because the words ob [...]octed [Page 397] by M. W. are in the auncient greeke example whereof the church hath due regarde, the same particle is added commonly in the margent of euerie latin testamēt which the Church vseth, as may be seene in diuers prints of Paris, Louane, and other catho­like Vniuersities. And if there be any fault in our english translation, it is this, that this parcel was not added in the margēt, as it was in the latin which we folowed.

Wherefore this proueth no corrup­tion but rather great fidelitie in our latin testament, that it agreeth with S. Hierom, & consequently the greeke examples which he interpreted, with S. Ambrose, S. Austin, S. Bede, Haymo, S. Anselmus, and the rest of the latin writers, which in a matter not doubtful, and otherwise in no respect preiudicial to any veritie of Christian profession, are of that authoritie that Beza him self in this case would not disallow our doing. and M.VV. him self also in iustifying his english trans­lations for pure and perfit, doth con­sequently approue and iustifie ours, & so an [...]wereth [...]im self in this obiection. for the later clause before noted [...] [Page 398] [...], and the lord said, they haue ad­ded to their english testaments after Beza vpon the only authorite of our latin against al the auncient greeke, (albeit now it is thrust in to the cōmon greeke prints of Geneua, Basile & Zu­ricke) & therefore he should not be offē ­ded if we attribute so much to our tes­tament who professe to honour it, se­ing he & his felowes do as much, who professe a perpetual hatred against it.

And this I trust may suffice for these few words, to quitte our testament of any faulte, considering that first they cōcerne not any controuersie: thē, that the sense of it is in worde and deed fully & euidētly cōprised in the same place. againe if we preferred our latin before al greeke, we do no more then doth Beza, then doth M.W. then do al the English and Scottish congregations in their owne pure and immaculate bi­bles. Last of al, our reading is cōfirmed not only by al the later ages of the church, these seuen or eight hundred yeres, as by S. Anselmus, Haimo, S. Bede and others, nether only by the more aunciēt latin fathers, S. Austin, S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, but also it was ac­cording [Page 399] to the greeke copies which S. Hierō had & the same agreing in sub­stāce with S. Chrysostome & no doubt many other, and therf [...]re hath suffi­ciēt ground to defend it self: although vve confesse the other reading to be vsed of many fath [...]rs, which vve there­fore mislike not, & yet rash [...]y presume not to thrust it in to our text. And this is the only fault and yet al the faultes vvhich M.VV. findeth in our latin tes­tament.

The rest, he supplieth vvith a lustie bragge, that there are at the least, pag. 18. Six hundred other, vvherein against the faith of al the greekes and their perpetual cōsent, the errors of the latin trāslatiō are retained of vs. Of which reckning, I dare at first with­out any farther stay, strike out fiue hū ­dred & yet the sūme vvhich remaineth is sufficiēt to conuince him of a maine lye. But for a farther refutation, pag. 20. Benedictus Ar [...]as Mon­tanus a Catholike priest. he tur­neth vs ouer to Benedictus Arias Montanus a good priest, one that ser­ueth in the Catholike Kinges court, and submitteth al his labours to the iudgmēt & censure of the Vniuersitie of Lo [...]ane, and therefore very vnlike it is that ether he vvil bestovv so vn­fruitefully his labours, as to vvrite a­gainst [Page 400] the Sacred Tridētine Coūcel, or that that Vniuersitie vvil approue his endeuours if he should so heretically employ thē. & whatsoeuer shal become of him hereafter, in his hebrew bibles alreadie set forth, we see that in the places before noted, he altereth not the latin according to the hebrew, but letteth it stand as autentical. VVhat speake I of him a catholike man and a priest, whereas your selues though o­therwise most obstinate and stonie har­ted against the truth, yet dare not alter it according to the hebrew, but leaue it as you found it in our bibles.

And therefore why you cal vs, [...], Bible-bea­ters. bible-beaters, I wonder, and muse what brainsicke conceite you haue therein, or what reason moueth you thus to raile. Because we defend the sinceritie of our bibles against your peeuish, and vnlearned, and fantas­tical, and contemptible talking (for what one tolerable argument bring you?) because we defend the inheri­tance left vs by our forefathers, be­cause we prefer the Church & Spouse of Christ before the sinagoge of the Iewes, because at their wicked appointment vve vvil not raze out so many [Page 401] places touching our Sauiours honour and the truth of our religion, is this the cause why your wisedome ter­meth vs Bible-beaters? Nay let the rea­der consider, and the world iudge, Neuer since Christes ty­me were there such manglers & defacers & corrupters of the bible as are the protestātes of our age. whether sith Christs time or be­fore Christs time, there were euer any beaters and circumciders, and gel­ders, and manglers, and defacers, and corrupters of those holy bookes com­parable to you and your sect. Who haue rent out of the bible so many partes which our auncient fathers deliuered vs, and we hold fast as sacred and canonical. Who haue reiected out of the old testament so many entier books as I haue noted in the begin­ning, the prophecie of Baruch, the storie of Iudith, of Tobias, of Hester, of the Machabees and Ecclesiasticus: who in the new testament haue cut out S. Paules epistle to the hebrews, S. Iames, one of S. Peters, two of S. Iohns, S. Iude and the Apocalips, and the whole gospel of S. Luke. who in those other which you pretend to keepe, haue lopt of great peeces, so many as plea­sed your arrogant and heretical spirit, peeces of S. Iohns gospel, peeces of the prophete Ieremie, peeces of the [Page 402] prophete Daniel, peeces of the booke of Cronicles or Paralipomenō, See exam­ple before pag. 288 besides many lesser parcels, pared away both in the epistles and gospels, and al the rest by your trāslations miserably cor­rupted. Who by the same reason & au­thoritie by which you iudge and con­demne these bookes, geue like autho­ritie & libertie to euerie phantastical minister to contemne and condemne the rest. The protes­tāts lay the way open for any man to deny the scripture at his pleasure For thinke you a lying reason may not be found against the gospel of S. Iohn, as wel as against the gospel of S. Luke? Or may not a man pretend as good arguments of humane spirit to be in the second epistle to the Corin­thians, or to Philemon, as in that of S. Iames, or to the hebrewes? Or may M. VVilliam Charke oppose him selfe a­gainst the vniuersal Church of Christ by the mouth of those most holy and Apostolical fathers gathered together in the great Coūcel of Nice, Hier. prefat. in Iudith. M. Charke hath a dee­per insight in scripture, then al the bishops & fathers of the great Nicene Councel. acknow­ledging for Canonical the booke of Iu­dith, and may not any other minister of like qualitie and learning do so by like example? Because the booke of Tobie maketh expressely for the patro­nage of angels, may you say disdain­fully, VVe passe not for that Raphael men­tioned [Page 403] in Tobie, Whit. cōtra Camp. pa. 17 nether acknovvledge vve those seuen angels vvhereof he maketh men­tion. Al that differeth much from Canonical scriptures which is reported of that Raphael, and sauoureth of I knovv not vvhat super­stition. Light reasōs to disautho­rize recea­ued parts of scripture. Nether vvil I beleeue free vvil al­though the booke of Ecclesiasticus affirme it a hundred times &c. and may not a Lu­theran, an Anabaptist, a Suinkseldian say the like with as good countenance against other partes of scripture, which stand as plainly against their concea­ued heresies? Is Beza to be allowed, Before pag. 364. pronouncing peremptorily touching the storie of the aduouterous woman in the 8. of S. Iohn, vpon the diuersitie which is in the greeke writers and tes­taments, that so great difference he found in that narration, that he doubteth altoge­ther of the vvhole storie, which is as much as to take from it vtterly al authoritie Canonical, and is not euerie man els to be allovved, vpon like vvarrant ge­uing like censure vpon other partes of scriptures? Reade S. S. Hier. ad Edibiam quaest. 3. Hierom vvriting to Edibia, and see vvhether a part of S. Markes gospel may not by like reason be called in question: yea reade Be­zaes notes vpon the sixt chapter, Beza in Ioā ca. 6.18. & 19 & Luc. 22. the 18. and 19. of S. Iohn, and 22. of S. Luke [Page 404] & see vvhether that diuine sermon of our Sauiour and his very passion by such argument ought not so to be cut out of the testament. The like is to be said of verie many places of S. Matthew and S. Paules epistles. Then iudge thou Christian reader whether these mē be not, [...], bible-beaters, or rather in deede, bible murtherers. For the first presupposeth the hauing of a bible, whereas they haue none. For that which they cal their bible and word of God, The prote­states bible is no more a bible, then a headles mā is a man. is in deede no word of God, no bible at al. For how can a mā cal that the bible and word of God, vvhich hath in it so many foule and fil­thie corruptions, so many vvicked, Ethnical, and Iudaical errors, as I be­fore haue noted in their bible by con­fession [...] of their ovvne brethren. Is that the bible of God, vvhich hath in it so many places maliciously peruerted against the eternal truth and testamēt of God? Can vve call him a man vvhom vve see to lacke head, hand, foote, hart, and other principal and essential partes of humane nature? and hovv then is that a bible that lacketh (for canonical) the vvritinges of so ma­ny Prophetes, Apostles, and Euange­listes [Page 405] S. Luke, S. Paule, S. Iames, S. Peter, S. Iohn, S. Iude some of which no bible euer vvanted since Christs time, nor can vvant, remaining a bible. The rest vvere euer true scriptures, though not euer in al places so accoū ­ted, as nether was the Godhead of our Sauiour, the dignitie and office of his Apostles, of al and alwaies at first ac­knowledged. But al haue bene so ac­counted for these thousand yeres and more, by general & prouincial coun­cels, the great and Apostolike councel of Nice, of Laodicea, of Carthage, by the supreme pastors of Christs church, by the general consent of the same Catholike Church in most times & a­ges. These mē therefore (good reader) folowing the steppes of their old fa­thers Marcion, Cerdon, Carpocrates, the Arrians and Manichees, despising and reiecting so many bookes of sctip­ture, are in deede not beaters, but mā ­glers and defacers, and extreme mur­therers of the bible. And that not only for this plaine and euident reason now geuen, but also for their prophane & irreligious varietie of translations, whereof now in the last part I haue to speake.

IN this later parte this haue I to shew, that whosoeuer ta­keth to him self that libertie which the heretiks geue, & here M.W. most busily striueth for, that is, to refuse the latin, and appeale to the greeke and hebrew, and these new translations, which (as they beare vs in hand) are framed according to the greeke and hebrew, he taketh the high way to denial of al faith, to Apostasie from Christ, and plaine Atheisme. This to do, the fittest way were historically to declare, how certaine knowen Sects of the Protestants, principally vpon this very reason of pretending the greeke and hebrew veritie, and therefore running to infinite varietie of diuers translations, and resting in no one, haue fallen to despise al Bibles, & Scriptures, and concluded as a most assured Euangelical veritie, that no­thing is certaine, but euerie man is to be left to his owne fansie, to beleeue as he list. Such is the sect of the [Page 407] Swinkfeldians, Anabaptists, and Aca­demikes, and it is the very drifte of Castalio (so much commended of ma­ny) in the preface of his Bible to King Edvvarde the sixte: although he beate pretily vpon an other point much of like effect, vz, that the Messias promi­sed in the law, is not yet come, Castalio in praefat. ad Edouardum sextum An­gliae regem. but vvil come hereafter according to the Iewes expectation. Thus vvriteth he. Pro­fecto si verum fateri volumus, est adhuc nostrum soeculum in profundis ignorantiae tenebris demersum: A true con­fession of a principal protestant. cuius rei certissimū testi­monium sunt, tam graues, tam pertinaces, tā perniciosae dissensiones, tam multi et irriti cōuentus de hisce controuersiis &c. The prote­state church drowned in grosse igno­rance. A sure proofe thereof. Truely if vve vvil confesse the truth, this our age is as yet drowned in extreme darknes & ignorāce: a most assured proofe vvhereof, are these so greuous, so obstinate and so pernicious dissen­sions, so many, and the same so vnprofitable meetinges about these controuersies, so great number of bookes euery day sett out, and the same differing one from an other so far, as heauen differeth from earth. And prosecu­ting this his plaine and irrefutable ar­gument, vvhereby he proueth the Protestants notvvithstanding al their latin, greeke, and hebrevv, to be most ignorant in true diuinitie and matters spiritual, thus he addeth. For if the spirit [Page 408] of God be one, The prote­stāts voyde of the spi­rite of God and al truth & truth one, it must of necessitie folovv, in vvhō that one spirite & one truth is, that they also be one amōg thē selues, & of one iudgment in matters spiritual. And if the day of the most cleare truth (of the gospel) shined vnto vs, vve vvould neuer lighten so many darkesome & obscure candles of bookes and vvritinges. Their light of the gos­pel, is the night of the gospel. The vvhich reason con­cluding this euangelical state and age to be ful of ignorance, grosse & grosse againe, Crassa, crassa (inquā) saecu [...]um tenet ignorantia, The end of their reli­gion is A­theisme, e­euery mā to beleeue what he li­steth. and that there is no certaine vvay to find out the truth and come to an end of these controuersies, hereof he inferreth, that euery man is to be leaft to his ovvne iudgement, & suffe­red to beleeue as he list. Thus he spea­keth, Vbi supra addressing his wordes to the king. Cum haec it a sint, o rex, et cum aetas nostra in tanta adhuc ignorantiae caligine caecutiat &c. Marke this plaine con­fession ap­proued by so manifest reason, against their common vaunting of the cleare light of the gospel. Scripture applied to proue Atheisme. VVhereas these things are so, O king, & vvhereas our age as yet is blinded in so great darkenes of ignorance, I thinke vve ought to vse maruelous diligence, lest by error vve offend. And if there be any controuersies in the case of religion, (as there are verie many) in these I thinke it good that vve folovv the exāple of Iudas Machabeus & his felovves, vvho vvhen they knevv not vvhat to deter­mine touching the altar of the perfite sacri­fice, [Page 409] they layed the stones thereof in the mount of the temple in a conuenient place, 1. Mach. 4. vntil there came some Prophete, vvho should de­clare Gods oracle, vvhat vvas to be done vvith them: or rather the example of Moyses, Num. 15. vnto vvhom notvvithstanding God had in precise vvords geuen commaundement, that if any mā of purpose brake the lavv, he should suffer death therefore, yet the man vvho gathered vvood vpon the sabboth day, he vvould not put to death, vntil he had particularly re­ceaued ansvvere from God so to do. And af­ter many other places of scripture brought for this purpose, as Act. 5. v. Act. 5. Rom. 14. Mat. 7. 38. et 39. Rom. 14. v. 1. et 4. Mat. 7. v. 1.2. thus he concludeth. Expectemus iusti iu­dicis sententiam &c. Let vs attend the sen­tence of the iust iudge, and employ our dili­gence not to condeme other men, but to prouidē that our selues do nothing vvhy vve should be condemned. Let vs obey the iust iudge, and suffer the cockle vntil the time of haruest, lest vvhyle vve vvil seeme to be vviser then our maister, perhaps vve plucke vp the good corne. For the later end of the vvorld is not come as yet, nether are vve angels, vnto vvhom that office is committed. Vnto this Atheisme & indifferent approbation of al maner faiths & religions very many learned & smooth Prootestants are alredy growen. [Page 410] and whether those Atheists where­of M. D. Whitg. defen. tract. 3. c. 6. pa. 178 D. Whitgift saith the english congregation is ful, appertaine to this order, yea or no, thē selues best know. But it not possible that this dayly and infinite multiplcation of contentions, sectes and schismes, new and diuers translations of testaments and bibles, should haue any other end. The protes­tants maner of prea­ching, the right way to Atheisme For (to speake the truth, and passe ouer al the rest) what certainetie of faith or religion can a man haue, when as he is taught to neglect at his pleasure, al antiquitie, al ages past, al Synodes and Councels of fathers and doctors old and new, See the pre­face. and suspend his religion vpon the only testamēt translated after the new guyse, (& interpreted after euerie mans par­ticular new fansie) where he findeth far more varietie, then there are colours in the raynebovv. And if M. VVhita­ker speaking so much of his pure greeke and hebrevv originals, or latin or english translations, should be re­quired to ansvvere directly, vvhich greeke, which hebrew he vnderstādeth, especially vvhich translation latin, en­glish, Scottish, French, or Dutch, he meaneth, vvhen he so magnifieth them against our vulgar testamēt, I weene it [Page 411] would put him to more trouble then he is aware of.

But to disaduantage my self of this maner of discourse, and keepe my self more precisely to the argument which I haue begone, I say, that to geue liberty of appealing frō one certaine latin text appointed by the general Coūcel, to di­uerse greeke, hebrew, latin, & vulgar, as the heretikes do, is the very intro­ductiō to apostasie for this reason: Impossible to do good with any kind of he­retike, so long as he may haue libertie to flee to di­uers translations and interpreta­tions. be­cause puttinge the case of religion to stand in those termes, to vvhich novv the heretiks haue brought it, it cut­teth avvay al persvvasion, al grounde, al proofe of Christian faith. For how can you deale vvith any heretike to bringe him to the vvay of saluation? To be so short as I may, and in one ex­ample to geue the reader occasion to recal to memorie hundreds, vvhich he may easily do, suppose I had to deale vvith one of the sect famous and vvel knovven in Germanie, by the name of Antinomi, Enemies of the lavv. Antinomi a sect of protestants. I rather name them of Germanie then of En­gland, although England hath store of them, because M.W. shal consider of it more quietly. They being in other things commō Protestants, beleeuing [Page 412] that man in matters of life eternal hath not free vvil, that he vvorketh not his ovvne saluation, and that good workes are of no value in that respect, ioyne vnto that common opinion this one consequent. Ipsi statuunt (sayth Sleydan of them) quaecunque tandem fit hominis vita, Sleid. li. 12. anno. 1538. fol. 199. & quantumuis impura, iusti­ficari tamen eum, si modo promissionibus euā ­gelii credit. The true cō clusion of only faith iustifying. This they put as a sure principle, that hovvsoeuer a man liue, liue he neuer so filthely, yet he is iustified, if he beleeue the promises of the gospel. And this is the very conclusion of the Protestants cō ­mon and general doctrine of iustifica­tion by only faithe. Suppose novv I haue to draw suche a one from his wic­ked opinion, The prote­stāts maner of āswering the Catholikes. and vvould moue him to be ether syncere in faith, or honest in life, vvhat vvay could I take vvith him.

1 First, I should perhaps require him to regard the most graue authoritie of Christes Catholike Church, vttered to him in S. Al fathers & Councels contemned Bernard, S. Gregorie, S. Aus­tin, S. Hierom, and auncient synods of learned bishops: the summe of whose teaching is comprised briefely in these wordes of the late Councel of Trent. Concil. Tri­dent. sess. 6. cap. 9. If any say that the vvicked man is [Page 413] iustified by only faith, vnderstanding it so, that no other thing is required that should cooperate for obtaining the grace of iustifica­tion &c. Anathema be he. But this is no­thing, for against a thousand Austins, & a thousand Cyprians, and as many ge­nerall Councels consisting of men, See before chap. 3. & in the praeface such a Protestant is many waies armed by M. W. and his brethren. And there­fore this wil not serue.

2 Wel, mount we then at one steppe, ouer the heads of al fathers, Councels, S. Iames re­fused. and Churches, euen to the Aposto­lical age, and scriptures them selues. there wee proue that men must coope­rate and do good workes by the autho­ritie of S. Iames. But S. Before c. 1. Iames is flat a­gainst S. Paule, he abuseth scripture, he disputeth ridiculously, he sauoreth no­thing of an Apostolical spirit, he quite ouerthroweth that which S. Pau. had wel built & therefore he is no more worth then S. Austin, & so not to be obiected.

3 At least S. Paule him self is of good authoritie, who in many places, espe­cially of his epistle to the hebrews, is as vehement in this, as is S. Iames, & v­seth much like arguments. That is true, and therefore without question that epistle was neuer writen by S. Paule. so [Page 414] say Beza and Caluin, Caluin & Beza in cō ­mentar. ad Hebr. in ar­gumento, & ca. 2. v. 3. touching the denial of the author, and touching the whole epistle thus say others. Sed quū his rationibus quibus vtitur author epistolae Iacobi, et epistolae ad Hebraeos, neque vtatur Christus, Cent. 1. li. 2. c. 4. col. 328. neque caeteri apostoli, et hae epistolae apocryphae sunt, vt suo loco dictum est, pro sti­pulis iure ista habētur. But vvhere as nether Christ, nor any of his apostles, vse suche rea­sons, S. Paules e­pistle to the hebrewes reiected. as doth the author of Iames his epistle, & the author of the epistle to the hebrevves, & againe, vvhereas these epistles be forged & apocryphal as hath bene sayd in place conue­nient, these reasons are not to be esteemed vvorth a stravv, Iew. defēce of the Apo­log. par. 4. c. 19.20. ¶ 1. sayth Illyricus (with his colleages) one of the best learned men of this age, by M. Iewels verdicte.

4 Proceede we on, let vs find out some text without this exception, and vvhat better then that of S. 2. Pet. 1. v. 10 Peter. VVherefor [...] brethren labour the more, S. Peters se­cond epistle may be de­nyed. that by good vvork you may make sure your vocation and electi [...] But this is more easily auoyded the any of the rest. For first it standet [...] vpō courtesie vvhether this epistle sha [...] be autorized or no. for being doubted of in the primitiue Church by some, vve may doubt of it novv. The fourth dayes con­ference, see before cha. 2. This is a case ruled in the Towre disputatiōs. Againe, admitting the epistle for canonical, the [Page 415] place auaileth nothing. A place of S. Peter re­fused, [...]cause it wāteth in many greeke pri [...] [...]es. For notvvith­standinge it be in al latin copies that euer vvere, & manie greeke, and there­fore put in the first translation of the Protestants, as namely, that vvhich vvas appointed to be read in the en­glish church the yere 1561, and Luther otherwise an immortal enemie to good vvorkes, in his commentarie saith ex­pressely, Petrus hortatur, Luth tom. 5. in 2 Pet. ca. 1. fol. 487. vt vocationem et electionem nostram bonis operibus certam et stabilem reddamus, Peter exhorteth, that vve make our vocation and election stable, Testament [...] of the yeres 1577.1570.1580. & the Scottish bible. firme, and assured, by good vvorks, yet be­cause those vvords vvant in the later greeke prints, and therefore are not put in Beza his translation, and therefore are left out in the later english versi­ons, this text is not scripture, and so the argument taken thence is nothing vvorth. This ansvvere geueth Verge­rius in his dialoges against that great learned man Cardinal Hosius. Vergerius dialog. 1. de Ofio. [...]0.27. Hosius ob­iecteth vnto me that Peter saith &c. Possum respondere illa tria verba, nempe (per bona opera) non reperiri in fonte graeco: I may an­svvere him, that those three vvords (by good vvorks) are not found in the greeke foūtaine.

5 Therefore leauing this, search vvee farther. And to this purpose, very [Page 416] pregnant is the place in the first epistle of the same Apostle S. Peter, vvhere he exhorteth Christians to liue as be com­meth men of so excellent a vocation, Castificantes animas suas in obedientia chari­tatis, 1. Pet. ca. 1. v. 22. Purifying their soules by obedience of charitie, Ibid. v. 17. remembring alvvaies that God vvithout acception of persons iudgeth euery man according to his vvorkes. And this place at lest conuinceth the aduersarie, first, that vve haue free vvil vvorking vvith the grace of God: then that we purifie & cleanse our selues frō sinne: thirdly, that good vvorkes are necessa­rily required of Christian men. For by many diuine arguments S. Peter vr­geth this cōclusion, Vt animas nostras cas­tificemus, That vve purifie our ovvne soules. And against this epistle there is no ex­ception, as being neuer doubted of, and therefore by the Protestants is not refu­sed. And al greeke copies haue this text most clearely, [...] & so translateth that man of god Luther. Castificantes animas vestras per obedientiam charitatis. Luther tom. 5. in 1. Petri ca. 1. fo. 451. Illyricus. T [...]gurine translation. & Illyricus, Qui animas vestras purificastis, and the Tigurine translator hath the same vvords, and according to this vvas translated the testament in King Edvvard his time. For as much as [Page 417] you haue purified your soules. and the first of the Quenes raigne. Yere 1561. That ye might haue faith and hope tovvards God, euē ye vvhich haue purified your soules. So as this place standeth strong for proofe of our faith and those seueral points which now I noted. S. Peter no­tably corrupted in the later prote­stants trans­lations against free­wil & good workes. But (saith my Pro­testant) howsoeuer Luther or the Di­uines in king Edwardes time or in other times and places read, it should appeare that ether some greeke copies haue otherwise, or at least our maisters deliuer otherwise vnto vs. For Theo­dorus Beza translateth it in this maner. Testament of the yere 1556, & 1565 Animabusvestris purificatis obediendo veri­tati per spiritum. which the later bible printed by C. Barker, printer to the Q. yere 1579. ma­iestie, and translated according to the he­brevv & greeke, rēdereth in these words, Seing your soules are purified in obeying the truth thorough the spirit, and so transla­teth the english bible printed at Gene­ua, yere 1561. yere 1579. and so doth the Scottish printed at Edēborough: so that these words make nothing at al ether for free wil, or coo­peration, or value of good works. S. Peters words cleane in­uerted. Nay rather they make much for the contra­ry side against free wil and our wor­king with Gods grace, and proue that in our iustification we worke not, but actiue [Page 418] are wrought, we cleanse not our sel­ues, but are cleansed, we are not ac­tiue and doers, Cone. Trid. sess. 6. ca. 4. but passiue and suffe­rers: which is the very opinion of Lu­ther and the Protestants, and for such condemned in the Tridentine Coūcel.

Wherefore leauing this, and wishing the reader to remember by this exam­ple amongst many, how madly and furi­ously our aduersaries are bent to coyne vs a new testament of their owne, who trāslate thus, hauing no greeke or latin copie in the world fauouring them, but euen in the very same place, when they geue vs this latin, yet there leaue they the greeke as they finde it agreable to our latin, 6 & therefore controling them of desperate falsificatiō, proceede wee to some other text cōcerning the same ve­ritie: & that shal be out of S. Paule, who handling the fame argument and ma­king the like exhortation, willeth the Christians not to be afraid of the aduer­saries of Christ, [...]hisi. 1. v. 28 Sophistical quarelling. though they persecute neuer so terribly, VVhich to them is cause of perdition, but to you of saluatiō. where he maketh good workes necessary, and so the causes of saluation, Beza annot in illum lo­cum. [...]. as sinnes are the cause of damnation. But Beza replieth, that the old interpreter was ouer­seene translating so, Quū nusquam fideliū [Page 419] afflictio dicatur salutis eorum causa, sed tes­timonium, Testament of the yeres. 1577. 1579. 1580. Because the afflictiō of the faith­ful is neuer called the cause of their saluatiō, but the testimonie, and therefore he trans­lateth it, Inditium, and the english trans­lators his scholers, a token: although the first testament before noted, translate it as we do, a cause, & so doth Erasmus, 1561. [...]ood works the cause of our saluatiō & so doth the Tigurine trāslator. And the Apostle matching sinnes with good workes, these leading to heauen, as the other do to hel, conuinceth the sense to be so. & Theodoretus a greeke father gathereth so much of that word. Theod. in Philip. ca. 1. Id enim illis exitium, vob is autem salutem conciliat, saith he, That procureth to thē destructiō, but to you saluation. And to passe ouer S. Pri­masius, S. Hier. S. Aust. & the other latin fathers, how false the reason of Beza is which moued him to alter the text, hath bene shewed els where sufficiently.

And our Sauiour sheweth best of al o­ther, Before ca. 5. pa. 98 & in sequentib. when he thus speaketh of Marie Magdalen, Remittuntur ei peccata multa, quoniam dilexit multum. Luc. 7. v. 47. Many sinnes are for­geuen her, because she hathe loued much. Against which no man liuing can cauil by greeke, hebrew, or latin, but that workes of charitie are a cause why sinnes are forgeuen, and so a cause of our iustification and saluation, for so [Page 420] saith and meaneth our Sauiour most e­uidently, & the latin and greeke, word for word agreeth with this english, and in hebrew the Euangelist neuer wrote. 7 But Beza hath a shift for this also, thus he translateth. Remissa sunt peccata eius multa. Beza transl. anno 1565. [...] quoniā. because. The yeres 1579. 1580. Nam dilexit multum. That is accor­ding to our english translation, Many sinnes are forgeuen her▪ for she loued much. And what difference is there betwene these two translations? howsoeuer it seeme to thee (Christian reader) the difference is as great, as is betwene our doctrine & theirs. And first they make a wilful fault and corrupt the text, by making a fuller pointe, then ether the greeke or latin beareth. And Beza doth somewhat more desperately, who maketh a downe & ful point, thereby more diuiding and distracting the later parcel from the former, as though it contained not a reason of that which went before, as it doth, but were some new matter: wherein he is controled of fowle dealing, by his owne translati­on set out the yere 1556, and by the ve­ry greeke prints of 1553. Geneua, 1547. Zurick, 1536. 1540 1543. Basile & other Germane cities, who point it as doth our latin and english. But the reason of his and their turning [Page 421] Quoniā, in to, Nam, Because, in to For, [...]. des­crieth yet more their obdurate harts a­gainst Christ and his worde. For where as Christ by S. Lukes reporte saith in effect thus, because she loued much therefore manie sinnes are forgeuē her, they by this peruersion and mispoin­ting make a cleane different and almost contrarie sense thus: because she had many sinnes forgeuen her, Christs words clean inuerted. therefore she loueth much, & this loue folowing was a token of the remission which she by only faith had obtained before: so turning the cause in to the effect, the antecedent into the consequent, and hereby vtterly spilling the doctrine which Christ by his words and reason geueth, and the Church of his words & reason gathereth. That this is the true groūd & reasō, why they so Luciferlike alter the speech of Christ, Beza plainly cōfesseth. Thus he writeth. Nam dilexit. [...]. For she loued. The vulgar translation and Erasmus turne it, Because she loued, Beza in Luc. 7. vers. 47. but I had rather interprete it as I do, that men may best vnderstand in these vvords to be shevved not the cause of remission of sinnes, but rather that vvhich ensued after such re­mission, & that by the consequent is gathered the antecedent. And therefore they vvhich [Page 422] abuse this place to ouerthrovv free Iustifica­tion by only fayth, are very impudent and childish. wherein he speaketh very tru­ly, Intolerable pride & ma­lice in abu­sing the scripture, to helpe only only fayth. the words and sense being so as he hath framed them. But if he had not plaid the part rather of a diuel then of an heretike, to alter in pointing, worde and sense, the speach of our Sauiour, and so taught him his lesson what he should say, it had not bene impudencie for vs thus to argue, but it had bene more then brutish ignorance in him to haue denied that charitie is required as wel for obtaining remission of sinnes as is faith: which both in this place our Sauiour most diuinely conioyneth, say­ing of charitie, Many sinnes are forgeuen her, The sense of Christs words ac­cording to the aunciēt fathers. because she hath loued much, and ad­ding straight way, Thy faith hath made thee safe, goe in peace.

And so of this text gathered al the auncient fathers, who were for al that nether impudent nor childish. So S. Chrysostom. Chrys. hom. 6. in Mat. Sinnes pur­ged by workes of penance & claritie, As first by vvater and the spirit, so aftervvard by teares and con­fession vve are made cleane. And he pro­ueth it by this place. So S. Gregorie expounding the same place. Many sin­nes are forgeuen her, Greg. hom. 33. in Euāg. because she loued much. as if it had bene said expresly, He bur­neth [Page 423] out perfectly the rust of sinne, vvhosoeuer burneth vehemently vvith the fier of loue. For so much more is the rust of sinne scoured a­vvay, by how much more the harte of a sinner is inflammed vvith the great fier of charitie. And S. Ambrose vpon the same words. Ambros. in Luc. lib. 6. c. 7. de mulic­re pecca­trice. Good are teares vvhich are able to vvash a­vvay our sinnes. Good are teares, In quibus nō solū redemptio peccatorum, sed etiam refectio est iustorum, vvherein is not only the redemp­tion of sinners, but also the refreshing of iust men. And S. Austin debating this storie in a longe homelie saith. Aug. hom. 23. inter 50. This sinful vvo­man the more she ovved the more she loued, the forgeuer of her debtes our lord him selfe affirming so, Many sinnes are forgeuen her, be­cause she loued much. And vvhy loued she much, but because she ovved much? Quare fecit illa omnia, nisi vt dimitterentur sibi pec­cata? VVhy did she al those offices (of vveping vvashing &c.) but to obtaine remission of her sinnes? I omitte other fathers, al agreing in the selfe same veritie, al ma­king her loue to be a cause going be­fore, nor only an effect or sequele com­ming after the remission of sinnes. And this was the gathering of the auncient fathers, S. Chrysostom, S. Gregorie, S. Ambrose, & S. Austin &c. who were euer reuerenced for holy and learned [Page 424] fathers by the children of Christs Ca­tholike Church, vntil this Chams broode and prophane generation inua­ded their roomes, who now condemne them for impudent and childish.

But let me with thy leaue and pati­ence (Christian reader) prosecute in one worde more, their wonderful tos­sing and turning and inuerting this shorte sentence of our Sauiour. And in this one allegation which I wil now produce, thou shalt see the very image of Atheisme, of contempt of God and man, of impossibilitie to do any good by scriptures, so longe as this licence of framing new translations is allowed. Thou seest what sturre Beza hath kept, and to serue his turne, what fowle and detestable corruption he hath vsed. But to make vp the matter, and reconcile Christs words a litle better to this new solifidian gospel, An example of singular & notorious wrangling. commeth in Wolfgan­gus Musculus, with a deeper fetch after this maner. First because S. Lukes words be very plaine, and he can not so probably wrangle vpon thē in greeke, he in his owne fansie imagineth what Christ ether did or should haue spoken in hebrew. Good groū ­des to ex­pound and correct scri­pture vpon. Next, that fansie he putteth to be true. and forthwith according to [Page 425] the same he correcteth S. Luke, and so concludeth that al matcheth right with their Lucianical only faith. For nowe by this time, with his good helpe not one worde in effect stādeth as Christ spake it, at least by S. Lukes reporte. Thus he discourseth. Musculus in locis cō ­munibus ca. de Iustificat. num. 5. Ecce (inquiunt) ma­nifestò datur dilectioni remissio peccatorum. Ergo non sola fides iustificat &c. Behold (say the Papists) remission of sinnes is attributed to loue. ergo faith alone iustifieth not. but vve ansvvere, that loue in this vvoman, vvas not the cause of remission of sinnes, but a token & declaration thereof. Remissiō of her sinnes she obtained by faith in Christ. Luc. 7. v. 47. Therefore vvhereas Christ saith [...], The vvorde [...] (as vvitnesseth Suidas) is a Dorical vvorde, & signifieth not in the imperatiue, Remittantur, Remitted be they, but in the preterperfect tense, Remissa sūt, Haue bene remitted. Next the particle [...], signifieth here, not the cause, but the probatiō of that vvhich is put before. Thirdly, the vvord [...] hath loued, Yet S. Luke tooke it otherwise. dilexit. is an hebrew phrase by vvhich the preterperfecttense is put for the present. For the hebrevves speake thus, [...] that is, because she hath loued much, in steede of, because she doth loue much. And plaine it is, that Christ spake not greeke or latin, but hebrevv. Therefore vvhereas [Page 426] Christ said, Many sinnes haue bene forgeuen her, he proueth it by that which folovveth, be­cause she loueth much. as if he had said, That she loueth me much it is no maruel, she hath good occasion so to do. For many sinnes haue bene forgeuen her. So vve say that he hath ob­tained that vvhich he desired, because he is mery & laugheth: he is verie hūgrie, because he eateth much &c. I wil not bestow time in examining this answere▪ who told him that Christ vsed the preterperfect­tense for the present, whereas S. Luke so flatly affirmeth the contrarie, or that S. Luke in this phrase, so strāgely affected the Dorical lāguage, with the rest of his bold assertion, but wanting al reason of reasonable coniecture to support them. this only I wish thee to consider, Note the wonderful tearing and renting of this short sen­tence. whether thou didst euer see a litle sentence so racked, and torne, as this is.

For cōparing this sentēce as it is novv fashioned by them, with the same sen­tence, as it was first pronounced by our Sauiour, not one word of any momēt remaineth in such sort as Christ vttered them. Christ said, Many sinnes are forgeuen her, because she hath loued much: now with their correction thus it is. Many sinnes haue bene forgeuen her. For she loueth [Page 427] much. 1 Where first they rent in sonder & make that two, which Christ ioyned and spake as one. 2 Then they wrest one of Christs words, & bringe it to a Do­rical phrase of speach. 3 And by and by, backe againe, they make the next which signifieth a thing past in greeke, to sig­nifie a thing present by the hebrewe maner of speach, which hath no present tenses, the cleane contrarie whereof is auouched in the other Dorical word going immediatly before. 4 Afterwards they enforce [...], not to signifie a cause antecedent, but a signe or effect conse­quent. 5 And finally in al and euery of these tricks, S. Lukes authoritie is vn­der foote, and lieth dead. For nether Beza nor Musculus in this tossing and turning, euer consider what S. No spirite but the spi­rite of Satā could teach the prote­stants this desperate maner of interpre­tation. Luke wrote, what sense the Apostolical Church gaue, and the holy Ghost in the same hath alwaies continued, what the very letter of the greeke requireth as now it standeth: but how it may pos­sibly be wrested, if a man wil folow the spirit of contention, if he will fetch the pointing of the sentence from Ge­neua, the meaning of one word from Dorica in one corner of the world, of an other frō Hierusalem, of a third from [Page 428] Swytzerlād, & the entier summe of al, from the deepe pit of hell. For excepte the deuil him self stoode by thē, & sug­gested to them such construction, I thinke the nature of man hauing some regarde of honestie, of learning, of mo­destie, of Christ & his Euāgelists, could neuer breake forth into so much mon­struous absurditie.

Of al which this I conclude, that allowing men this libertie vnto which now by this libertine-gospel they are driuen, I say, there is no possibilitie, to conteine men in faith, or to reduce men to faith, or to proue any parcel of Christiā faith. Protestant shiftes to auoide scri­pture when it is plaine against thē. 1 For setting aside church, Doctors, Custome, Councels, and res­ting in the only Scriptures & priuate exposition of the same, this one ex­ample geueth vs a paterne to care no­thing for al scriptures. 2 For it is a mar­uelous flat text which a man of meane learning by one of these shiftes may not auoide, ether by refusing it as not Canonical because it is reiected novv of Protestants in these daies: 3 or hath bene doubted of by Catholikes in old time, vvhich cutteth of a number of bookes: 4 or by obiecting some one or other greeke example in vvhich the [Page 429] vvords vvant, vvhich is easie to finde, heretiks of diuers sects hauing novv the printing of most greeke testamēts, and euery one being content to fauour his proper gospel and heresie: 5 or by producing some false translation and sticking to that, vvith store of vvhich euerie prouince is pestered: 6 or by hun­ting out diuers significations of the greeke vvord, and taking that vvhich maketh most for his aduantage: 7 or if that serue not, then by corrupting one word, by conferring an other with the greeke of this or that dialect, a third with the Iewes, or Chaldees, or Suit­zers maner of speaking, and so pat­ching vp a sense, partly Christian, part­ly Germane, partly Ethnical, and part­ly Iudaicall, 8 and finally, (which is al in al) reseruing euer to him selfe supreme iudgement of al senses, interpretations, scriptures, and languages.

As in this verie place whereof I speake, Zuinglius folowing nether the words of the Euāgelist, nor sense of the Church, nor Cōmentarie of the auncient fathers, nor inuention of Beza, nor any of those manyfold shiftes of Musculus, wil­leth vs rather for dilexit, to put, credidit, for charitie, faith, and then geueth vs the [Page 430] meaning of Christs words thus. Zuing. to 4. in Luc. 7. Quoniā dilexit multum. Ego puto dilectionem hic pro fide accipi, Propre ex­positions. dilexit, id est credidit. works, that is, faith. the sunne, that is, the moone. quòd tantum mihi fidit, tantum peccatorū ei remittitur. Nam poste a dicit, sides tua te saluam sec it. Because she loued much. I suppose that loue is here put for faith. be­cause she hath so great affiāce in me, so many sinnes are forgeuē her. for he saith afterwards, thy faith hath saued thee, that is, hath deliue­red and absolued the from thy sinnes. which one distinction answereth al the places that in this controuersie vve bring out of the scriptures to refel their only faith.

By these fevv heretical sleights (& M. Whitaker knovveth his brethren haue many other as bad as these) vsed in one particular controuersie, any man may gesse hovv likely it is to tye an he­retike hauing some vvitt and learning, and sight in tonges, vvith any text that gainsaith his opinion. Hovv true vve finde by experience that vvhich Tertul­lian so many ages agoe spake of the he­retikes of his time, and prophecied as it may seeme, of the heretikes of our time. vertul. de praescripti. num. 5. Ista haeresis non recipit quasdam scrip­turas &c. These (Zuinglian, Lutheran, Pu­ritan, Anabaptist, Trinitarian &c.) here­tikes admitt not some bookes of scriptures. and [Page 431] those vvhich they doe admit, by adding to, The agree­ment be­twene the protestants of our time and aunciēt heretikes touching their beha­uiour about scriptures. & taking from, they peruerte to serue their pur­pose. And if they receaue some bookes, yet they receaue thē not intierly: or if they receaue thē entierly after some sort, neuerthelesse they marre them by deuising diuers interpretatiōs. In this case vvhat vvil you do that thinke your selfe most skilful in the scriptures, vvhē as that which you defend, the aduersarie deni­eth, Not possi­ble to do good with an heretike hauing this liberty to discourse. that vvhich you deny the aduersarie de­fendeth. Et tu quidem nihil perdes nisi vocem de contentione, nihil consequeris nisi bilem de blasphematione. And thou truely shalt leese nothing but thy vvordes in so contentious a brauling, thou shalt gaine nothinge but greefe and anger in seinge an heretike so to blasphene.

And novv if I should shevv the like in the hebrevv, and by examples mani­fest the same, I should trouble my selfe much, and the reader much more. Be­cause I must be driuen to talke of titles, and pointes, and rules of the Rabbines, The hebrew tonge open to infinite cauillinge, and so vnfie to bind a cōtentious heretike. and readings of the Massoreth and such other obscure matter, troublesome for me to laie together and vvrite out, and not intelligible for a common reader. I vvil therefore put dovvne only cer­taine propositions, exemplifying thē in one or tvvo vvordes, vvhereby the lear­ned [Page 432] shal vnderstand how true that is which I affirme, and the vnlearned shal be able to conceaue somwhat. I say therefore, that of the hebrew far lesse hold can be taken in binding a conten­tious heretike then of any other lan­guage.

1 The reason is, first because their tonge hauing in it no great store of words, euery word almost is vsed in verie diuers significations, Hebrew words haue great diuer­sitie of sig­nifications farre more then is found in latin or greeke or ma­ny vulgar languages. and therefore if you presse him with one translation or sense, he forthwith hath sundry and di­uers senses to flee vnto. Hence cōmeth that diuersitie in the Psal. Psal. 54. v. 21. 54. Extendit deus manum suam in retribuendo, [...], according to the 70. God hath stret­ched forth his hand to revvard or recompence, as the church readeth, which place the catholikes both of late and aunci­ent times vse to proue the reward and recompence of good workes. The en­glish bibles turne it thus. He hath laide his hands vpon such as be at peace vvith him, the more common Protestant transla­tion, Marlorate. as it appeareth by Marlorate, Misit manus suas in paces suas, He hath laid his hāds vpon his peaces. This diuersitie riseth of [Page 433] the same hebrew word, [...] whence cō ­meth. [...] but hauing di­uers senses.

2 An other reason is, because their sub­stantiues being in maner al deriued of verbes, often times one substantiue may haue diuers deriuations from diuers verbes, which bringeth as great varie­tie as is possible. So the church readeth ps. 59. Dedisti metuentibus te, Psal. 59. v. 6. significationē vt fugiant a facie arcus. Thou hast geuen to those that feare thee, a signe that they flee from the face of the bovve, according to the 70. [...], and so vvas the hebrew in S. Hieroms time, as vve see by his translation. The Protestants, Luther, Bucer, Caluin, as vve see by Marlorate, vvil haue it, Dedisti metuentibus te vexil­lum, ad vexillādum propter veritatem. Thou hast geuen to them that feare thee a flagge, to flagge for truth. the english of one yere, The yere 1577. thou hast geuen a token for such as feare thee that they may triūphe because of thy truth, of an other, 1579. Thou hast geuē a bāner to them that feare thee that it may be displaied, because of thy truth. This differēce in one part cō ­meth of the 2. radical hebrew verbes, [...] the old church, the 70. & S. Hierō folowing one, the new congregation of the Pro­testāts rather liking the other. The dif­ference [Page 434] in the other part bovv and truth no doubt came thence, [...] that the old he­brew bookes had that vvorde vvritten vvith one kinde of T, the later vvith an other.

3 Againe touching the literal sēse of the hebrew words what masters shal we follow? The old Rabbines, Dauid Kim­hi, A hard dif­ficulty, what masters we must folow touching the true si­gnification of the he­brew words Aben Ezra, and such other. Thus to say, Beza, Munster, Caluin, Castalio & the Protestants commonly induce vs. But Master D. Humfrey holdeth the contrary, and not without reason, if we had a good pilote to rule the sterne and containe vs in mediocritie. Humf. lib. 2. de rat. int pa. 219.320. VVe ought not to credit (saith he) in my iudgment the Rabbines touching the very exposition & deriuation of the hebrevv vvords. Christ pro­noūceth of them that they are blinde, & gui­des of the blinde. Therefore this is not the vvay to interprete rightly, nether may vve folovv them, except vve vvil preferre dark­nes before light, errors before truth, doubtful things before assured, daungerous before safe, and vvicked and blasphemous before Godly and Catholike. The prote­stāts folow­ing the Ie­wish Rab­bines: trans­late wic­kedly. By which rule al your new hebrew translations are cal­led in to question, yea are pronounced to be darkesome, erroneous, doubtful, daungerous, wicked, & blasphemous. [Page 435] For your best and greatest translators, whom did they folow in the sense of the hebrew wordes but their common dictionaries? And out of whō are they drawen? looke vpon the title of Mun­sters. Dictionari [...] Munsteri printed at Basile the yere 1564. Dictionarium Hebraeum vltimò ab autore Sebastiano Munstero recognitum, et ex Rabbinis, praesertim ex radicibus Dauid Kimhi auctū et locuplet a tum. This hebrevv dictionarie is novv last renevved by Sebastiā Munster, and encreased and enriched out of the Rabbines, especially out of Dauid Kim­hi. And Munster in his translations (which is accompted most exact to the hebrew) protesteth that he regarded therein no Christian fathers but only the Iudaical Rabbines. Munster. in praef. bibli. tom. 1. Nobis (saith he) in animo fuit talem parare aeditionem scrip­turae, quae per omnia hebraismo esset cōformis, ideo solos hebraeos cōsuluimus scriptores. And here perhaps I might propose vnto you an Insoluble, an argument that you wil neuer aunswere, sauing the honour of your maisters & doctors. Your mai­ster Beza correcteth the new testamēt generally, and draweth the greeke ci­tations in the same, and al doubtful wordes to the sense of the hebrew and the Rabbines. Doctor Humfrey on the cōtrary side wil haue the hebrew words [Page 436] of the old testament drawen to signifie as the Apostles cite them according to the 70. in the new testament, and con­demneth your translators for doing otherwise: and namely whereas in the 2. of the Actes your English bibles, after Beza translate Sh [...]ol, Graue, he acknow­ledging that in hebrevv and according to the Rabbines, It may so signifie, & ma­ny things besides, Humf. vbi sup. pa. 225. as pitt, the state of the dead and damned, death, a ditch, the east or birth, and hell: this last, saith he, must vve folovv by authoritie of the holy Ghost, Act 2. inter­preting a place of the psalme 15. Where you see one wil haue the hebrew word in the psalme translated, Hel, because so it is in the greeke, Act. 2. the other will haue the greeke, Act. 2. trāslated Graue, because so may be the signification of the hebrevv, ps. 15. et sic in caeteris. vvhere, by the way you may note that your pure and vndefiled bibles, are not altogether so iudged by this vvriter, a man of such credit and name in your cōgregation, yea that he iudgeth them corrupt in so great a matter as a prin­cipal article of our faith commeth vnto.

4 And yet al this vvhich hetherto I haue spoken, is nothing touching the [Page 437] true controuersie vvhich is about the hebrevv originals, that is, whether vve must take them as novv vve haue them geuen vs vvith the ordinarie pointes and vovvels put to by the Ievves and Rabbines: or vvhether vve must take the consonantes only, and put to the points or vowels by our owne discreti­on. If the first, then al those horrible ab­surdities must stande, Before chap. 12. which before I haue noted against Christs Diuinitie, Humanitie, Passion▪ & Incarnation. If the second, then must the Protestants fal to translate a freshe: for al their bi­bles hitherto are litle worth, because they generally (though not in euery place) haue folowed the cōmon points and vowels, according to which they frame vs their common Gloses, Com­mentaries, and Dictionaries.

5 But this very pointe is a sea of dispu­tation and writing, and therefore for a final conclusion to shew that the Pro­testants appealing to the hebrew vvil shortly fal to very plaine Atheisme, I demaund of M. Whit. this question, whether he thinke it flat Atheisme and Turkerie to denie that Christ vvas borne of a virgin? I trust he wil cōfesse vvith vs, that this denial is the denial [Page 438] and abnegation of al Christianitie. For though they care not greatly vvhether mē thinke our Lady to haue remained a virgin in Christs birth, Bez. in praef. Test. noui ann. 1565. principi Cond. dica­ [...]i. & Molinae. in a. Luc. or after Christs birth, yet they seeme to beleeue most assuredly that she vvas a virgin vvhen she conceaued him. That being graunted, that this denial is plaine apos­tasie, Christs in­carnation of the vir­gin can not be proued by scripture according to the pro­testantes maner of expounding it. Mat. 1. v. 23. I require of him vvhat scripture he hath to proue that veritie? for church, Traditiō, Fathers, & such other, I know he contemneth, and vve are bound to beleue nothing say they, but that which is in plaine scripture. The only place that may serue the turne, is the first of S. Matth. (for the allegories of Ezechi­el conuince not) vvhere it is said, Ecce virgo concipiet &c. Behold a virgin shal cō ­ceaue & bring forth a sonne. But this place proueth nothing by M. W. ovvne rule, by Bezaes common kinde of scanning such citations, and by the Protestants interpretation of this place: ether be­cause the translation is framed accor­ding to the 70. Before pag. 286.287. [...] See Munst. in the word [...] not the hebrevv, and so it is no scripture by M. W. or if it be, then [...] virgin, accordinge to the hebrew must signifie a yonge vvenche, ado­lescētula, siue virgo siue maritata by Beza his rules (and so saith Munster) as vvel vir­gin [Page 439] as not virgin: or because the most precise Iudaical Protestants translate it so, to put the matter out of doubt. So for example translateth Oecolampadi­us in the bibles of Basile, Oecolamp. in Esa. ca. 7. which Bullin­ger in the preface so much commēdeth, Ecce adolesentula illa praegnans, Translation Iudaical & Antichri­stian. et partens filium, Beholde that yonge vvenche great vvith childe, and Munster precisely ac­cording to the hebrevv as he sayth, Ecce virgo illa impraegnata, Beholde that virgin gotten vvith childe. And hovvsoeuer M. W. may cauil vpon the later, the first is mere Iudaical, no wayes Christian, Luth. tom. 2: ad Amsdorf. de Eras. fol. 485. and the peruersion rather of a monster then of a man, as Luther pronounceth against Erasmus for the like cause. and yet I ac­knovvledge according to the heretical maner of examining citations, the he­brevv vvord may beare that sense vvhich Oecolāp. yeldeth, & so did those old renegates and enemies of our reli­gion, Aquila Ponticus, Iren. lib. 3. cap. 24. vide Euseb. li. 5. ca. 8 Epiph. haer. 30. Iustin. in dialog. eum Tripho [...]e. and Theodotion translate that vvord, vpon which trans­lation aftervvards the beggerly Ebio­nites founded their beastly opinion touching the maner of Christs incar­nation.

And here (Christian reader) I haue to request thee, not so to interpreete [Page 440] me in any thing which I haue spoken, as though I coueted to disgrace the study of greeke and hebrew (as this man would haue thee to conceaue of vs) & condēned those languages, which I cō ­fesse to be great helpes to the attaining of the true sense in sūdrie places of scripture, & condemne my selfe for know­ing so litle as I do in ether of them both. The hebrew and greeke knowledge, much ad­uaunced by Catholikes. And manifest it is, what paine the Catholiks haue taken in setting forth the bible most perfitly and diligently in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greeke, and Arabike languages. what labour they haue taken about the Greeke transla­tion of the Septuaginta. How conti­nually, and at this present, most hono­rable Prelates, and Cardinals, & other men of great name, employ them sel­ues in the same kinde of study, to the end they may procure al helpes so far as is possible, for the perfite vnderstā ­dinge of the sacred scriptures. How in most Catholike Vniuersities, mē excellent for skil in these languages, florish and are maintained, to the great ad­uauncemēt of the faith & Church Ca­tholike: with the liste or cataloge of whose names I thinke it needeles to trouble the reade [...], because otherwise [Page 441] they are wel knowen to the Christian world. But this I say, & thou shalt finde it true when soeuer thou commest to examine these matters with that adui­sednes and maturitie of iudgement as the thing it selfe requireth, A man must haue a set­led faith before he come to cō ­ferre greeke and hebrew els shal he neuer haue any faith. Vide Aug. de Gen. ad lit. lib. 1. ca. 21. & tract. 18. in Ioan. that who so wil goe about to picke his faith out of the greeke and hebrew testaments without a setled and constant forme of faith before, and from which he must not be drawen by any pre­tense of greeke & hebrew, his greeke & hebrew wil neuer make him a Chri­stian, wil neuer establish him in any true faith. Aquila Ponticus, first a Christian, after a Iewe, was very per­fect in the hebrew, and translated the bible so, as S. Hier. ep. 138 Marcellae. & 1 [...]5 Dama­so. quaest. 2. Hierom calleth him to his praise, Diligentissimum verborum he­braicorum interpretem, A most diligent in­terpreter of the hebrevv vvords, and yet howe good a Christiā he was, is noted before. The Arrians, Trinitarians, Ana­baptistes and Lutherans of our time, Many grea­te Grecians and Hebrai­ciās are wic­ked and de­testable Christians. want they greeke or hebrew? No dout their arrogancie and pride which for their greeke & hebrevv they cōceaue, is a great cause of their continual alte­ration from one heresie to an other, as vve see in the stories of Melancthon, [Page 442] Blandrata, Bernardinus Ochinus &c.

Before vve vvere Grecians, or He­britians, or in deede Englishmen, or vnderstoode any letter of any lāguage, first of al vve were Christiās, First we must be sure of our fayth we were graffed into the Catholike Church the mystical body of Christ, and made members of the same, and by solemne vowe we bound our selues to honor, loue, reuerence, and cleaue to her as Timoth. 3. vers. 15.the piller & firmament of truth, Ephes. 5. vers. 25. the spouse of Christ, Gal. 4. v. 26. our diuine mother, 1. Pet. 3. vers. 20.21. the arke of Noe Mat. 13. saepe. and kingedome of God, See be­fore chap. 6. pag. 117. without which there is no way but death and damnation. Let vs hold this fast, and then our greeke and he­brevv may doe vs some good. Let vs depart from her, talke vve so longe as vve list of our greeke and hebrevv, as S. Act. 8. v. 20. Peter sayd of Simon Magus money, so that vvil be to vs, In perditi­onem, To our euerlastinge destruction, it vvil neuer doe vs good. Aug, confes. lib. 8. ca. 8. And as S. Aus­tin sayth, in the meane season vvhile the vnlearned rise & get possession of heauē, Nos cū doctrinis nostris ecce vbi volutamur in carne et sanguine, We vvith our greeke & hebrevv & vvhat other lear­ning so euer, shal alwaies be tumbling in flesh & bloud, in continual braules [Page 443] and contentions, vvhich vvil set vs the right vvay to hell.

Here now is the place to spe­ake of our late English trās­lation set forth in this col­ledge. For though M. W. vpon passion and heate, disorderlye before he had spoken of the originals and in respect of them condemned our latin, reproued vs for translating ac­cording to the latin, yet to make all sure, here againe he repeateth his for­mer accusatiō, and in particular char­geth vs vvith certaine faultes commit­ted both in the testament it self, and in the annotatiōs made vpō the same. His vvordes albeit they shevv farre more stomake then vvit, more malice then reason, and therefore are the more lothsome to reade, yet because they may be an example of an heretical [Page 444] spirit then most vaunting, and trium­phing, and svvelling a high in loftines of vvordes, vvhen in deede he is vn­der foote, and standeth vpon no groūd at al, I vvil put them dovvne as they are. Thus he speaketh.

pag. 14.15. There is novv abrode a certaine english translation of the nevv testamēt, M. W. inue­ctiue against the late Ca­tholike trāslation of the new Te­stament. set forth & laboured by that nevv colledge at Rhemes, to vvhich I am right gladde that our trans­latiō is nothing like. For 1 ¹ since the first cre­ation of the vvorlde, there vvas neuer found any translation like to that vvhich you haue of late published, & by common iudg­ment commēded to your countrymen. For vvhether vve consider the 2 ² vnaccustomed and monstrous noueltie of vvordes, or 3 ³ the prophane corruptions and outragious boldnes to peruert euery thing, neuer any heretikes at any time haue done more violence and in­iurie to the sacred testament of Christ Iesus our lord. They that thus translate the scrip­tures into any language as you haue done in to ours, may rightly be thought 4 ⁴ not to haue intended that the people should vnderstand the vvil of God declared in the vvord, but that they should mocke and cōtemne it. And truly 5 ⁵ so farre is it that I thinke this your translatiō vvil any waies harme our cause, that I vvish it might be read also of straun­gers, [Page 445] that vvhen they consider this your nevv kinde of trans [...]ation hetherto vnheard of, they might acknovvledge the madnes & desperatnes of the Papistes. 6 ⁶ It is altogether framed according to the forme of the old la­tin edition.

This is his accusation of vs (good reader) vttered as thou seest in such terrible vvordes, as if some counter­faite Aiax Mastigophorus, or Hercu­les Furens, or some tragical Tereus or Thyestes, after the eating of their ovvne children, vvere raging vpon a scaffold. Here thou hast, The creation of the vvorld, Vnaccustomed and monstrous noueltie, Prophane corruptions, and outragi­us boldnes, Neuer heretikes at any time did the like violence and iniurie to the sacred testament of Christ Iesus, The vvord of God mocked and contemned, Madnes and despe­ratnes of the Papistes. and so forth, as if we were giltie of (or himself as bold­faced as he is, durst obiect vnto vs) any one of those wicked, Prophane, Heretical, & Turkish corruptiōs, of which we haue proued him & his brethrē to haue cōmitted many. Which seing he doth not, nether cā do, thou maist vndoub­tedly take this for Brutū fulmē, Affected hypocrisie a pange of vile hipocrisie, such as when they [Page 446] are disposed, now and then they vse in their pulpits to make the people imagine they haue in thē some dram­me of religiō, whereof they are quite destitute. And if thou wilt know where these thundering termes may be tru­ly verified, recal to memorie, not wordes, but factes, experimēts, chaūge of wordes, alterations of sentences, oppositions against Christ him self and the Euangelistes, errors Ethnical, Iu­daical & Diabolical confessed to swar­me euery vvhere in these mens nevv bibles, in those very same, vvhich this vehement orator praiseth as vndefiled and most pure. Record this Reader, & thou shalt find, vvhere these oratorial termes so vnaptly applied, may be sin­cerely and truely bestovved. And that vve are altogether guiltlesse of any such fault, and vvithal that he practi­seth not only manifest lying, but in deed very grosse hipocrisie in this accusation, our ovvne conscience be­fore Christ & his Tribunal-seate, and the vvorke it self perused by any in­different man acquiteth vs in the first, and his ovvne vvordes and vvriting in this place conuinceth him of the se­conde.

[Page 447]I haue shevved before hovv vvel the learneder protestants esteeme of our latin translator, that Molineus, Before pag. 372.373.374.383. Our English translation folowing so precyse­ly the old latin, can not be so corrupt as M.W. ima­gineth. and Castalio commonly defend him against Beza, that D. Humfrey much commendeth his sincere sidelitie, that Beza acknovvledgeth him to haue v­sed great conscience and religion, and preferreth him before al other transla­tors, Caeteris omnibus antepono, that this eager Ar [...]starchus, vvith al his studie, malice and conference, findeth one only fault in him: and of vvhat qualitie that is, hath bene declared sufficiētly.

This being so, hovv can our english translatiō possibly be so monstruous, so horrible, so heretical, so outragious, &c. as this man fayneth here, of vvhich him self saith, that it is Expressa tota ad veteris latinae aditionis formam, Pag. 15. vvholy framed & fasshioned to the forme of the old latin edition, which is by the verdicte of his maisters, so pure, so sincere, so re­ligious, and Caeteris omnibus anteponenda, Better then al other? Is it possible (I say) that this translation should be so hor­rible and absurde, being vvholy for­med after the old edition, vvhich in comparison of al other is so perfite & absolute? Seest thou not here the very [Page 448] image of old Caiphas crying out, Blas­phemy, and renting his garments when Christ spake of the iudgement, that They should see the sonne of man sitting at the right hande of God, Mat. 27. & comming to iudge in the cloudes of heauen? by vvhich kind of straunge behauiour, he moued the people to thinke that he did so vpon great zeale of religion, vvhereas he being a Sadducee, beleeuing the soule to die vvith the body (to vvhich opi­nion Maister W. pure bibles leade mē the ready vvay) and therefore contē ­ning as trifles, heauen, and hel, and iudgment to come, only by that histri­onical dissimulation sought to abuse the simple people, vvhen in the meane season him self cared nothing but for his owne belly commoditie, Ne for­te venirent Romani, Ioan. 11. v. 48. least perhaps the Romanes their lordes should put him & his besides their good feeding, which vnder the title and pretence of religiō they enioyed. The end of the new gospel, carnal li­bertie. And he that iudgeth othervvise of these carnal gospellers, and the final scope of their gospel, he much deceaueth him self, and knovv­eth not vvhat they by their gospel meane.

1 And let vs vevv, vvhether the seue­ral [Page 449] partes of this inuectiue be not a­greable to this general intention. You haue geuen vs (saith he) a translation of the nevv testament, such a one as there vvas neuer founde the like since the vvorld vvas first created. The true grace of this amplifying figure. What kinde of amplificatiō is this? what figure, but of most grosse and ridiculous hypocrisie? form sub­stance thus he speaketh. It is now 5000. yeres and more since the world was created, in which time many translations of the new testament haue bene made: yet these 5000 yeres and vpward, no man euer translated the new testament so prophanely and wic­kedly as you haue done. And is this true? and hath he examined al the translations made these 5000 yeres? belike he hath, or els he could neuer geue his sentence so peremptorily. Of the first 1000 yeres, or second, vn­der the Patriarches and vntil Moyses, how many new testamēts hath he per­used and conferred with ours? I trow not verie many. And of the third and fourth thowsande yeres vnder the Prophets hath he seene any more? or were there then extant any such testa­ments to conferre, in comparison of which ours is so far abased? by his [Page 450] amplification it should seeme yea, & yet of his wisedome I trust he wil say no, except he list to shew him self as learned as his felow, In his ser­mon prin­ted, fo. 14. see the Dis­couerie pa. 178. Iohn Keltridge preacher of the vvord in London, who re­ferreth vs for the true reading & sense of the A [...]e maria, to the translation of the 70. But suppose he meant of the time since Christ. what a mad kinde of spech is this? as if two frindes who by some occasiō were separated some few yeres, after by good hap meeting, the one should thus gratulate that good day. Blessed be God (frind) that now I see you, whom I haue not seene these 5000 yeres, whereas they perhaps had not liued one quarter of so many wee­kes.

Now let vs allow for good that Ab orbe condito, A most ab­surd & false amplifica­tion. since the creatiō of the vvorld, may signify 4000 yeres after, that is since the incarnatiō of Christ, how many translatiōs of the first thousand ye­res after Christ cā he produce, where­vpon he may colour this lying? how many of the next 500? how many vn­til this later 80 yeres, wherein euery Sectmaster hath fallē in hand with tos­sing & turning the scriptures? But amō ­gest thē, is there none worse then ours? [Page 451] none set forth by the Trinitarians, Seruetans, Arians, Anabaptistes, A­cademiks? How say you by such a trās­lation as abuseth the word of scrip­ture against al auncient faith and reli­gion, against Catholikes, against the Lutherans, against the learnedst Cal­uinists, aga [...]nst Caluin him self, To say God is author of synne, is to say, that god is a deuil. against the literal sense of the word & whole drift of the place, & al this to make God the author and worker of sinne, that is by Caluins expresse iudgment in his booke against the Libertines, Caluin in instructio. contra Li­bertinos. ca. 14. Deum in diabolum transformāt To transforme God into a deuil & to make vs Christiās worship in steede of god an idol, and such an idol, Quod nobis execrabilius esse debet omnibus gentiū ido­lis, VVhich ought to seeme to vs Christians, more abominable then al the idols of the Gentiles, vvhat say you to such a trans­lation? English translatiōs leade men to that opi­nion. And such translations of the new testament haue bene set forth within these 5000 yeres, yea some within these 5 yeres, & that in Englād, and that with authoritie, yea with the Princes priuilege, except the printers lye.

S. Peter saith of the Iewes, that Christ is to them, Petra scandali, 1. Pet. 2. v. 8. qui of­fendunt verbo, nec credunt in quo et posti [Page 452] sunt. [...]. the english testa­ment of king Edward, and the first of the Q. raigne translate it thus. They beleeue not that vvhereon they vvere set. Illyr. glos. in 1. Pet. c. 2. vers. 8. This is vvel to be marked (saith Illyricus) least a man imagine that God him self did put them, and (as one, he meaneth Beza, against the nature of the greeke vvord doth trāslate & interprete it) that God did create thē for this purpose, that they should vvith­stand him. Erasmus & Caluin referring this vvord to that vvhich goeth before, inter­prete it not amisse, that the Ievves vvere made or ordeined to beleeue the vvord of God and their Messias, but yet that they vvould not beleeue him. For to thē belonged the pro­mises, the testaments, and the Messias him self, as S. Peter saith, Act. 2. et 3. and Paule Rom. 9. and to them vvere committed the oracles of God by vvitnes of the same Paule Rom. 3. thus Illyricus. Here is geuē the true sense of this place according to the signification of the greeke word. the same is proued by scripture, by S. Peter and S. Paule. The same is con­firmed by Caluin and Erasmus, and by Luther in his commentaries vpon this place, Castalio de­fensio. suae translatio. pag 153.154.155. & more at large by Castalio in his annotatiōs of the new testamēt. Only Beza against al these, translateth [Page 453] it thus, Sunt immorigeri, Beza in [...]. Pet. 2. v. 8. ad quod etiam con­diti fuerūt. They are rebellious, vvhere vnto also they vvere created. which wordes in his note therevpon he explicateth, That men are made, or fashioned, framed, sturred vp, created or ordained, not of them selues, (for that is absurd) but of God, God crea­teth men to sinne, Beza. to be scādalized at him and his sonne our Sauiour. Christus est eis offendiculo, prout etiam ad hoc ipsum a Deo sunt conditi, and discour­seth at large, & bringeth many textes to proue this sense & this translation. which error being of such cōsequence as Caluin graunteth, that it maketh God, no God, but an idol and a deuil, any man may boldly ptonounce of such a testament, that it is the testament rather of Satan then of Christ.

So here is at least one translation worse then ours. & are there no more? looke vpon your testaments of the later translators, al in maner apes of Beza. in one thus you reade, Bible of the yere 1577. Being dis­obediente, vnto the vvhich thing they vvere ordeined, in the next, Being disobediēt, the yere 1579. vnto the vvhich thing they vvere euen ordeined, this is a litle worse. and with this, word for word agreeth the later testament of the yere 1580, and the Scottish bible. The yere 1580. The yere 1579. and this is altogether the first Geneua [Page 454] translation, Printed at Geneua the yere 1561. whom the French Geneua bible foloweth, Sont rebelles, a quoy aussi ils ont estè ordonne [...]. They are rebels (a­gainst Christ) vvherevnto also they vvere ordayned. Cast. defens. suae transla­cions p. 155. Atqui si deus creauit aliquos ad contumaciam, omnino author est eorum con­tumaciae, quemadmodum, si quos [...]re [...]uit ad obedientiam, omnino author est eorū obedien­tiae (saith Castalio against Beza) But if God haue created some men to rebellion or disobedience, he is author of their disobedi­ence, as if he haue created some to obedience he is truely author of their obedience. Al these translations by verdicte of Caluin, make god an idol & a deuel. And so by verdicte not only of catholikes but also of your owne great doctors such as are Luther, Castalio, Caluin, &c. and in deede by manifest reason, here haue you 7. translations of the new testamente▪ within these 500, yea within these 50 yeres worse then ours. For finde your any one so wilful and horrible an Atheisme in ours, and hard­ly set a fier on them al. Many moe ex­amples could I geue, but I wil not be troublesome nor enter new discourses. For conuincing this so grosse and im­pudente a lye, let the testimonie of that excellent man Beza so commended by M. W. suffice, who accounteth our latine, better then that of Luther, [Page 455] then that of Basile, M.W. in his last short sentence, 6. refelleth & gain sayeth whatsoeuer he hath sayd before. then that of Eras­mus, then that of Castalio, then any that euer he saw. and consequently our english framed altogether accor­ding to that, by M. W. owne iudgment, can not be the worst.

The next three faultes are obiected 2.3.4. only in wordes, and proued by no ex­ample, reason, or coniecture, The prote­stants more desyrous of nouelty of words then euer were any hereti­kes. or least argument in the world. Mary that he & his felowes are most guilty of them al, both in the Discouerie and annota­tions of the testament it is in many pla­ces declared. And iudge thou (reader) whether we or they loue vnaccustomed and monstruous noueltie of words, we, who striue so much as we may, to re­taine the auncient words left to vs by our Apostles and founders, Masse, Bi­shop, Priest, Baptisme, Church, the very names of mē, Isaie, Amos, Iuda, Hieru­salem, Ezechias, Ozias, or they who haue turned these in to the Supper or the Thankes-geuing, Superintendent, Mi­nister or Elder, VVashing, Congregation. who vpon most childish affectation to seeme somwhat skilful in the hebrew, reduce al sacred names to the old Iu­daical sound. As for example one of their greatest Euangelists thus begin­neth [Page 456] his translation of Esaie. The vision of Iesaaiahu the sonne of Amoz, Oecolam. Esa. c. 1. v. 1. vvhich he savv vpon Iehudah and vpon Hierusalam in the daies of Yziiahu, Iotham, Ahhaz, Ieh­hizkiiahu, Kinges of Iehudah. And this is the common veyne of their preachers if they know a litle, especially in that lan [...]nge. as though Petrus, Ioannes, Ia­cobus, Stephanus, howsoeuer they be vt­tered in any other tonge, Hebrew, Greeke, Latin, Spanish, Frēch, or Italiā were not truly & exactly expressed in English by Peter, Iohn, Iames, Steuin, but must needes be pronoūced, as they are in the first lāguage frō which originally they are deriued. as though a mā tran­slating some storie out of French or Spanish into English, translated not wel if he said, Fraūcis the French King in his warres against the Spaniards, but must needes say, Fransois King of the Fransois in his warres against the Espanioulx: or, los Espan̄oles in such a victorie against los Franceses, in steede of, The Spaniards in such a victo­rie against the Frenchmen. And why then do they not in the new testament vse like noueltie? why for Christ vse they not, Ieschua, for our Lady, Miriā, for S. Peter, Cepha, for S. Iohn, Iocha­nan, [Page 457] and so in the rest of the Apostles, whereas they know that thus were they called in their proper language, as at this presēt we see in S. Matthewes hebrevv Gospel. If their ovvne eares abhor this wanton curiositie, and their ovvne iudgment tel thē it is apish arro­gancie, & peevish affectation of popu­lar praise, let them confesse the like in pronouncing, Beltshazzar, Nebucad­nezzar, Iehuda, Iehhizkiiahu, for Balta­sar, Nabugodonosor, Iuda, Ezechias. for the case is al one.

Much more haue they committed this monstruous noueltie in the things them selues, A far grea­ter alterati­on and no­uelty in ar­ticles of fayth. in taking away the sacri­fice of the new testament, like the fore­runners of Antichrist, in yelding to wo­men and children the headship and supreme gouernement of the Church in al Ecclesiastical & spiritual matters, in abrogating fiue or six sacramentes of seauen, in deuising such a kind of faith, as before their time was neuer heard of, The authors and writers of sundry bookes of scripture, mocked & scorned by the prote­stants. and is more fit for the schole of Epicure then of Christ, and so forth in the rest of their negatiue irreligion.

And as for mocking and contem­ning the word of God, this was neuer so proper & peculiar to any heretikes [Page 458] before, as it is to them. For who are they that mocke at the booke of The tower disputatiōs the 4 day. Iu­dith, that compare the booke of Zuingl. to. 1 art. 57. fol. 100. Ma­chabees to Robin Hoode or Beauis of Hampton, that cal the Prophete Idem to. 3 in rhrenos Iere. fo. 384. Ba­ruch a peeuish ape of Ieremie, Simia est non admodum sae [...]ix Ieremiae, that accounte the epistle to the Magdeb. see before pag 414. Hebrewes Pro stipu­lis, as stubble, that reiecte S. Luthera­nes and Zuinglia­nes. see be­fore chap 1. Iames epis­tle as made of stravve, that contemne S. Lukes gospel, that mangle many other partes of the scriptures, and thereby teach the contempt of them al, al stan­ding vpō like ground? Who doe this? VVe, or they? Catholikes, or Gospel­lers? & to speake briefly, what is their whole maner of writing, The new preaching a very mockery of scrip­ture. preaching, teaching, and liuing, but a very mocke­rie of the gospel of Christ? such filthie application of holy write, as sheweth them to vse it for no other purpose but for colour and shrowd of their fil­thines. Rebuke a leacherous monke for his incest which he calleth Matri­monie, 1. Cor. 7. v. 9. see the an­notations vpon that chap. ô saith he, Better it is to mary then to burne. Require of him that he chastise his body with fasting and discipline for repressing of his beastly concupiscēce: that is against Gods word saith he. For, nemo carnem suam odio habuit, Ephe. 5. v. 29 No man ha­teth [Page 459] his ovvne flesh, but loueth & cherish­eth it. when such an Apostata is promo­ted amongst you to be a superintendēt, The prote­stants vse scripture for a veyle [...] coueral filthynes. and then spoileth his tenants, wasteth his woods, pulleth downe his hous [...] neuer built by him, or for him, or any of his religion▪ selleth away lead, tile, stone, and maketh mony of al, reproue him for this oppression and rauin, he hath his text ready, 1. Tim. 5. v. 8 He that prouideth not for his ovvne, and namely for them of his hovvsehold, he is vvorse then an Infidel. These interpretations & vvorse then these very many shal you finde in Pe­ter Martyrs booke, De votis et caelibatu. Pet. Mar de votis & cael. And at this present, what is the vni­uersal preaching of the ministers for the most part, but a very mockery & ridiculous abuse of scripture? what other is their cōmon writing? and M.VV. in the next chapt. wil shew himself in this kinde as very a scorner as the worst.

5 And whereas after al this he saith, Truely so far of is it that I thinke your translatiō vvil any vvayes harme our cause, that I vvish the copies thereof vvere multi­plied, and other men might be partakers thereof, This is as fowle a figure of hypo­crisie as any hitherto touched. For if they thinke it wil no wayes hinder [Page 460] their cause but rather benefite it, why make they such busie inquirie after it? why burne they such as fal in to their hands? are they such witles babes as [...]ain not suffer that which doth them good? Cōpare (good reader) their do­inges, their preachings, their sear­chings & inquiries, with this speach, and thou shal sensibly perceaue that it is nought els but a very desperat fa­cing out of a lye, and setting a bold countenance on that, which in deede pincheth them at the very hart roote. With like phrase & character of shame­lesse vaūting wrote M. Iewel de­fence of the Apolog. part. 6. ca. 8. ¶. 1. Iewel to D. Harding. vve neuer suppressed any of your books M. Harding as you knovve, but are very vvel content to see them so common, that as novv children may play vvith them in the streetes. Incredible impudency in bragging and lying. Thus his face serued him to write then when in the self same Defence he sup­pressed by leauing out, the very sub­stance of that booke which he then pretended to answere, when by helpe of his felow-Superintendents and o­ther frends, euery corner of the realme was searched for those bookes, when the portes were layed for them, Paules crosse is witnes of burning many of them, the Princes proclamation was procured against them, in the Vniuer­sities [Page 461] by soueraigne authoritie, Colle­ges, chambers, studies, closets, coffers, and deskes, were ransackt for them, when not only children were forbid to play with them, but auncient m [...] and students of Diuinitie were im­prisoned for hauing of them. So that al this can be nought els but a plaine example of palpable dissimulation & affected lying. Ad populum phaleras, when intrinsecally, they feare, and la­bour, and sweate, and by exterior sig­nes declare thus much, and euery day more and more misdoubt the ruine of their Atheistical gospel, which dayly the more it is knovven, the more it grovveth in horror and execration a­monge honest natures: not only such as are directed by the spirit of God, but euen such as are somevvhat hol­pen vvith the assistance of natural wisedome and honest inclination.

But come vve to the particular crymes layde against vs, and vvhere­vpon this dreadful inuectiue is pro­perly builded, vvhich is, The particular faultes of our En­glish trans­lation. our corrup­ting the text, or departing from our latin testament. For as vve in exami­ning their testament framed according to the greeke as they pretended, re­proued [Page 462] them not in their translation, nor could so doe reasonably so long as precisely they kept them selues to their greeke (for vvhether the greeke [...]a [...]ere so to be folovved, is an other question) in like maner vve propo­sing to translate the latin (vvhich to vs is as autentical as the greeke to them) can not reasonab [...]y be blamed as false and corrupt translators, but vvhere vve haue gone aside and leaft that original which vve preten­ded to translate. And if herein vve haue erred, vve gladly vvil acknovv­ledge our ouersight, and are ready to amēd the same. And here (Reader) hast thou specially to marke, by what ar­gument he verifieth that which he obiecteth, A terrible accusation Our prophane corruptions, our outrag [...]ous boldnes, our more violence vsed to the holy testamēt of Christ, then euer vvas vsed by any kinde of heretike so notorious that al the world may iudge that our intent was, To make the peop [...]e scorne and contemne the vvord of God. how iustifi­eth [...]e al this? by what proofe? for hitherto we haue wordes, and nothing but wordes, such as euery grammar-boy can picke out of the booke which he readeth and ioyne together. [Page 463] But from M. W. the Q. Maiesties reader, his auditors looke for soun­der stuffe then such childish gramma­tical declaiming. How wea­kely the same is iu­stified. Many places (saith he) haue I noted vvherein you haue manifestly erred from that your vulgar latin edition. that vvil I declare by one example, the like vvhere of I could bring forth many. Surely this is very weake to maintaine the greatnes of the accusation thundered out before. And whereas you pro­mise one example, and geue vs two, the reader may assure him self, you would haue spared vs three if you had bene able. But belyke these, one or two, are horrible monstrous faults, and touch matters of maruelous great height, Christs Diuinitie, Humanitie, Incarnation, Heauen, and Hel, such as are the faults of these mens bibles, and so these two may serue in steed of a number. Let vs here them in M. W. owne words. In the epistle to the Rom. ca. Vbi supra. 13. v. 19. thus it is read [...] vvhich vvords the old interpreter turned thus, Non vosmet ipsos desendentes, but by you they are turned othervvise ac­cording to the greeke veritie, Not reuenging your selues. The like place is in Matth. 4. v. 16. vvhere these vvords, [...] [Page 464] [...], Marke the greuousnes of these 2. faultes. the old interpreter turned, The people vvhich vvalked in darkenes, am­bulauit in tenebris, as also in Hierom vve reade. but you folovving the greeke exemplat haue turned othervvise and more truly: The people that sitteth in darknes, Qui sedes in tenebris.

Thus M. VV. and this is al. And here first of al the reader may againe remēber how iust cause I had to charge him with affected hypocrisie for excla­ming so tragically vpon our testament wherein he findeth only these faultes, which if they were faultes, of what weight they are, euery child may iudge. But to passe that ouer, let the reader see how blindly & fovvly he is decei­ued. We haue left our latin & folovved the greeke (saith he) in turning De­fendentes, Defendere is wel tran­slated to re­ueng. Reuenging. and why so? hovv proueth he that vve leaue our latin? he vvil ansvvere I suppose (for reason him selfe yeldeth none) because in al M. Coopers Dictionarie vve finde not, that Defendere signifieth To reuenge. If that be true, then belike if vve vvere maister Coopers scholers, the case vvould goe somvvhat hard vvith vs. But if he vvil vevv other Dictionaries as wel as M. Coopers, he shal find both [Page 465] that [...] in greeke, in latin is true­ly turned by Defendere, and Defendere in latin, is vvel and properly turned in English by Reuenge. So the greeke dicti­onarie of Basile printed the yere 1557. teacheth vs. [...], defendo, vindico, vlciscor, in alicuius gratiam. So the latin and french, and latin greeke & french dictionaries printed at Paris the yeres 1559.1575 1580. set forth by Sonnius & Rob. Stephanus teach vs, that Defen­dere signifieth [...], defender, garder, et preseruer, venger, as vvel to reuenge, as to defend, gard & preserue. And which is to vs more then al, the dictionarie of the Church, that is, the auncient ecclesiastical vse of this vvord in the scripture & fathers teacheth vs somti­mes & in this place, this to be his proper & grammatical ense, and so the aun­ciēt fathers vsed this word. So Tertul­lian. Tertullian contra Mar­tionem li. 2 Durum videbatur populo a deo expec­tare defensam edicendam postea per prophe­tam, mihi defensam et ego defendam. It see­med a hard thing for the Ievvish people (in Moyses time) to expect reuenge from God vvhich vvas aftervvards promised by the prophete saing, To me reuenge, and I vvil re­uenge. Where manifest it is that Defen­dere and defensa, is grāmatically Reuenge [Page 466] & To reuenge, Ambros in Rom. ca. 12. & manifest it is that S. Am­brose doth not expound, but gramma­tically take the word Defendere, in the self same maner, that is, to signifie Re­uēge, euē as S. Hier. put it, or rather as I thinke leaft it, being so vsed by the for­mer trāslator. So doth Haymo, so doth S. Beda in Rom. 12. Bede, and maketh no scruple at it, but in his commentarie taken out of S. Augustine expresseth by Vindicare that, which our interpreter vttered by Defendere.

And the same is most plaine by the trāslatiō of the bible it self. For where­as in other places, for example, in the storie of Holofernes the greeke is, That he sware he would, [...], Iudith 1. v. 12. & 2. v. 1. Reuenge him self of al the lāds, that doth the old interpreter vtter by De­fendere. ca. 9. v. 2. And in the 9. chap. where Iudith praiseth God, The yere 1579. saing according to the later English bible, O Lord God of my fa­ther Symeon, to vvhom thou gauest a svvord to take vengeance of the strangers, the latin is, Gladium ad defensionē abienigenarū, the greeke, [...], which the English bible printed two yeres before, 1577. trāslateth, A svvord for a defence against the enemies, and putteth in the margent, 1562. Or to reuengment. The former [Page 467] bible vseth only, Defence & not Reuēge at al, whereby it is cleare that those trā ­slators hauing belike some more skil in the old vse of this word thē M.W. ac­cōpted [...] to be wel turned, ether by Reuenge, which is more proper, or by Defence, which is also most true, res­pecting the vse of the latin, but must si­gnifie as much as Reuēge in English, for els they trāslated falsely. So in Ecclesi­asticus, that writer speking of a father that dieth & leaueth behind him a good & wise sonne, among many other be­nefites which he hath thereby, he reck­neth this, Ecclesiastici 30. v. 6. that he hath leaft one who wil Defende & Reuenge him against his ene­mies, in greeke, [...], in our latin, Reliquit defensorem, in the English bibles, He leaste behind him an avenger. Of the ye­res 1562.1577.1579. The same writer speaking of the re­uenge wrought vpon Baals Priestes for their Idolatrie 3 Reg. 18. calleth it, Ecclesia [...]ici 48. v. 7. [...], our latin, Iuditia de­fensionis, the English bibles, Iudgment of vengeance.

Many lyke wordes there are in the new testament, wherein if a man exa­mine vs according to the vulgar signi­fication of the word as we learned it when we were children, we can not [Page 468] alwaies auoyde bl [...]me. Great diffe­rence oft­times in the sense of a word, as it is vsed by ecclesiasti­cal writers & prophane But if we re­spect the true vse of the latin word in the auncient Church, he whosoeuer blameth vs, therein much more sha­meth him self. So in S. Iames, Naue [...] minanour, we translate not, Men threa­ten shippes, Iacob. 3. v. 4. as some grāmarian would perhaps imagine we ought, but shippes, are caried or driven. Abraham conforta­tus est fide, Rom. 4. v. 20. not, Abraham was comfor­ted in faith, but, VVas strengthned in faith. Mat. 11. v. 10.24. Christus exprobrauit ciuitatibus in quibus facte essent plurimae virtutes eius &c. quia si in Tyro et Sidone factae essent virtutes quae factae sunt in vobis, we En­glish not, Christ vpbrayded the cities wherein were done most of his ver­tues &c. but, vvherein vvere done most of his miracles, and because if in Tyre and Sidō had bene vvrought the miracles vvhich haue bene vvrought in you. I passe ouer very many examples of the like qua­litie and nature, in al which we geue not that English which the latin word seemeth at first to require, and yet for al that nether do we (as some man like M. W. may imagine) forsake our latin, and folowe the greeke, but by conference of latin with greeke, and one place with an other, and by the fa­thers [Page 469] of the Church, and continual practise of the same, we know assured­ly, that our enterpreter verbatim, word for word meant to expresse the greeke [...] in S. Iames, by his latin Mina­r [...], that is, Te be driuen. [...] in S. Paule by Cōfortari, that is, To be strength­ned, [...] in S. Mat [...]hew, by Virtu­tes, Miracles.

And in this place it is most euident that our ēterpreter so tooke the word Defendere, and that not only because we see his vse in other places, but euen by considering the peeces of this very sentence. Haue peace vvith al men, Rom. 12. v. Non vosmet ipsos defendentes charissmi, sed date locum irae: scriptum est enim, [...] Defenden­tes. [...] Mihi vindi­cta. Mihi vindictā et ego retribuam, dicit dominus. Where very plaine it is by the anteced [...]n [...]s, by the consequents, by the whole drift of the place, by that which he in­ferreth, that he meant to take Defendere in the former part, as signifying the same with vindicare in the later, where vnto if we ioyne the vse of the same author in other places, the auncient speach of the Church and fathers, and the very new heretical bibles, we shal much more easily per­ [...]eue, that both he meant [...] Re­ueng [Page 470] by Defendere, when he first transla­ted the greeke into that latin, & that we truely gaue his meaning, when we turned Defendere by Reuenge, out of latin in to English. And so this first, is no Prodigious error, nor Prophane noueltie, nor Heretical contempt, nor Outragious or desperate boldnes, nor of our parte any fault at al: but on M. W. part, it is a grosse error, and a blind error, and foule ignorance, and great malice, and litle vvitte, to am­plifie so outragiously a thing of so smal value if it vvere an error, and a thing of no value being no error at al.

The other perhaps that remaineth is huge & monstruous inough to make recompence for both. VVhat is that? forsooth vvhereas Our old editiō readeth Populus qui ambulauit in tenebris, A great and monstruous fault, to trā ­slate a thing more truly. The peo­ple vvhich hath vvalked in darkenes, vve according to the greeke & more truly haue translated, The people that sitteth in darke­nes, Populus qui sedet in tenebris. so that herein at least vve haue outragiously abused the people and desperately gone about to deceaue thē, by making them reade more truly Sitting in dark­nes, vvhereas they should haue read, [Page 471] vvalking in darkenes. And hovv can vve ansvvere this? novv in truth very hardly. For it is so bald a toy, as I know not vvhich vvay vvel to begin vvith it. But to say somevvhat, let me aske him for vvhat purpose should vve here forsake our latin and choose the greeke? what article, vvhat conclusiō, vvhat argument, ether for our selues or against the heretikes get vve by this alteration? Certainly he had neede to be very subtile that could gather any.

Next, if I answered that he belyeth vs, some man might thinke it rudely spoken: but it is most true. For to let passe that his reading is quite beside the booke (for nether S. Hierom nor any old edition that I could yet finde hath, Ambulauit, and manyfest it is that vve translate not, Sedet, Sitteth, as any man may iudge that cā reade English) our vulgar copies had Sedebat, Sate, as we translated: & that is the most com­mon reading, as may be sene, if any liste to peruse the common printes of An­dwarp or Louayne &c. of the yeres 1563, 1564, 1565, 1569, 1570, 1574, 1577, 1580, set forth by Brickeman, Tiletane, Grauius, Plantine, & sundrie others.

[Page 472]Thirdly I adde, that here more eui­dently then in the last, The vncon­scionable demeanure of our ad­uersaries. the Christian reader may learne with what peruerse, and malitious, and vnconscionable aduersaries we haue to deale. The words are cyted out of the Prophete Esay thus, Vt adimpleretur quod dictum est per Isaiam prophetam &c. Esa. 9. v. 2. Populus qui sede­bat in tenebris. The word which S. Mat­thew (or whosoeuer was author of this greeke) turned, [...] Sedebat, is in Isai, Am­bulabat, as also it is in the hebrew tes­tament extant in S. Matthews name. of our vulgar testaments many reade according to the hebrew, Ambulabat, more, according to the greeke, Sede­bat. In the sense there can not be imagi­ned any difference without manifest reproofe of the Euangelist. For cleare it is, that he citeth not the text accor­ding to the 70 who reade otherwise [...], but translated it of him self, [...].

And to leaue the authoritie of the Euāgelist, plaine it is, that ether word is of so smale force in this place, that it skilleth not one iote whether you take the hebrew or greeke, Ambulabat, or Sedebat. yea the greatest Protestants folow according to the letter, nether [Page 473] the one nor the other, nether hebrew nor greeke, but put other wordes which they esteeme in sense to be e­quiualent: Beza, Beza, Illyricus, Castalio. Populus positus in tene­bris, Illyricus, Populus qui agebat in tene­bris, Castalio, Populus in tenebris degens, &c. So that if in ether of our latin te­staments be any error, one folowing precisely the hebrew of the prophete, the other the greeke of the Euange­liste, how much greater is their fault which folow nether of both? But not to spend time in so vaine a cau [...]l, the truth is (reader) we folovved as I haue said, the cōmon & best corrected prin­tes, vvhich haue this in the text, & the other in the margent. And therfore in this also, note thou to vvhat beggerly shiftes this man is driuē, who to make some shevv of talking is glad to snat­che at such shadovves, to imagine faultes, to seyne lyes, and the some no­thing vvorth if they were graunted.

And these faultes in number of ob­iecting, tvvo, for any color pretence or shevv, one, in truth & veritie, none, Parturiu [...] montea. are al those prophane, horrible, out­ragious, and desperate corruptions committed in our testamēt, for which he boldly pronounceth as from his [Page 474] chayer of estate, that this 5000 yeres from the first creation of the vvorld (he might haue added, or 50000 yeres before) there was neuer set forth a new testament in any language, so ful of outragious faultes, so much to the con­tempt and irrision of Gods vvorde, & vvherein the desperatnes of the papists so much appeared &c. A man might say, Iuuenal. Medici mediam pertundite venam, or, minister vnto him some phisicke: for surely he seemeth not to be very vvel in his vvittes.

FROM the translation, which he impugneth by such strōg arguments as novv hath bene shewed, he proceedeth to the annotations, which he refelleth vvith like learning and vvisedome. And first he beginneth as before vvith a like inuectiue in these vvords. Nihil illis annotationibus contaminatius vnquam in lucem prodiit &c. Pag. 21. Nothing vvas euer pu­blished a brode more corrupt then those an­notations. [Page 475] Truely as heretofore I haue euer hated the Romane religion euen vvith al my hart, so sone as I could iudge of it, so novv I confesse that I am induced by these mens desperatnes and importunitie to abhorre it much more. Hovv much or hovv litle he abhorreth our religion, vvere it not for regarde of his ovvne soule, it is not much material. For except he haue better learning in store then he hath vttered yet, I trust his great hatred against it wil not do it any great harme. And these are but vvords. And as he vpon this pretended occasiō, concei­ueth so euil of our faith (if he meane as he speketh) so I knovv many, vvho ha­uing bene brought vp not in Catholike religion as he vvas in heresie, but in heresie vvith him, & continuing a long time in the same, and louing it vvith al their hart, comming to better iudgmēt, through the grace of God, The incre­dible lying & falsifica­tions vsed by the En­glish wri­ters of our time, are a great mo­tiue to the Catholike fayth. vpon consi­deration of such lying writers as he most honoreth, M. Iewel, M. Horne &c. haue bene so altered, that they haue detested his gospel euen to hel gates: of which number I confesse my self to be one. But this kinde of asseueration is common to both sides. This rather is worth the examining, whether we [Page 476] haue ministred him sufficient occasion to fall in to so deepe hatred of the Ca­tholike faith, or they rather haue geuē vs iust cause in like maner to ab­horre their new gospel. This in some parte wil appeare by M W. discourse against these Annotations.

Pag. 22.Thus he proceedeth. I doubt not but vvhen this beate of the Papistes is somevvhat cooled, vvise men vvil daily more and more dislike that religion. For vvhen they vnder­stand such things as of old vvere alvvaies accompted false or at least suspected, the same novv to be set forth of these men as most true articles of the Romane religion, vvhen they consider vvith them selues hovv miserably these men abuse the holy scriptures to most ab­surd interpretations, it can not othervvise bee but that they vvil disallovv the vvhole cause of the Papists, vvhich they see to be supported vvith such trifles and tales. Mat. 2. v. 11. VVhen they heare the vvise men vvhich came from the East to vvorship Christ to be called three kinges, vvhose names are Gaspar, mat. 3. v. 12. Melchior, Baltasar. That Iohn Bap­tist vvas a monke and father of monkes. That vvhen S. Act. 7. v. 58. Steuin vvas stoned to death a stone rebounded backe from his elbovv vvhich novv is kept at A [...]cona in Italie. That Elias the Thesbite is expected to come [Page 477] before the later day.

Vnto three heads he reduceth al the faults vvhich he findeth in the Anno­tations. The summe of M W ac­cusation. 1 To errors committed in mat­ters historical, 2 to faults committed in framing arguments, 3 and to certaine blasphemies as he calleth them vtte­red against S. Paul. The first parte is comprised in these vvords which here thou seest. The second and third shal folovv in order. To ansvvere al that he saith pointe by pointe, vvhat he mea­neth by aestus pōtificius, Heate of the Papists vvhich he hopeth vvil be cooled, I knovv not vvel. If he meane the zeale of good Priests vvho to reclaime some from damnation, venture their liues in England. The prote­stants ma­ner of dis­puting. although he vvith his fe­lovv ministers take a readie vvay to coole their heate by their straūge ma­ner of disputing, I meane by thrus­ting in euery Syllogisme a conclusion of treason, from Sacrament, Masse, Tower dis­putation Tiburne disputation. Confession, Reconciliation, Church, inferring, [...]go you are traitours, and so enflaming the ciuil magistrate to ansvvere by hanging, them vvhom they cannot ansvvere by learning, yet our lord be praised this maner of their dealing, though it be bloodie and of [Page 478] them assumed against the preaching of their first apostles and martyrs euen of necessitie, See M. Fox. martirolo­ge in King Henries time. because othervvise they see their gospel can not stand, yet I say, our lord be praised, experience shew­eth that it cooleth none, but enflameth many. Luc. 12. v. 48 Ignem veni mittere in terram (saith our Sauiour) et quid volo nisi vt ardeat? & howsoeuer our lord shal deale hereaf­ter with our Countrie, whether he wil abandō it to Apostasie, as he hath Asia and Africa, or reduce it to the v­nitie of his church, which he of his in­finite mercie graunt, thus much assure your self M. W. that this kinde of heate wil neuer be cooled in your daies. The plot is laid, the charges are cast, and the matter is begonne, and we see and feele that Christ hath powred his bles­sing vpon it abundantly.

If you meane the heate of vvri­ting bookes, vvith vvhich notvvithstā ­ding you are not much troubled, the vvay to coole that heate is, ether to ā ­svvere them more substantially then hitherto you haue, English writers. or els not to an­svvere them at al. For so long as you set forth such stuffe as you for your part and your late vvriters of like qualitie allovv vs, your selues blovve [Page 479] the coales and make matter to kindle the fier, that if men vvould be silent, children may find sufficient argument to proue you heretikes.

If you imagine that our church is so vnconstant that she vvil in short time leaue this zeale in preaching the Ca­tholike religion, The Catho­like Church built vpon a rocke. (Christ) and therefore in al times constant & vnmouea­ble. and thereby that your congregatiō shal gather strength and stabilitie, and vvise men vvil fal in good liking thereof, then your ig­norance is great, vvho knovv nether the nature of our Catholike Church & religiō, nor of your ovvne heretical faith and congregation. Not of ours, because you may learne, or remember that from Christs time hitherto, ne­ther by persecuting Emperours, nor by vndermining heretikes, othervvise qualified thē are the Lutherās or Zuin­glians of these days, it vvas or could euer be subuerted, but rather the more it vvas assaulted, the better irresisted, the more it vvas gainsaid, the more it florished, & vvhē suttle heretikes vpō temporal fauour vvere most insolent, then she most excellently did defende her self. Examples you haue of the times of S. Augustine against Pelagius & the Manichees, S. Hierō against Io­vinian [Page 480] and Vigilantius, Lanfrancus a­gainst Berengarius, and al the Primi­tiue church against Constantius, Valēs, and Arrius. The English church bu [...]lt vpon the fauour of Lords & Ladies, gen­tlemen and gentlewe­men, and therefore euer totte­ring, and variable. Ignorant you are of your ovvne faith and gospel, because you may remember that nether had it euer any stay or stabilitie since it vvas first begotten, nether can it haue so longe as it endureth, the very pillers vvhich vnder proppe it being such rottē mat­ter, as of it self quickly corrupteth & falleth in to dust.

Fox act and monumen­tes pag. 512 Desyre of reuenge. Ibid. p. 592. Couetous­nes.For when in king Henries raigne it first set foote in our realme vpon oc­casions which I am content to passe o­uer, though M. Fox to the euerlasting shame both of such a gospel and such gospellers, haue recorded them and committed them to eternal memorie, hovv variable a state it had your elders know, Fox acts & monumēts in Henri. 8. pa. 1295. postremae aeditionis. & he much complaineth. Euē as the kinge vvas ruled (saith he) & gaue care sometime to one, sometime to an other, so one vvhile religion vvent forvvard, at an other season as much backvvard againe, sometime cleane altered and chaūged for a season, as they could preuaile vvhich vvere about the kinge. So long as Q. Anne liued, the gospel had indifferent good successe. And not only Queenes, but very meane gē ­tlemen [Page 481] and doctors of phisicke were then able to craze your gospel, and set it backward or forward as pleased them. For so much also is recorded in M. Foxes storie in the ende of king Henries life.

Thus writeth he. So long as Quene Anne, L. Cromvvel, B. Cranmer, M. Denny, D. Buts, vvith such like, vvere about the King and could preuayle vvith him, Fox actes & monumēts, in the end of king Henryes lyfe▪ pag. 682. vvhat organe of Christes glorie did more good in the church thē he? Againe vvhen sinister & vvicked counsel had gotten once the foote in, thrusting truth & veritie out of the princes eares, hovv much as religion and al good things vvent forvvard before, so much on the contrary side al reuolted backvvard againe. And this gospel (as M. Fox cal­leth it) which King Henrie left esta­blished as he thought most assuredly by Acte of Parlament, Continual chaunge of the English fayth. in his sonne King Edwards daies went cleane vpside doune. In Q. Maries daies came a new alteration. vnder the Q. Maiestie that now is, an other cleane contrarie. And at this present, finde you not a general murmuring euen amongst the Protes­tants against the Communion booke and state of religion which in the be­ginning of hir Maiesties raigne was [Page 482] brought in? If the Catholikes said nothing, haue you not the Puritans most eagerly detesting your faith, and were it not for the Princes sword, like to dispossesse you of chayrs and chur­ches? And what stabilitie can that gos­pel haue which altogether dependeth of the good allovvance of the Prince and her councel in Parlament, which we know within these fiftie yeres so often to gaine said one an other. And if it should please God to turne the Quenes hart to the catholike faith (for which we incessantly pray) vvere not the face of your religiō streightvvaies altered & turned quite vpside downe? must nor the inferiour partes of the body turne and frame them selues ac­cording to the head? would not the same statutes which now are vniustly executed vpon Catholikes, without alteration of any one word, be much more iustly executed vpon the Minis­ters & Superintendents, if so be they called her Maiesty Scismatike or Here­tike? Wherefore litle reason haue you to imagine that wisemen wil fall in liking of your new deuised fansie, which as it altogether dependeth vpon the Fauour of Court and Courtiers, so [Page 483] for this very reason, must needes euer remaine as chaungeable as the Court and Courtly beneuolence is.

And your father Luther who best knew the nature of his children, and qualitie of your religion, geueth such a sentence of it, Luthers iudgement of the Sacra­mentarie religion. as I doubt not at this present is allowed of al the wisest of our Realme, and much confirmed by your maner of writing. The arguments and reasonings of the sacramentaries (saith he) are such vaine vvordes vvithout witte, Luther tom. 7. defensio. verborum coenae fol. 381. that I can not maruaile sufficiently hovv learned men can be moued vvith such lyes. & truly they do their matters vvith so fear­ful a conscience, Trepida cō ­scientia. that they seeme to vvish they had neuer taken them in hand. Equidē opinor si eis esset potestas de integro cōsulēdi, quòd nūquam inciperent. Verily I suppose if they vvere to consulte of the matter a fresh, they vvould neuer begin their sacra­mētarie heresie. And I verely suppose, if the wise gouernours of our Realme who now may see the issue of your gospel, what wickednes and iniquitie in lyfe, confusion and Atheisme in faith, contempt of God and man it hath brought with it, if they were now to consult of the matter a fresh, I be­leeue verily with your father Martin [Page 484] Luther, that amongst al heresies of name at this time currant in the Christiā world, they would least of al haue admitted yours, as being the most grosse, most licentious, and most vnprobable of al others.

Faultes hi­storical.But come we to the particular faultes historical committed by vs. Things alvvays accompted false or suspec­ted, vve set forth as most true articles of the Romane religiō, as that the vvise mē vvhich came from the East, vvere 3 kinges and had such names. That S. Iohn Baptist vvas fa­ther of monkes, That a stone vvith vvhich Steuen vvas stoned to death, is reserued at Ancona &c. Before I come to make ā ­swere, Note. I wish the reader to carie in re­membrance, 1 first the greatnes of his accusation against vs, That neuer a­ny thing came forth in print, More con­taminate then these annotations, That vve haue shevved herein great desperatenes and importunitie, That things alvvays ac­cōpted false or suspected, vve affirme as most true articles of the Romane religion &c. 2 Then what we promised in these āno­tations. Touching which, in the pre­face of the new testament thus we write. In the pre­face fol. b. ii In these annotations vve shevv the studious reader, the Apostolike tradition, [Page 485] the expositions of the holy fathers, the decrees of the Catholike church and most auncient Councels. vvhich meanes vvho so euer trus­teth not for the sense of holy scriptures, but had rather folovv his priuate iudgment or the arrogant spirit of these Sectaries, he shal vvorthely through his owne vvilfulnes be deceaued. Now vvhether part fayleth in perfourmance of that vvhich it vn­dertaketh, vvhether vve geue not The sense of holy scriptures according to the Apostolike tradition, the expositions of ho­ly fathers, or vvhether he conuince vs of Desperatnes, and importunitie, and such contamination as he threatneth, this is that vvhich the reader concerning ether side, hath ro note and consider.

Of the vvise men thus vve say. These three sages, In Mat. 2. v. 11. being principal men of their countrie, represent the vvhole state of Princes, Kinges, and Emperours, Psal. 71. Esa. 60. that vvere according to the prophecies of Dauid and Esay to beleeue in Christ, to humble them selues to his crosse, to foster, enrich, adorne and defend his church: vvhere vpon it is also a very conuenient and agreable tradition of antiquitie, Chrysost. Theophil. Cic. de diui­nat. Plin. lib. 20. and a receiued opi­nion among the faithful, not lacking testi­monies of auncient vvriters, and much for the honor of our Sauiour, that these three al­so [Page 486] vvere Kings: Esther. 1.13.14. to vvit, ether according to the state of those countries, vvhere the princes vvere Magi, & Magi the greatest about the prince: or as vve reade in the scriptures, of Melchisedech King of Salem, Tob. 2.15. Ambro. 1. offic. ca. 12. & many other Kings that dvvelt vvithin a smal compasse: or as Iobes three frendes are called Kings. These are commonly called the three Kings of Colen, because their bodies are there, translated thither from the East countrie. Their names are said to haue bene Gaspar, Melchior, Baltasar. In these wordes thou seest (reader) vpon what ground, and with what moderation we speake of that matter, not precisely auou­ching them to be Kinges in such sort as we commōly esteeme of that name, but after an other sort and some inferi­our degree. Albeit if we affirmed them to be as great monarkes as the Kinges of Fraunce or Spaine, or the great Sophie of Persia, we might so affirme for ought he bringeth to the contrarie.

But because M. W. maketh his first entrance with this matter, as though it were so absurd, let vs search out wherein lieth the great absurditie and fault committed in this note. Is it trowe you, in that we cal them Kinges, or in that we saie they were three, or [Page 487] in that by our reporte their names are sayd to haue bene such? That the wise men were king [...]. If because of the first, let him shew his reason why that can be so harmeful, what it ma­keth against the honor of Christ, what against the veritie of the scrip­tures, the faith of the church, tradi­tion ecclesiastical, the maners of mē, or any title, point or dependence of Christianitie, and Christian professi­on. The like I affirme of the second, the like of the thirde, the like of al three ioyned together. VVe cal them kinges, and why not? seyng the scrip­ture wel beareth with that appellati­on, and the auncient fathers haue so called them many hundred yeres be­fore vve vvere borne. Tertullian contra Mar­cionem. l. 3. Ciprian. ser. de Bapt. numer. 1. Chrys. hom. 1. ex variis in Mat. locis So Tertullian in his 3. booke against Marcion calleth them. so S. Cyprian calleth them, in his sermon De baptismo et manifestatione Christi. And S. Chrysostom proueth by scripture that they vvere kinges. thus he writeth. The vvisemen offered giftes to this child Christ according as the holy Ghost had testified before of them, saing Esai 60. They shal come from Saba offering gold, and frankencense, & pretious stone. VVe acknovvledge that the vvise men euident­ly fulfilled this prophecy. Dauid quoque de [Page 488] his ita testatur, psal. 71. Reges Thaersis et Insulae munera offerent, Reges Arabum et Saba dona adducent. Dauid also vvitnes­seth of these, psal. 71. The kinges of Thaer­sis and the Isles shal offer gifts, The kinges of the Arabians and Saba shal bring presents. And S. Hier. in psa. 71. Hierom applieth that text of the psalme to them in like maner. And Tertullian against the Ievves vvho seemed vvith M. W. to enuie al this honor of Christ vvriteth thus. Dauid also spake of this offring of gold vvhen he sayd, Tertull. cō ­tra Iudaeos probatio. natiuit. Christi. ps. 71. there shal be geuen to him of the gold of Arabia. and againe, the kinges of Arabia and Saba shal bring him gifts. Nam et magos reges serè habuit Oriens. Aug. ser. 43. ad fatres in Ere. Claudian. in Epigrāa. Isidorus & Remigius apud D. Tho. in catena in Mat. 2. Theophi. in Mat. 2. Ansel. in Mat. ca. 2. For the East part had commonly such vvise men for their kinges. S. Augustin plainely nameth them kinges. so doth Claudianus, so doth S. Isidorus, so doth S. Remigius, so doth Theop [...]ilac­tus, so do generally the writers that haue liued in the church this later 500 yeres as we learne by S. Anselme, who speaketh De istis tribus regibus, Of these three kinges, as of a thing most vsual & vulgar. Gesnerus in Pādectis Vniuersa. lib. vltimo. tit. 2. fol. 29. And Conradus Gesnerus di­recteth you to certaine writers who haue made treatises, De tribus Magis, De tribus sanctis regibus, Of these three [Page 489] vvise men, Of these three holy kinges. And among these auncient and Catholike fathers to alleage one new, Zuing. to. 4. in Mat. ca. 2. Zuinglius holdeth it as very probable that they were kinges. Thus he speaketh of them, writing vpon the 2 chapter of S. Matthew. Magi (saith he) sunt sapientes et astrorum et omnium rerum peritissimi. huiusmodi homines ferè administrationi re­rum publicarum adhibuerunt gentiles. Ma­gi are vvisemen skilful in astronomy and al other matters. The gentiles made such men commonly gouerners of their common vvelthes. After al which, for vs to cal them kings, how can it in any sort be hurtful or preiudicial to any truth of Christian religiō? Nay on the contra­rie side, whosoeuer carpeth at this, certainely he maligneth the glorie of our Sauiour, he secretly detracteth from his honor, and malitiously pin­cheth and snarleth at the auncient and Apostolike church, which in this sorte witnessed such prophecies to haue bene fulfilled.

But perhaps M. W. That the wise men were three. is offended at the number of three, vvhere vpon S. Augustine so sweetely alludeth vnto the mystery of the Blessed Trinitie, and that Christe was King, God, and [Page 490] yet should dye as a mortal man. This is that great corruption which so gre­ueth him. But who would be greued here at, except some detestable Arian, Trinitarian, Libertine, or Anabap­tist, against whose religion only (for ought I know) that note maketh. And touching the story that they were three, August. ser. 1 de epipha. Leo sermo. 2.3.4.5.6.8. S. Austin plainely affirmeth it, Tres erant. So saith S. Leo the Great and first of that name, aboue a dozen times in his sermons vpon the feast of the Epiphanie. And whereas the Euā ­gelist speaketh of them, not in the dual but in the plural number, [...] fewer they could, not well be, and more we neede not to beleeue, except we see more reason thē yet appeareth.

Their na­mes.And touching the last part, vz, Their names are said to haue bene such, how could vve haue spoken more moderatly? For who hath heard them called by any other names? And I sup­pose they were not namelesse. And if they had names, why not Gaspar, Melchior, Baltazar, rather then Wil­liam, Iohn, and Thomas, or any other, that M. W. list to imagine, whereas the common opinion of our forefa­thers maketh for the first, no probabili­tie or reason can be brought for the se­cond. [Page 491] And if M. VV. beleeue that the Ievvish Sinagoge erred not in conti­nuing by tradition vvithout scripture the names of Pharaos vvicked sorce­rers, Iannes and Mambres, 2. Tim. 3. v. 8. vvhy thin­keth he not this much more likely, that the Church vvould keepe in re­membrance the names of these such excellent men, vvho vvith so great daunger came so farre to adore our Sauiour in his infancie, and are called Primitiae gentium, in vvhom the Church of the gētiles first begāne? But hovvso euer the exacte truth be in this case, it is a very smale point of desperatnes for vs to vvrite, that their names are said to haue bene such, & most false it is that we set this forth, as a most certaine article of the Romane religion: and whatsoeuer, e­ther in general or in special shal be obiected hereafter, in the meane sea­son the annotation grounded vpon good reason, gathered out of the scri­ptures, the psalmes of Dauid, Esai, Esther, Tobias, besides other autho­ritie sacred and prophane, S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome, Theophilact, Cicero, and Plinie, in any iudgment (I trow) is able to coūteruaile the bare worde of so seely a man as M. VV. shevveth him self.

[Page 492] Mat. 3. v. 1.Touching S. Iohn thus we say. Mat. 3. v. 1. Desert. Of this vvord desert (in greeke Eremus) commeth the name Eremitages, & Eremites, that liue a religious & austere life in deserts and solitarie places, by the exam­ple of S. Monastical life. Iohn Baptist, vvhom the holy doctors therefore cal the prince, and as it vvere the author of such profession. S. Chrysost. hom. 1. in Marcum. et hom. de Io. Baptista. Hierō ad Eustach. de eustod. virg. Isid. l. 2. c. 15. de diui. off. Bernardus de excel. Io. Baptistae. vvhere­vvith the protestāts are so offended, that they say S. Magd. cent. 5. c. 6. pag. 711. Chrysost. spake rashly & vntruly. And no marueil, for vvhereas the Euangelist him­selfe in this place maketh him a perfecte pa­terne of penance and Eremitical life, for de­sert or vvildernes, for his rough and rude ap­parel, for abstaining from al delicate mea­tes (according to our Sauiours testimonie also of him, Cent. 1. li. 1. cap. 10. Cythraeus in 3. ca. Mat. [...]ucerus ibi. Mat. 11.8. Luc. 7.33.) they are not ashamed to peruert al vvith this straunge commentarie, that it vvas a desert ful of townes & villages, his garment vvas chālet, his meate such as the countrie gaue and the people there vsed: to make him thereby but a common man lyke to the rest in his maner of lyfe: cleane against scriptures, fathers and reason. Bee Canis. de verbi Dei corruptelis lib. 5. c. 2.3.4 Here (Christian reader) to proue that S. Iohn was a monke, thou hast as before, reason plainly deduced out of [Page 493] the scriptures, thou hast the auncient fathers deducing the same with vs, S. Hierom, S. Chrysostom, S. Isidorus, S. Bernard. Against these scriptures and aūcient Doctors, An easy kind of an­swering. thou hearest the bare word of this new Doctor, who had he euer bene a good scholer, would neuer so boldly without face or forehead haue abused thy patience, as to oppose his only word against these reasons, Doctors, and scriptures.

Touching the stone which is reserued at Ancona, and the comming of Elias before the day of iudgment thus we say, Of the first, Act. 7. v. 58. Reade a maruelous narra­tiō in S. Augustine of one stone, Relikes & miracles in the honor of Martyrs. that hitting the Martyr on the elbovv reboūded backe to a faithful mā that stood neere, vvho kee­ping & carying it vvith him, vvas by reuela­tiō vvarned to leaue it at Ancona in Italie: vvherevpō a Church or Memorie of S. Steuen vvas there erected, and many miracles done after the said martyrs body vvas found out, and not before. Aug. tomo 10. Ser. 38. de diuersis. in aedit. Paris. Now of al these, miracles, Church built in memory of Martyrs, Reuelations, Stone reserued, M. W. digesteth wel the rest, only he seemeth to wonder that a stone could be kept so long. As though that were [Page 494] so wonderful a case, or there were not both in scripture, Hebrew. 9. vers. 4. as Aarons rod and the Manna, and out of the scripture, as al Churches through Christendome are witnes, many things preserued as long time, far more vnlike to continue then stones, which may wel endure fifteene hundred yeres fiue times told, if they be kept as wel as that at Anco­na. And whatsoeuer fault he find in the storie, let him scoffe at S. Austin who so seriously rehearseth it, not at vs, who refer only the reader to S. Austin, and speake neuer a worde of our selues.

Mat. 17. v. 11And the like I answere for the se­cond, of which these are our wordes. Christ distinguisheth here plainly betvvene Elias in person, vvho is yet to come before the iudgement, and betvvene Elias in name, to vvit, Iohn the Baptist, vvho is come already in the spirit and vertue of Elias. So that it is not Iohn Baptist only nor principally of vvhō Malachie prophecieth (as our Aduersaries say) but Elias also him self in person ▪ which annotatiō conteineth nothing els tou­ching this point, but the very wordes of our Sauiour and the prophete Mala­chie, That Elias shal come. which wordes when our Sauiour spake, S. Iohn Bap­tiste, [Page 495] who was Elias by some resēblāce, figure, and office, was past and dead. This truth els where we approue by the authoritie of S. Aust. Tract. 4. in Ioan. Apoc. c. 11. vers. 3. li. 1. de pec. mer. ca. 3. and the rest of the latin Doctors. as S. Hierom ad Pammach. epist. 61. ca. 11. et in psal. 20. S. Ambr. in psal. 45. S. Hilar. can. 20. in Matth. Prosper. lib. vlt. de promiss. ca. 13. S. Greg. lib. 14. Moral. ca. 11. et homil. 12. in Ezech. Beda. in. 9. Marci. The Greeke fathers also, as S. Chrysost. hom. 58. in Matt. et hom. 4. in 2. Thess. et hom. 21. in Genes. et hom. 22. in epist. ad Hebr. Theo­philact. and Oecumen. in 17. Matth. S. Dae­mas. lib. 4. de Orthodoxa fide. ca. 27. Final­ly by the vniuersal consent of al Chris­tians, where of S. Austin is witnes in these wordes. Heliam Thesbitem vltimo tēpore venturum ante iudicium, Aug. de ci­uit. li. 20. cap. 29. celeberrimū est in sermonibus cordibusque fidelium. That Elias the Thesbite shal come before the day of iudgement, it is a most notorious thing in the mouthe and hartes of faithful men. And now the Prophet foretelling so, our Sauiour affirming so, the auncient fathers both Greeke & Latin teaching so, faithful and christian men alwaies beleeuing so, this is the questiō which I wil not dispute but leaue it at large, and M. W. may do wel to put it to his [Page 496] thesis of Antichrist (for they are both iust of like probabilitie) and handle it at the next comencemēt, vz, whether we must rather credite him vpon his bare word telling vs one thing, or the vniuersal consent of Christendome & the primitiue Church, Intolera­ble bold­nes and ar­rogancie. rising vpon the expresse wordes of the prophete and our Sauiour him self, teaching vs the contrarie. And these touching matters historical, be the horrible faultes of our Annotations, for which he accuseth vs of Desperatnes, and them of such absurdi­tie, that neuer any thing more contaminate and corrupt, vvas set abrode in the sight of the vvorld.

Faultes in making ar­guments.Our errors in making arguments are far more, at least in number and shew, how soeuer they proue in sub­stance and truth. I wil folow the or­der begone, that is, first particularly I wil write downe the argument which he fathereth vpon vs, then the reason as we gaue it out: by conference whereof▪ the indifferent reader shal be able to iudge ether of our ignorance, or his impudencie. Thus he proce­deth. VVise men must needes much more ab­horre from your religion, vvhen they shal finde you thus to gather of the scriptures. [Page 497] Christ and Peter vvalked on the vvaters. Whit. pa. 22 Argumēt. 1. ergo the body of Christ may be shut vp in a litle bread. Our wordes are these. Mat. 14. v. 26 VVhen not only Christ, but by his povver Peter also vvalketh vpon the vvaters, it is euident that he cā dispose of his ovvne body aboue nature, & cōtrar [...]e to the natural conditions thereof, as to goe through a doore, Iohn 20. to be in the compasse of a litle bread. Ephiphan. in A [...]nchorato. Let M. VVhitaker shew the reason why the one folovveth not as vvel as the other, vvhy he vvil more abridge Christs povver, and bynd him to the rules of nature in the Sacrament, then in that miraculous entring to his disciples, or vvalking on the vvaters. A [...]beit if he had adui­sedly considered the note, he might haue perceaued the same to cōsist, not so much in our collection, as in the authoritie of Epiphanius, Real pre­sence. vvho ma­keth the case of Christs being in the Sacrament so cleare, that he accoun­teth M. VV. and his felovves for their infidelitie in that behalfe, reprobates from the face of God, and sure of eter­nal damnation. Excidit a gratia et salu­te, in the place before quoted.

2 Peter vvalked on the waters. Ergo the Pope of Rome hath authoritie ouer al the church. Mat. 14. v. 29

[Page 498]This application as S. Bernard and Catholike men vse it, is no more re­prouable, then that of our Sauiour, As Moyses exalted the serpent in the desert, Ioan. 3. v. 14 so must the sonne of man be exalted, Or that of S. cal. 4. d Paule, Abraham had tvvo sonnes Ismael and Isaac, one of the bond vvo­man according to the flesh, and one of the free vvoman by promise. And as then he that vvas borne according to the flesh, per­secuted him that vvas after the spirite, so novv also. But for a man to folovv M. VV. Scripture made ridi­culous, whē it commeth to the han­dling of prophane men. example, and make Christ or S. Paule to argue after his paterne thus, The serpent vvas exalted in the de­sert, Ergo Christ must be hanged on the crosse, or, Abrahams tvvo sonnes could not vvel agree, but Ismael vex­ed Isaac, Ergo the Ievves must vexe and persecute the Christians, this in old time vvould haue bene accounted diuinitie fit for Lucian and such like scorners, hovvsoeuer it be novv vsed of these nevv gospellers in great sad­nes. Thus stādeth our note. Peter (saith S. Bernard) vvalking vpon the vvaters, as Christ did, Peters pri­macy. declared him self the only vicar of Christ, vvhich should be ru­ler not ouer one people, but ouer al. For ma­ny vvaters are many peoples. Bernard. lib. [Page 499] 2. de considerat. ca. 8. See the place, hovv he deduceth from Peter the like authoritie and iurisdiction to his successor the bisshop of Rome.

3 The good Samaritane said to the host, vvhatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate, Luc. 10. v. 35. I vvil restore it to the. ergo there are vvorkes of supererogation. This argument folow­eth wel inough, and it is S. Augustins conclusion, not ours. This is the anno­tation. S. Augustine saith that the Apostle (1. Cor. 9.) according to this place did super­erogate, that is, did more then he needed or vvas bound to do, vvhen he might haue re­quired al duties for preaching the Gospel, but vvould not. li. de op. Monach. c. 5. VVhereof it cōmeth, that the vvorkes vvhich vve doe more then precept, be called vv [...]rkes of Super­erogation: and vvhereby it is also euident against the Protestants, that there be such vvorkes. See Optatus li. 6. cont. Parm. hovv aptly he applyeth this parable to S. Paules coūsel of virginitie (1 Cor. 7.) as to a vvorke of supererogation.

4 Christ vvas transfigured. ergo he geueth vs his body in forme of bread and vvine. Ma [...]. 17. v. 2. This is M. VV. scoffing, not our argu­ing. we only deduce hence, that Christ may so do, as not being bound to philosophical rules or conditions [Page 500] of nature, which is cleare and mani­fest, not that for this cause he doth so, which is foolish and impertinent. See the first argument. Our wordes are. Marke in this Trāsfiguration many mar­uelous points. As, that he made not only his ovvne body, vvhich then vvas mortal, but also the bodies of Moyses and Elias, the one dead, the other to die, for the time as it vvere immortal: thereby to represent the state and glorie of his body, and his Saintes in hea­uen. By vvhich maruelous transfiguring of his body, you may the lesse maruel that he cā exhibite his body vnder the forme of bread and vvine, or othervvise as he list.

5 Mat. 22. v. 30 Scripture falsified. Saintes in heauen are like vnto Angels, because they vse not mariage. ergo they can heare the praiers of al men, & euery vvhere succour vs. This consequent consisteth of two partes, the one is, the falsificatiō of Christs reasō, the other is like falsi­ficatiō of our argument drawen thēce. For nether Christ said, Saintes are like vnto Angels, because they vse not ma­riage, but contrarywise, they vse not mariage, because they are like vnto Angels: nether inferre we their abili­tie of hearing or succouring vs, for that [Page 501] false cause vvhich M. VV. assigneth, but because they are aduaunced vnto the state and condition of angels as sayth our Sauiour, whose office [...]s to succour and ayde men, as in the scrip­aure we find euery where, and the very English Communion booke doth teach and allow. Communiō booke, in the collect of Michel­mas day. The difference is as great, as if whē one argueth thus, N. is a man, therefore he hath a head: an other should inuert it after this sort, N. hath a head, therefore he is a man. The first is true, as any may per­ceaue. the second is false, as whereby an asse or a goose is proued to be a man. This is our note. As Christ pro­ueth here, that in heauen they nether ma­ry nor are maried, The Saints heare our prayers. because there they shal be as Angels: by the very same reason, is proued, that Saints may heare our praiers and helpe vs, be they neere or farre of, be­cause the Angels do so, and in euery moment are present vvhere they l [...]st, and neede not to be neere vs, vvhen they heare or helpe vs.

6 Ioseph vvrapped Christs body in sindo [...]. Mat. 27. v. 59 ergo Christs body on the altar must be layd in pure linnen. I know not what M. W. disliketh in this argument, whether [Page 502] the real presence of the same body on the altar, which vvas in the sepul­cher, or the linnen vsed at the altar, as it was in the sepulcher, or the rela­tion from one to the other. Because ech part is warranted in the Annota­tion by sufficient authoritie, I thinke it needeles to adde any more, vntil I better know the pointe whereat he is offended. This is the note. This ho­nour and duty done to Christs body being dead, vvas maruelous grateful and merito­rious. And this vvrapping of it in cleane sindon may signifie by S. S. Hiero. in hunc locum Hierom, that the body of our Lord is to be vvrapped not in gold, pretious stones, and silke, but in pure linnen. To. 1. Conc. And so in the vvhole Church it is obserued by S. Siluesters constitutiō, that the Corporal vvherevpon our Lordes body lieth on the altar, must be pure and plaine linnen.

7 The vvomē came to behold the sepulcher. Ergo novv vve must goe in pilgrimage to the holy sepulcher. Mat. 28. v. 1. If M.VV. enforce the word, must, as it seemeth, we confesse the argument foloweth not, Pilgrimage to holy pla­ces. and the argument so, is of his owne deuising, not of ours. For we bind not, nor en­force any man by this example, but they that list, may tary at home, and take their ease. Mary waying that du­tie [Page 503] of visiting such holy places in it self, without constrayning or binding any to it of necessitie, then presuppo­sing this to be wel done by these holy womē, the reason foloweth wel thēce, to approue the like deuotion of Chri­stian people now. And this deduction is iustified by S. Hierom and the vni­uersal consent of Christendome in his time. The wordes of the note are. The deuoute vvomen came to visite our Sa­uiours Sepulcher, and for their deuotion first deserued to knovv the Resurrection, and to see him risen. The honour of vvhich Se­pulcher and of the pilgrimage therevnto in the primitiue Church, S. Hierom declareth in these vvordes. In epist. 17. Paul. & Eus [...]. ad Marcel. tom. 1. The Iewes sometime honoured Sācta Sanctorū, because there vvere the Che­rubs, & the Propitiatorie, and the Arke of the Testament, Manna, Aarons rodde, & the golden altar. Doth not the Sepulcher of our lord seeme to thee more honorable? vvhich as often as vve enter into so often do vve see our Sauiour lye in the sindon: and stayng there a vvhile, vve see the Angel againe sitte at his feete, and at his head the napkin vvrapped together. Esa. 11. The glorie of vvhose Se­pulcher, vve knovv vvas long prophecied before Ioseph hevved it out, by Esay sayng. And his rest shal be honour: to vvit, be­cause [Page 504] the place of our Lordes burial should be honoured of al men. A [...]d at this present, notvvithstanding the Turkes dominion, yet doe the religious Christian Catholike me [...]n by Gods m [...]ghtie prouidence keepe the holy Se­pulcher, vvhich is vv [...]thin a goodly Church, and Christians come out of al the vvorld in Pilgrimage to it.

8 Christ appeared to the tvvo disci­ples in an other forme. Mar. 16. v. 12 ergo he is in the sacrament in forme of bread. This is of like qualitie vvith the fourth, & needeth no farther ansvvere. The vvords are. Christ body vnder di­uers formes Christ though he haue but one corporal shape, natural to his person, yet by his omn potencie he may be in vvhatsoeuer forme, and appeare in the likenesse of any o­ther man or creature, as he list. Therefore e [...]et no man thinke it strange, that he may be vn­der the forme of bread in the B Sacrament.

9 Christ to the man domb and deafe sayd, Ephpheta. Mar. 7. v. 34. ergo exorcisme is to be vsed, & the same vvordes to be recited in baptisme. This ergo, is as wise as many of the rest, for ab [...]olutely no more necessarie it is to vse, Ephpheta, in baptisme because Christ so spake, then it is to vse, Eli Eli Lāmazabachthani, Mat. 27. v. 46 which Christ spake as wel as the other. Argument we make none, but only we note out of S. Am­brose, [Page 505] that the auncient and primitiue Church, which best knew which wor­des & actions of Christ were imitable, which were not, that Church retained this word & other ceremonies vsed by our Sauiour. Aug. de Ec­clesiasticis dogma. c. 31▪ Idem de nupt [...]is, & con­cupis ē [...]a. lib. 2 ca. 18. & 29. As also the same Church vniuersally vsed, Exorcisme, as witnes­seth S. Austin, which he calleth, Tra­ditionem ve [...]ust [...]ss [...]am, antiqu [...]ssimam, un­datissimam, in Ecclesia toto orbe diffusa. A tradition most olde and auncient, and most grounded in the Church dispersed through the vvhole vvorld. Our vvords are. The Church doth most godly imitate & vse th [...]se very vvordes and ceremonies of our Sauiour in the Exorcismes before baptismes, Exorcismes and other ceremonies in baptisme. to the healing of their soules that are to be bapti­sed, as Christ heare healed tho bodily infir­mitie and the disease of the soule together. Ambr lib. 1. de Sacram. ca. 1.

10 Luke the Euangelist vsed a familiar pre­face. Luc. 1. v. 3. ergo the author of the second booke of the Machabees might desire pardon and excuse his slendernes, and yet his vvritings be Cano­nical. This argument foloweth wel. & M.VV. wil make many worse before he make one better, if he take and wa [...]gh the word and reason as they are deliuered in the Annotation. For it doth derogate as much frō the maiestie [Page 506] of the holy Ghost to vse humane helpes in searching out the truth, as to craue pardon for the stile and maner of wri­ting. And if you wil applie this note to that argumēt made against the Macha­bees, Pag. 3. and so much vaunted of by your deerest brother in Christ. M. VV. Charke in the Towre, you shal finde the case to be like, and both S. Luke and the Ma­chabees, touching your censure to stād vpon one grounde. Thus vrgeth he there. In the 4. daies con­ference. The prote­stants rea­son against the Macha­bees, is as forcible a­gainst S. Lu­kes gospel. The vvriters of scripture aske not any pardon ether for the matter or for the ma­ner. Againe, VVhatsoeuer is the vvord of the holy Ghost nether doth aske, nor doth neede pardon in any respect. Againe, The holy Ghost neuer asketh pardon of man for any thing he doth, for that vvere to bring God vnder man & make the spirit of God subiect to the allovvance or disallovvance of sinful flesh. And may not al this as wel be ap­plied against S. Luke? The holy Ghost is not ignorant, so as he needeth to runne to sinful flesh, thence to learne what Christ did. The holy Ghost can of him self teach his Euangelistes and craueth not help of mortal mā &c. And therfore S. Luke writeth not of the ho­ly Ghost, when he professeth him self to write by humane ayde & diligence.

[Page 507]Much more these reasons take frō vs many entier epistles of S. Paule. More argu­ments of humane spirit in S. Pau­les epistles thē in the booke of Machabees. Rom. 25. v. 15. For what shal we iudge of the epistle to the Romanes? Audacius autem scripsi vobis fratres ex parte. I haue vvritten to you bre­thren more boldly in some part. what is this but an excuse, a very crauing of pardon? So to the Corinthians. And I vvas vvith you in infirmitie, & feare, 1. Cor. 2. v. 3 and much trembling. Is the holy Ghost in in­firmitie? in fearer doth the holy Ghost tremble? After, he desireth them, To beare vvith some litle of his folye. Ibi. c. 11. v. 1.17. That I speake I speake not according to God, but as it vvere in foolishnes. because many glorye according to the flesh, I also vvil glorye, Ib. c. 12. v. 11 Factus sum insipiens, vos me coegistis. I am become foolish, you haue cōpelled me. Such places many we fynde in S. Paules epistles, which if some man like M.W. and M Charke should applye to the holy Ghost, and aske whether the ho­ly Ghost could do this or that, could glorye, could bragge, could speake not according to God, could be foolish, the partie so arguing should proue him self litle better then a foole, & yet the argument is a pithy and wise as this against the Machabees. And I much muse, whether it is not more a­gainst [Page 508] the honor o [...] the holy Ghost, to craue the praiers of sinful flesh, Rom. 15. v. 30. which im­plieth sume feare of falling & humane imbecill [...]ie▪ then to excuse the maner of the sti [...]e and writing, and in that re­spect Craue pardon of sinful flesh, which is a thing of farre lesse preiudice. And yet this doth the Spirite of God al­most in euery epistle of S. Paule, to the Romanes, 2. Cor. 6.11. Ephe. 6., 19. Colos. 4.3. Thes. 5.25. to the Corinthians, to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, &c. Thus standeth the note. Hereby vve see, that though the Holy Ghost ruled the penne of holy vvriters that they might not erre, Sacred wri­ters and holy Coūcels. yet did they vse hu­mane meanes to search out and find the truth of the things they vvrote of. Euen so doe Councels, and the President of them, Gods vicar, discusse and examine al causes by hu­mane meanes, the assistance of the Holy Ghost concurring and directing them into al truth, according to Christes promise, 10.16.13: as in the very first Councel of the Apostles them selues at Hierusalē is manifest Act. 15, 7. and 28. Againe here vve haue a familiar pre­face of the Author as to his frende, or to euery godly Reader (signified by Theophi­lus) concerning the cause and purpose and maner of his vvriting, and yet the very same is confessed scripture, vvith the vvhole [Page 509] booke folovving. The second booke of the Macha­bees. 1. Mach. 2. & 15. Maruel not then if the au­thor of the second booke of the Machabees vse the like humane speaches both at the begin­ning and in the later end, nether do thou therefore reiect the booke for no Scripture, as our heretikes doe: or not thinke him a sacred vvriter.

11 The Angel vvissheth wel to mē of good vvil, Luc. 2. v. 14. This is M. W. glose added to the text. that is, those vvhom God embraceth vvith his grace and mercy. ergo men haue free vvill. By this example a man may see what difference is betwene the old Gospel and the new. If the wordes were [...]easte as in the old time they were read and vnderstoode, the consequent of this reason would haue held, and so S. Au­gustine gathered whom we alleage. But taking the word and sense as M. W. deliuereth it, nether S. Augustine nor any other sober man did or would euer haue inferred such a consequent. Our words are. Free wil. The birth of Christ geueth not peace of minde or saluation but to such as be of good vvill, because he vvorketh not our good against our vvilles, but our vvilles con­curring. August. quaest. ad Simplic. li. 1. q. 2. tom. 4.

12 Christ vvent into Peters shippe. ergo the vvhole church is Peters shippe. Luc. 5. v. 3. This is of like qualitie with the second before [Page 510] noted. It is only an allegory aptly and truly declared, the substance where­of is vsual among the auncient fathers, who cal many times the Catholike church by the name of Peters shipp. The Catho­like Church Peters ship. And touching this special place, S. Gregorie maketh no question, Gregor. in Iob. li. 17. c. 14. but Christ so signified by this fact when he made choyse to enter into that shippe. Thus he writeth. Iesus a scen­ded into Peters ship &c. sitting there he preached to the multitudes. Per nauem Pe­tri, quid aliud quam commissa Petro ecclesia designatur? See S, Amb. in Luc lib. 4 cap. 5. Aug. quaest. euāg. l. 2. c. 2 [...]ed. in Luc. cap. 5. By Peters shippe vvhat els is signified, but the church, vvhich vvas com­mited to Peter? To like purpose vpō the same place writeth S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, & S. Bede. The wordes of our annotation are these. It is purposely expressed that there vvere tvvo shippes, & that one of them vvas Peters, and that Christ vvent into that one, and sate downe in it, and that sitting he taught out of that shippe: no doubt to signifie the church re­sembled by Peters ship, and that in it is the chayre of Christ, and only true preaching.

13 Barnabas laid dovvne the price of his land at the Apostles feete. Act. 4. v. 37. ergo vve must kisse the Popes feete. If the Apostle S. Pe­ter had not before told vs that heretiks [Page 511] in the later daies especially should be Illusores, mockers, 2. Pet. 3. v. 3. and the Prophete Da­uid named their general profession, Psal. 1. a Chayre or schoole of scorners, Cathedrā irrisorum, Heretikes generally geuen to scorning & mocking. we might by our owne expe­rience haue learned thus much of the Protestant writers of our time, who by this feate among the popular haue brought into contempt the grauest partes of Christian religion, and haue much shaken the obedience due both to spiritual and ciuil magistrates. Vide Bren­tium contra Bullinger. de mansio­nibus in caelo. anno 1561. fol. 22.23.35. Carlile in his booke that Christ descended not in to hel. fol. 35, 36, 37, 38, & 96, 97, 98. By this chiefely the Lutherans refel the article of Christes Ascension and being in heauen, as we see in Brētius. By this the Zuinglians refute Christs descēding into hel, as we see in mais­ter Carlile, and disproue the real pre­sence, whereof their common prea­chings and writings are witnes. By this as a very plausible meane the Germane ministers stirred the people against their Emperour Charles the fift as vve reade in Sleidan. Sleid. li. 17. pa. 311. And hovv like M. W. is vnto them for his smale talent, by most of these his merie con­clusions it appeareth. In this present, hovv far his vnreasonable collection differeth from our reasonable admo­nition, the discrete reader may easely [Page 512] iudge. Our vvordes are, Barnabas as the re [...], did not only giue his goods as in vulgar almes, but in al humble and reue­rent maner as things dedicated to God, he layed thē dovvne at the Apostles holy seete, as S. Luke alvvaies expresseth, and gaue them not into their hands. 4. Reg. 4. v. 37. The Sunamite sel dovvne and embraced Elisaeus feete. Ma­ny that asked benefites of Christ (as the vvoman sick of the bloudy fluxe) fel dovvne at his feete, Luc. 8. v. 47. Luc. 7. v. 38. and Marie kissed his feete. Such are signes of due reuerence done both to Christ and to other sacred persons, ether Prophetes, Apostles, Popes, or other representing his person in earth. See in S. Hierom of Epipa­nius Bishop in Cypres, hovv the people of Hie­rusalem of al sortes flocked together vnto him, offering their children (to take his blessing) kissing his feete, plucking the hem­m [...]s of his garment, so that he could not moue for the throng. Ep: 61: cap. 4. cont. error. Io. Hierosol.

14 The Eunuch of the Quene of AEthiopia, came to Hierusalem to vvorship. Act. 8. v. 27. ergo pilgri­mages to holy places are acceptable to God. why this reason should not be allowa­ble, I can not gesse. The Eunuch came a long iourney frō Aethiopia to Hie­rusalem there to worshippe God▪ and is commended for so doing. therefore [Page 513] if we goe in like maner to Rome or Hierusalē for like cause, we are not to be blamed. where is the diss [...]militude? Pilgrimage to holy pla­ces. whence riseth the inequalitie? what part is there not answerable? that man to vs, his fact to ours, his intention to ours, the beginning, continuance and ende, proportionable to ours, euery part and parcel of his doing, fully resē bled in ours. If M.W. haue any hid ima­gination which we can not reach vn­to, let him imparte it, & we wil frame him a reasonable answere. The margi­nal note vpon the wordes of S. Luke is this. Note that this Aethiopian came to Hierusalem to adore, that is, on pilgrimage. VVhereby vve may learne that it is an ac­ceptable act of religion, to go from home to places of greater deuotion and sanctifica­tion.

15 To Christ is geuen a name aboue al names, that in the name of Iesus, Phil. 2. v. [...]0. al knees should bovv. Ergo so oft as vve heare the name of Iesus, vve must put of our cappes and make curtesy. For confirmation of this ergo, I send M. W. to M. D. Whitg. who wil ease me of some labour in this be­halfe. He telleth him, D. Whit. de­fens. tract. 21. c. 7. pa. 743. That this gesture of capping and kneeling at the name of Iesus, hath continued in the Church many hun­dred [Page 514] yeres, M.W. taketh parte with Iewes and Infidels a­gainst Christians. & yeldeth this reasō thereof, that the Christians to signifie their faith in Iesus and their obedience vnto him, and to confute by open gesture the vvicked opinion of the Ievves and other infidels (vvho most abhorred that name) vsed to do bodily reuerence at al times vvhen they heard the name of Iesus, Why Chris­tians do honour at the name of Ie­sus. but specially vvhen the gospel vvas read, vvhich contained that glad ti­dings of saluation, vvhich is procured vnto man by Christ Iesus, vvhere vpon also he is called Iesus, that is a Sauiour. Hereof he inferreth, Nether cā it be against Christia­nitie to shevv bodily reuerence, vvhen he is named, by vvhom not only al the spiritual enemies of mankind are subdued, but also the faithful be made partakers of the king­dome of heauen. Thus far he. Now if we shal ioyne to this reason, the reason geuen in the Annotation, that the Protestants gladly yelde this honour of cap and curtesie to the letters, ma­ces, The Protes­tantes vse more deuo­tion, and yelde more reuerence to the pic­tur of a dog and a lyon, then to the name, image or crosse of Christ. name, seale, seate, and very many other things hauing any relation or dependence of the Q. maiestie, of these two thus conferred togither, we shal find this to folow, and be a very good consequent. M. VV. yeldeth lesse honour and reuerence to the name and crosse of Christ, then he [Page 515] doth to the name and so many base signes apperta [...]ning to a temporal prince: E [...]go M. VV. is a very Athe­ist, one that maketh no account of Christ. This is the note. Name of Iesus. The Protes­tants wil haue no re­uerence done at the name of Ie­sus.) By the like vvickednes they charge the faithful people for capping or kneeling whē they heare the name of Iesus. As though they vvorsh [...]pped not our lord God therein, but the syllables, or letters, or other material ele­ments vvhereof, the vvord vvritten or spo­ken consisteth, and al this, b [...] sophistications to dravv the people from due honour and deuotion tovvard Christ Iesus, vvhich is Satans drift by putting scruples into sim­ple mens mindes about his sacraments, his Saints, his Crosse, his name, his image, & such like, to abolish al true religion out of the world, and to make them plaine Atheists. But the Church knovveth Satans cogitati­ons, and therefore by the scriptures and rea­son, vvarranteth and teacheth al her ch [...]l­dren to do reuerence vvhen so euer Iesus is named. How Ca­tholikes honour the name of Ie­sus, and o­ther things pertaining to him. because Catholikes do not honour these things nor count them holy, for their matter, colour, sound, and syllables, but for the respect and relation they haue to our Sauiour, bringing vs to the remembrance and apprehension of Christ, by sight, hearing, or vse of the same signes. Els vvhy make [Page 516] vve not reuerence at the name of Iesus the sonne of Sirach, as vvel as of Iesus Christ? And it is a pityful case to see these prophane subtelties of Heretikes to take place in reli­gion, vvhich vvere ridiculous in al other trade of life. VVhen vve heare our Prince or Soueraine named, vve may vvithout these scruples doe obeisance, but tovvardes Christ it must be superstitious.

These be the arguments, which he saith are of our making, how truely, thou maist now iudge. To speake of them more at large and in special, ech one contayning so diuers matter, of Praying to Sainctes, of the Real pre­sence, of Peters primacie, of Pilgri­mage, of Canonical scriptures &c. vvould amount to a great volume. Touching these and the like, because it is growen now of late to a common veyne in writing and preaching, thus much wil I say in general, that M. VV. and his felowes in making such sporting conclusions, First, shew them selues as ignorant in diuinitie as may be, for so much as hereby they geue forth plaine signification, that they know not the first rule, or principle of Christian religion, they know not what Christian faith meaneth. Secon­darely, [Page 517] that by so doing, Wherevnto the Protes­tants ten [...]t by such ri­diculous cō clusions. they instruct their scholers and auditors to make a mocke of Christ and his gospel, and to scoffe at euery part of Christianitie. Both these I wil ioyntly declare in a few lines. Note thou therefore (good reader) that Christian faith, and the articles thereof are of this propertie and nature, that they can not be con­cluded or proued by any manifest rules of natural wisedome and reason, as we find in other sciences, Geome­trie, Philosophie, Law &c. Heb. 1. v. 1. but they rest only vpon the authoritie of Christ our Sauiour and his Apostles, who first deliuered them vnto vs. Ibi. c 11. v. 1. Rom. 8. v. 24 For as the Apostle teacheth, Fides est substantia re­rum sperandarum, argumentum non appa­rentium. Faith is the substance or subsis­tence and foundation of things hoped, the argument or sure persuasion of things not ap­pearing to sense, or reason, or humane discourse. As for example. we beleeue the resurrection of our bodies, The true nature of Christian faith. not be­cause it can be confirmed by any phi­losophical or logical demonstration, (for if it could be so, then were it not properly an article of faith) but be­cause Christ and his Apostles so taught. This being the ground and es­sential [Page 518] forme of faith, and of euery parte thereof, because men are hardly m [...]ued to beleeue things so vnproba­ble, so f [...]r b [...]yond reason, and against cōmon sense, the office of Diuines is by compar [...]ng these articles with o­ther workes of God, ether in the cre­ation of the world or redemption of the same, to declare that these are not so vnpossible or vncredible as men imagine, but such as God hath done the like in many other, and therefore may also in this present. So our Saui­our disputed against the Sadduces. Erratis non scientes scripturas, Marc. 12. Mat. 22. neque virtu­tem dei &c. You erre not knovving the scriptures, nor the povver of God. And concer­ning the resurrection of the dead, haue you not read that vvhich vvas spoken of God, sayng I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Iacob? In which wordes are conteined 2 or 3 ar­guments to proue the resurrection. One, that God can do it, because he is of such power. An other, that it is not vn [...]kely but he wil do it, because he doth towardes the dead, things as hard & vnprobable as that, vz▪ that he protecteth, sustaineth, and preserueth them as their God and Sauiour, and [Page 519] in that sense is called the God of A­brahā, Isaac, & Iacob, many hūdred ye­res after their death. Nether of which argumētes for al that, proueth directly that the dead shal rise, but that depen­deth only vpon the wil and word of God reuealed in the scriptures, which our Sauiour doth first of al insinuate.

After like maner disputeth S. Paule in his epistle to the Corinthians. 1. Cor. 15. If the dead rise not againe, then in vaine is our preaching, then in vaine is your faith, How S. Paul. proueth the resurrection Cor. 15. then are vve the most miserable men that liue, then nether Christ is risen. As the graine vvhich is sovven in the earth, dieth first be­fore it rise againe vvith such fruit and com­moditie as vve see, so is it in the resurrection of our flesh. In al which arguments there is no one that conuniceth necessarily, no not that which is the principal: Christ is risen, therefore vve shal rise, be­cause true it is, wel might Christ rise, though we neuer rise, as he truely was crucified and descended into hel, as we by Gods grace shal neuer. But the ve­ritie of this pointe being first planted in the harts of Christian men by Christs teaching and doctrine, then afterwar­des these reasons are good motiues to declare, that the resurrection standeth [Page 520] wel with Gods prouidēce, his iustice, his mercy, his other workes in crea­ting or redeeming of the world.

The like is to be said of that, where­with M.W. maketh most sport, I meane the real presence. which if any man would directly proue by one of M.W. arguments, as, Christ vvas transfigured. Ergo he geueth vs his body in bread & vvine, he maketh as blynd an argumēt as did a famous English preacher, vvho in great sadnes would proue the English Cōmunion booke to be good, because in our Creede we are bound to beleeue not the Masse, but The communion, of Saintes. Or as did an other of like vo­cation, then a preacher, afterward [...] a Doctor, vvho felt him self much trou­bled in conscience, and almost per­swaded that the masse was found in many places of scripture, because in many subscriptions of S. Paules epistles he found written, Missa est Corintho, Missa est Philippis, Missa est Roma, Missa est Athenis, Missa est Nicopoli. But no Catholike man was euer so mad, as from Christs transfiguration to deduce such an Ergo: and absolutely as vvel he might infer, ergo he is in eue­ry cheste, in euery chamber, in euery [Page 521] tree, in euery mountaine, in euery peece of bread in the vvorld. But thus to [...]angle, is for Lucianes & hickscor­ners, it is not for Diuines. How one part or arti­cle of faith, is applied to the con­firmation of an other. Thus far only we applye such reasons. First grounding our faith simply vpon our Sauiours wordes declared by the vni­forme consent of three Euangelists & S. Paule, and interpreted by the vni­versal consent of Christs Catholike church in al times and ages: because we find certaine carnal and fleshly mē, lead by reason and sense and humane conceite, offended at this article, vpon pretence of philosophical rules, of na­tural qualities, Before pa. 177.178. of mathematical dimē ­sions, as we see by M.VV. we suppo­sing that they be not plaine Atheists (wherein perhaps sometimes we are much deceaued, for D. Whitg. de­fēce against M. Car. Trac 3. c. 6. ¶. 4. Whitegift tel­leth vs that the English Church, is novv full of such) by declaration and compa­rison of other things which they pro­fesse to holde and beleeue, shew them that this is not so vnpossible, or so vn­credible, or so vnlikely as they pretēd, whereas some other points they retaine as far aboue reason as this. And thus far forth we applye Christs transfigu­ration, Christs walking vpon the wa­ters, [Page 522] his entring vnto his disciples the dores being shut &c. to declare that his body is not bound to those gene­ral rules, which nature and reason hath appointed to common bodies, and on vvhich is founded the greatest part of the Zuinglian Diuinitie. And there­fore as in the first, if a man would haue brought Christs or S. Paules reasons to M. VVhitakers ergo, as thus:

God is omnipotent. Ergo the dead shal rise.

God is the God of Abraham, of Isa­ac, and Iacob. Ergo the dead shal rise.

Christ is risen againe. Ergo the dead shal rise.

The Apostles were not miserable fooles. Ergo the dead shal rise.

Their preaching was not in vaine. Ergo the dead shal rise.

The husband man soweth corne, and it dieth before it bringeth forth fruite. Ergo the dead shal rise.

As I say any man framing these ar­guments of Christs and S. Paules wor­des, The English writers teach the way to scorne al Christian religion. were he an Ethnike, had plaied the ignorant foole, if he bare the name of a Christian, had plaid the part of a wicked caytife, and an Athe­ist: because true it is, euery article of [Page 523] our faith is in this sort subiect to scorne and irrision: so M. W. in this case folowing the like example, must needes before God and man sustaine a hard iudgement. And therefore if he shal be disposed hereafter to write more bookes, I would wish him to leaue this apish tricke which he hath learned of M. Iewel, M. Iewel thorough­out his first booke a­gainst [...]. Harding. who notwithstan­ding got smal honour thereby. and surely if the matter were correspon­dent, such kinde of iesting would bet­ter become some merie felow making sport vpon a stage, with a furred hood & a wooddē dagger, thē either a learned bishop, such as M. Iewel tooke him selfe to be, or a profound Reader of diuinitie, as I thinke M.W. would glad­ly be accounted.

And whereas next he saith. Quando has nouorum magistrorum &c. Pag. 2 [...]. vvhen vvise men shal heare these interpretations & ar­guments of these nevv maisters, if there be left in them any sense, I vvil not say of the holy Ghost, but of common iudgment, they can not thinke a religion builded vpon these grounds, to be firme, assured, and better then al other, I answere, first, that he much deceaueth him selfe, when he calleth these the interpretations of new mais­ters, [Page 524] as he doth likewise after in his Antichristian booke where he saith, Nou [...] Theologi Rhemenses &c. Pag. 114. Annot. in Mat. cap. 10. v. 22. The nevv Di­uines of Rhemes teach that the bishops blessing taketh avvay venial sinnes, where as we speake not so of our selues, but vpon warrant of an old Diuine of Mi­lan, euen S. Ambrose whom there we cite. And here excepting the places where we vrge the very text of the E­uangelist, euery one of the other is the interpretation of old and aunci­ent fathers, of S. Epiphanius, S. Am­brose, S. Hierom, S. Austin, S. Chry­sostom, S. Siluester, &c. And if these be new maisters, I maruel who be old? be like M. Iewel, M. Horne, M. Fulke, M. Keltridge, M. Charke, and such vvorthie doctors of your old congre­gation, The anti­quitie of the Protes­tants church vvhich novv grovveth vvel to fiftie yeres standing, if I misrecken not my selfe. For M. D. Haddon a fevv yeres sithence, in his ansvver to Oso­rius made greate vaunt, that then your gospel had continued aboue thirtie yeres (abating from that count 6 yeres) Annos plusquam triginta, excep­to sexennii turbulentissime tempore. Haddon in fine epist. contra Oso­ri [...]. And therefore belike novv it is come to a goodly and a reuerend antiquitie. [Page 525] But as auncient as it is, many a good man liueth who knew when it was not begotten, and may liue ful wel, til it be againe dead and rotten.

Then vvhereas you aff [...]rme our re­ligion to be built vpon these grounds, you folovv but the cōmon v [...]yne of your felowes, that is, to belye vs: sa­uing that you haue gotten perhaps a deeper habite therein, thorough to much imitation of M. Iewel. Aug. de nupt. et con cupis. lib, [...]. cap. 31. In this very kinde S. Austin complaineth that he was much iniuried by the here­tikes of his time, & so doth Luther that he vvas vexed by the heretikes of his age. vvhose authoritie I had rather vse to you then S. Austins, because you seeme to honour him more, & esteeme him for an old father, reiecting S. Au­stin amongst the nevv maisters. Thus saith Luther to Zuinglius and Oeco­lāpadius & the rest of that sect, & thus he requesteth of them, as we request of you being of the same order. Luth. to. 7. defens. ver­borū coenae fol. 400. Obse­cramus (saith he) & obtestamur vos Sacra­mentarios, &c. VVe desire and beseech you Sacramentaries, Debacchari if hereafter you vvil needes rayle against the Lutherans or nevv papists as you cal vs, yet abstaine from lying, The Zuin­glians nota­ble lyers. and fayne not, nether vvrite of vs othervvise [Page 526] then vve publikely professe & teach. Nam ex his quae iam diximus, patet nos non it a do­cere, vt hactenus de nobis impudentissimè mentiti estis. For by that vvhich hath bene spoken, it is cleare that vve teach not so, as hitherto you haue most impudently belyed vs.

So Luther of the Zuinglians. & we leauing Luthers termes to him selfe, re­quest the like of our aduersaries. If they tel vs of any fault cōmitted in the hād­ling of Gods mysteries, we are ready to acknowlegde and amend the same. If we defend any point of doctrine er­roneous in their iudgement, let them refel it by Theological argument, by Scriptures, Fathers, Councels, or reasō grounded vpon them, and vve are in quiet and orderly sort ether to yeld to them, or shew them their o­uersight. If they fal to scoffing & scor­ning, and making ridiculous & boysh arguments of their owne, & then shew their profound wisedome in cōfuting the same, and withal crye out vpon the Importunitie, The pitiful shiftes of our aduer­saries. and Desperatnes of the pa­pistes, as we can not but tel them of their peeuishnes, and laugh at such mi­serable shifts, so we dare assure them that the wise wil neuer be moued to [Page 527] like wel of their ruinous gospel, tho­rough such iesting trickes most vnfit for Diuines, & which are able to quayle and disgrace a good cause, though it stoode vpon better grounds thē their gospel yet doth, or (I hope) euer shal.

As good orators according to the rules of their art, re­serue some chief and prin­cipal arguments vnto the end, of purpose at parting to leaue a deepe impression in the minde of their auditors: so doth M. VV. in this his inuectiue against vs. And increasing somewhat his accustomed style, de­claimeth terribly and laieth to our charge, not errors, or ouersights, or meane corruptions, as are our leauing the latin and folowing the greeke, but horrible crimes, euen blsaphemies, & blasphemies intolerable. He presup­poseth that wise men are somewhat moued by such reasons and perswasi­ons [Page 528] as he hath vsed hetherto, Pag. 23. But it must needes be (saith he) that vvise men vvil be moued much more vvhen they con­sider the intolerable blasphemie of certaine places. For answere whervnto, we craue no pardon of him, or the reader. But if he proue his accusatiō, let vs sustaine that iudgement, as by the law of God and man, to such Intolerable blasphemers is due. Only of the reader we request indifferent audience, and then we doubt not but this storme and tempest wil passe without any damage, as qui­etly as the rest.

Hebr. 7. v, 17.The first blasphemie is this. The Apostle compareth together Christs priest­hod and the priesthod of Melchisedech in the epistle to the Hebrues, The first blasphemy vvhere he maketh no mention at al of bread or vvine, in which notvvithstanding they vvill Christ chiefly to haue bene like to Melchisedech. Here these men vvrite flatly, that of al those things vvhich are proposed by the Apostle, it folow­eth not that Christs priesthod is eternal, and therefore that properly Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech, because he in­stituted a sacrifice of his body to be conti­nued for euer of his priests. But this vvhich vvas principal, the Apostle in that disputa­tion omitted, and brought those things [Page 529] vvhich proue not that vvhich he meant to proue. But vvherein Christ vvas principally like vnto Melchisedech, that must be learned not of the Apostle but of the Fathers, vvho haue vvritten far more aptly and properly of Christs eternal priesthod then did the A­postle. Of this he concludeth. If they feare not to find some fault in the Ap [...]stle, and reprehend the holy ghost him selfe, is it marueile if our doctrine displease them? Thus M. VV. which if it be true, The an­swere. if we thus disgrace the Apostle, if we say he goeth about to proue a thing and pro­ueth it not, if we refuse to be taught of him, and prefer the Fathers before him, finally if we controle him so singu­lar an instrument of the holy Ghost, and reprehend the holy Ghost him selfe, I can not blame M. W. if he crie out Intolerable blasphemie. But if these things be so far of from al shevv of truth, that there is no colour or pre­tence of so vnmeasurable lying, vvhat should a man say, but shame to the de­uil and his ministers, Lye vpō lye vvho novv are grovvē to such a passing impudencie. that so they may haue licence to lye, th [...]y care not hovv grosly and palpa­bly they lye, though they be takē with the maner, though it presently turne [Page 530] to their ovvne shame, though the lyes which they inuent of others, be most e­uidently, and in truth only verified of them selues. S. Paules e­pistle to the hebrewes reiected by the prote­stants. For vvho but they thus disgrace this Apostle, and that in this epistle? vvho but they find fault vvith the vvriter and reprehend the holy Ghost, bearing vs in hand that this vvriting much differeth from other scriptures, much from Christs prea­ching and the other Apostles, Before pag. 414. 1. Cor. 3. v. 12 & there­fore is to be reckened Prostipulis, For stubble, good for nothing els but for the fi­er, for this vvould they signifie by that contemptible phrase. And do not our english translators them selues in their Testaments leaue out S. Paules name in this epistle, and plainly say It is not like that euer he was the author of it? Bible of the yere 1579. in the pre­face of this epistle. But let this passe. vve vvil not vse this kinde of defence. our vvords and say­ings defend them selues sufficiently. The vvords of vvhich he gathereth this Intolerable blasphemie, stand thus, Heb. 7. v. 17. A priest for euer. Christ is not called a Priest for euer, only for that his person is eternal, How Christ is a priest for euer. or for that he sitteth on the right hand of God, and perpetually praieth or maketh intercession for vs, or for that the effect of his death is euerlasting: for al this [Page 531] proueth not that in proper signification his Priesthod is perpetual: but according to the iudgment of al the fathers grounded vpō this deepe and diuine discourse of S. Paule, and vpon the very nature, definition, and propri­etie of Priesthod, and the excellent act & or­der of Melchisedec, and the state of the nevv lavv, he is a Priest for euer according to Melchisedecks order, specially in respect of the sacrifice of his holy body and bloud, insti­tuted at his last supper, and executed by his commission, commaundement, and perpetual concurrence vvith his priests, in the formes of bread and vvine, in vvhich things only the sayd high Priest Melchesedec did sacri­fice. For though S. Paule make no expresse mention hereof because of the depth of the mysterie, and their incredulitie or feeblenesse to vvhom he vvrote: yet it is euident in the iudgment of al the learned fathers (vvith­out exception) that euer vvrote either vpon this epistle, or vpon the 14 of Genesis, Christs eternal priest­hod consis­teth in the perpetual sacrifice of his body & bloud in the Church. or the psalme 109, or by occasion haue treated of the sacrifice of the altar, that the eternitie and proper act of Christs priesthod, and conse­quently the immutability of the nevv lavv, consisteth in the perpetual offering of Christes body and bloud in the Church.

VVhich thing is so vvel knovven to the ad­uersaries of Christs Church & Priesthod, & [Page 532] so graunted, The prote­stants cauil­ling vpon particles, a­gainst Mel­chisedecks sacrifice & priesthod, directly a­gainst the Apostle. that they be forced impudently to cauill vpon certaine Hebrevv particles, that Melchisedec did not offer in bread and vvine: yea and vvhen that vvill not serue, plainely to deny him to haue bene a priest: vvhich is to giue checkemate to the Apostle, and to ouerthrovv al his discourse. Thus vvhiles these vvicked men pretend to de­fend Christes only priesthod, they in deede a­bolish as much as in them lieth, the vvhole order, office, and state of his eternal lavv & priesthod.

Christs eternal priest­hod and sa­crifice in the Church is proued out of the fathers. Arnobius saith, By the mysterie of bread and vvine he vvas made a Priest for euer. And againe, The eternal memorie, by vvhich he gaue the soode of his body to them that feare him. in psal. 109.110. Lactan­tius, In the Church he must needes haue his eternal priesthod according to the order of Melchisedec. Li. 14. Institut. S. Hierom ep. 126. to Euagrius, Aarons priesthod had an end, but Melchisedecks, that is, Christes & the Churches is perpetual, both for the time past and to come. S. Chrysostom therefore cal­leth the Churches sacrifice, Hostiam incon­sumptibilem, An host or sacrifice that can not be consumed. ho. 17 in 9 Hebr. S. Cypri­an, Hostiam qua sublata, nulla esset futura religio, An host vvhich being taken avvay, there could bene religion. de coena Domini [Page 533] nu. 2. Emissenus, Perpetuam oblationem & perpetuò currentem redemptionem, A per­petual oblation and a redemption that run­neth or continueth euerlastingly. ho. 5 de Pasch. And our Sauiour expresseth so much in the very institution of the B. Sacra­ment of his body and bloud: specially vvhē he calleth the later kind, The nevv Testa­ment in his bloud, signifying that as the old lavv vvas established in the bloud of bea­stes, so the nevv (vvhich is his eternal Te­stament) should be dedicated and perpetual in his ovvne bloud: not only as it vvas shed on the Crosse, but as geuen in the chalice. And therefore into this sacrifice of the altar (saith S. Augustine li. de Ciuit. 17. c. 20. S. Leo ser. 8 de Passione, and the rest) vvere the old sacrifices to be translated. See S. Cy­prian ep. 63 ad Cecil. nu. 2. S. Ambrose de Sacram. li. 5. c. 4. S. Augustine in psal. 33 Conc. 2. and li. 17. de Ciuit. c. 17. S. Hie­rom ep. 17. c. 2. & ep. 126. Epiph. haer. 55. Theodoret. in psalm. 109. Damascene li. 4. c. 14.

Finally if any of the fathers, or al the fa­thers, had either vvisedom, grace, or intel­ligence of Gods vvord and mysteries, this is the truth. If nothing vvil serue our aduer­sares, Christ Iesus confound them, and de­fend his eternal Priesthod, and state of his [Page 534] nevv Testament established in the same. In vvhich vvords of ours if thou marke wel, and conferre them with his, thou shalt find that in this short paragraph he hath povvred out together, [...] a fovvle and stinking heape of lyes, errors, ignorances, and con­tradictions to him selfe and his bre­thren.

1 For first, vvhere say vve that Of al those things vvhich are proposed by the A­postle, it folovveth not that Christs priesthod is eternal? say vve not the cleane con­trarie, when vve auouch that Al the fa­thers gather, not of them selues or their ovvne vvittes, but of this deepe and di­uine discourse of the Apostle the eternitie of his priesthod? Is this to vvrite flatly, that of al the things proposed by the Apostle it fo­lovveth not that Christs priesthod is eternal, when we write flatly, that not one or other but al the fathers teach that eternitie, groū ­ding them selues vpon this discourse of S. Paule? Heretikes very blynd in the scrip­ture, though they crake much of their deepe insight in them. and hovv could they ground them selues vpon S. Paules discourse, if no such thing vvere to be foūd there? This perhaps he might haue gathered, and vve vvould haue graunted, that this deduction can hardly or neuer be perceaued of a Luther, of a Beza, of a [Page 535] Stancarus, or such other [...], damned in their owne iudgement, Tit. 3. v. [...] vvhom for punishment of their Apo­stasie from Christ & his Church, God hath geuen vp into a reprobate sense, Vt videntes non videant, et audientes non intelligant, sed credant mendacio, Rom. 1. v. 28 Luc. 8. v. 10. 2. Thess. 2. v 11. That seing, they see not, and hearing vnderstand not, but beleeue lyes, because they would not beleeue & hold fast the truth when they had it. but to a S. Ambrose, to a S. Chrysostom, S. Primasius, S. Beda, or any other directed by the spirit of God, these things which are proposed by the Apostle ministred sufficient mat­ter to find out the eternitie of Christs priesthod, as by their commentaries vpon these very places we learne. For albeit expresse mention of the Sacrifice of the Church be not here made, for reason geuen in the annotation, and by the Apostle him selfe, cap. 5. v. 11. yet the truth there of is inuincibly concluded out of this very disputation, and that so pregnantly, See the Anotations in cap. 5. v. 11. & 7. v. 11.12 c. 9.12.15.25 c. 10. v. 2. that vvho so­euer denieth the Churches Sacrifice he consequently denieth al the Apo­stles drift & argument, he denieth the vvhole state of the old and nevv Tes­tamēt. This therefore is the first maine [Page 536] and capital lye, and in vvhich he inuei­gheth not against vs alone, but also a­gainst al the Fathers without excepti­on, Arnobius, Lactantius, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, S. Austin, and the rest named in the annotation.

From this lye he draweth out 4 o­ther, as that we say, The Apostle pro­ueth not that vvhich he meant. that we prefer the Fathers before the Apostle, that we find fault vvith him, Multiplica­tion of lyes. and finally reprehēd the holy Ghost. Al which is nothing els but lye vpon lye, no one of which, is or euer was, in word or sense vttered, or in thought or cogitation cōceaued of vs. 2 No saith M. VVhitaker? make you not the oblation of bread and wine a principal part of Christs eter­nal priesthod? we do so, with al the Fathers of Christs Church. Yet the Apostle maketh no expresse mention thereof. VVe graunt. Then he pro­ueth not that which he intended. This is a lying and ignorant conclusion. ly­ing, because the Apostle proueth most abundantly his purpose, by sundry o­ther meanes though he vrge not that point: ignorant, because you knovv not what the Apostle would conclude or wherevnto he applieth his argumēt, [Page 537] which being deliuered most eui­dently in sundrie places of the 7. 7. v. 4.11.23.9. v 12.15.10 v. 2.4.5.11 9 & 10. chapter, and repeated againe and againe, I wil not h [...]re make a new t [...]ea­tise thereof. No time to talke of the Sacri­fice of the church, whē the Sacrifice of the crosse is not first beleeued. Thus much the reader that knoweth a litle diuinitie may cō sider of him selfe, that whereas the Apostle dealeth against the Iewes who could not be content that their leuitical priesthod, and sacrifices of beastes should yeld to Chr [...]sts priest­hod & sacrifice of the Crosse, for S. Paule discoursing of the infinite ver­tue, power & excellēcie of this aboue the former, to haue vndertaken to handle the priesthod and sacrifice of the Church, besides that it was very hard to explicate, besides that the He­brewes were very dul to conceaue, both which reasons he geueth in the 5. chapter, besides that the other matter was of it selfe large inough, besides al this, I say, to haue vrged the Iewes with this secondary and dependēt sacrifice of the Church, who as it beleeued not the first, singular, and soueraine sacri­fice of the Crosse, had bene as fond a part, as if a man would teach a childe to rūne before he can go, or teach him to reade before he can speake, or set [Page 538] on the roofe of the house, before there be ether wal built or founda­tion laide.

3 At least (wil M.VV. say) you pre­fer the fathers before S. Paule, and ac­knowledge them to write more pro­perly and aptly of Christs priesthod then doth the Apostle. The aunci­ent fathers speake more plainely of the church Sacrifice then doth S. Paule, without any derogation to S. Paule. This is a lye. For we are not so wicked, nether learne we to make any such odious cōparisons betwene diuers instrumēts of the holy Ghost. For the consent of the vniuersal church and al fathers, we gladly professe to be the voice of the holy Ghost. And if al the fathers had bene ioyned in one, in S. Paules case and hauing to do with such ad­uersaries, at such time, place, and o­ther circumstances, they would not nether could haue written more aptly and properly then did S. Paule, al­though afterwards they did more cle­arely and manifestly open that, which S. Paule insinuated more closely and couertly, and so would S. Paule haue done, had he liued in their times.

So in like sort S. Peter in his sermon made to the Iewes touching Christs glory and resurrection, calleth him A man approued of God, Act. 2. v. 22. by diuers vvonders [Page 539] and miracles. He calleth him not God of God equal to his father. Our Saui­our in his long exhortation made to his disciples before his passion, spea­king of his vnitie with his father, Ioan. c. 12.13▪ 14.15.16.17. ex­presseth not his cōsubstantialitie with the father, or diuinitie of the holy Ghost, The councel of Nice ex­pressed the consubstan­tialitie of Christ with his father more plainely then any Euangelist. so clearely as did afterwardes S. Athanasius and the fathers in the Councel of Nice and Constantinople against the Arians and Macedonians. nether for al that prefer we S. Atha­nasius and those Councels before S. Peter and our Sauiour, nether say we that they spake more properly and aptly thereof then ether Christ or his principal Apostle, or such like gue­gawes as this man ignorantly and ma­liciously obiecteth vnto vs. Christ spake most properly, perfectly, and ab­solutely, according as his diuine wise­dome knevv vvas most conuenient for that time and audience. so did S. Peter, so did S. Paule. And yet this barreth not but the holy Ghost may, & so hath by the Church aftervvarde declared the same more euidently, without any derogation to Christ or his Apostles.

Yet one scrupule more M. W. mo­ueth. At least this can not be denied, [Page 540] 4 but the Fathers talke much of the oblation of bread and wine which S. Paule omitteth, 5 M.W. last obiection. and so we can not shift our hands, but some ouersight we must im­pute to S. Paule and the holy Ghost. Nothing lesse. Answered. Or how soeuer by his profound subtilitie he thinketh to driue vs vnto this absurditie hereaf­ter, hitherto sure I am, we haue vtte­red no word or sillable so vnchristiā. And therefore he belieth vs in sayng that we haue done the one or the other. And the whole matter is answere suf­ficiently already. Answered by him self. Yet for more ful satisfaction I wil answere M. VV. by him selfe. I aske him therefore whe­ther Melchisedec did not sacrifice, and by sacrificing foreshewed our Sa­uiours priesthod according to the ar­der of Melchisedec? he can not de­ny, for he hath graunted it in plaine termes in this very booke. before pag. 17. And yet S. Paule here maketh no expresse men­tion thereof. Then by M. VV. iudge­ment S. Paule omitteth some principal part of Melchisedecs priesthod ap­perteyning to Christ, and therefore if this be to find fault vvith S. Paule, & re­prehend the holy Ghost, then M.VV. findeth fault vvith S. Paule, M. VV. reprehendeth [Page 541] the holy Ghost.

Againe, Answered by M. Iewel. let him recal to memorie his founder in diuinitie M. Iewel, in that booke which M. VV. Iewel in his Replie art. 1 ¶ 5. in M. W. translation pag. 9. him selfe hath translated into latin. Saith not he, that Melchisedech by his bread and vvine signified the Sacrifice of the holy (English) communion (M. VV. translateth it, sa­crificium sacrosanctae Communio­nis) vvhere the vvhole people lifte vp their hands and harts vnto heauen, and pray & sacrifice together? And where find you this sacrifice of the holy Communion in al S. Paules discourse? ergo by the same reason, M. Iewel also doth carp at S. Paule and reprehend the holy Ghost, who omitte The sacrifice of your holy Communion, prefigured by Melchisedech three thousand yeres at lest before ether Patriarch or Apostle, or doctor, or any good mā, euer heard, or thought, or dreamed of it.

Againe, Answered by Illyricus Illyricus a Lutherā writeth vpon this very chapter somewhat more probably then ether M. VV. or M. Iewel, that Melchisedech fore­shewed his Communion after the Lu­therish faith, Illyric. ad Heb. c. 7. v. [...] and that As Melchisedech by bread and vvine refreshed Abraham, so Christ the true heauenly bread refresheth [Page 542] vs to life eternal. His flesh is true nourishe­ment, and his bloud is true and healthful drinke. Ioan. 6. Luc. 22. Thus he. so that the Zuinglians can fetch out of Mel­chisedecs sacrifice, by their owne pri­uate authoritie without warrant of any ether doctor or father, the sacrifice of their Communion, and the Lutherans can find that theirs was prefigured likewise: and though S. Paule mention nether of them, that is not material, so long as you hold your self within cō ­passe of the Communion booke Lu­therish or Zuinglian: Who euer saw such foly, pride and partia­litie? only when we say the same of the Communion and sacrifice of the Church, and proue it by the authoritie of Damascene, of Theodoretus, of S. Hierom, S. Ambr. S. Epiphanius, S. Austin, S. Leo, S. Cy­prian, S. Chrysostom, Eusebius Emis­senus, Lactantius, Arnobius, by al an­tiquitie, by al fathers, by al Councels, by the vniuersal cōsent of Christendō since the Apostles time, we poore sou­les set S. Paule to schole, we prefer the fathers before him, we find fault with him, we reprehend the holy Ghost, we cōmit intolerable blasphemie. I know not whether a mā may rather laugh at their peeuish pride, who knowing no­thing, [Page 543] take vpon them to controle al fathers, or wonder at their incredible partialitie, which hath so be reaft them of common witte and iudgement, Mat. 7. v. 3. that they can perceaue a mote (in deede no mote) in our eye, and can not feele a beame in their owne, or rather lament their Pharisaical hardnes of hart & ig­norance whereto heresie hath brought them, so grosse, that nether they know the veritie of Catholike religion, nor wel vnderstand the state of their owne phantastical gospel.

One more blasphemie he obiecteth and so maketh an end. His wordes are. The second and last blasphemie pag. 24. Rom. 6. v. 23 The like boldenes they vtter in that most goodly place of S. Paule vvhere thus he vvri­teth to the Romanes, Stipendia peccati mors, donum autem Dei vita aeterna. The stipend of sinne, death, The princi­pal of these Sorbonists (after S. Paule) is S. Austin. but life eternal is the gift of God. Here the Sorbonists of Rhemes haue no­ted, that the sequele of speach required, that as he sayd, the stipend of sinne is death, so on the contrarie part he should haue sayd, the stipend of iustice is life eternal. And this to be true they plainely affirme, vvhereas it is manifest that S. Paule spake in this sorte that he might leaue no place to merites, and he vseth such a vvorde as vtterly excludeth al respect of stipend for that vvhich is a free [Page 544] gift, can in no case be a stipend, and repa [...] to merites. To answere this as al the rest, there needeth nothing els but to com­pare our wordes with his. Thus we say Rom. Life euer­lasting a sti­pend, and yet grace. 6. vers 23. The sequele of speach re­quired, that as he said, death or damnation is the stipend of sinne, so life euerlasting is the stipend of iustice, and so it is, and in the same sense he spake in the last chapter: That as sinne reigneth to death, so grace reigneth by iustice to life euerlasting, But here he chaūged the sentence somevvhat, calling life euerlasting, Grace, rather then, Re­vvard: because the merites by vvhich vve attaine vnto life, be al of Gods gift and grace. Augustin. epis. 105. ad Sixtum.

Because the sense and summe of the annotatiō is takē out of S. Austin, I wil set downe his owne wordes although they be somevvhat long, because they may help the reader both to vnderstād the truth of this point, & vvithal dis­couer M.W. notorious ignorāce. Thus vvriteth S. Aug. epist. 105. Austin in the place quoted. Eternal life vvhich in fine vve shal obteyne for euer, How eter­nal life is of grace & yet the re­ward of iu­stice. is repayed to merites going before. & yet because those merites vnto vvhich it is re­payed, are not gotten of vs by our ovvne abi­litie, but vvrought in vs by grace, therefore life eternall is called grace, for no other rea­son, [Page 545] but because it is geuen gratis, not be­cause it is not geuen to merites, but because those merites are geuen, to vvhich life is ge­uen. That eternal life is called Grace, vve find in S. Paule Rom. 6. The stipend of sinne is death. life eternal is the grace of God. See hovv vvarely he put these vvordes. For vvhen he had sayd, The stipend of sinne is death, vvho vvould not haue thought he should haue sayd most aptly and conuenient­ly, The stipend of iustice is life eternall. Let M W. marke this, True it is. And true it is. For as to the merite of sinne death is rēdered as the stipēd, so to the merite of iustice Life eternal (is rendered) as the stipend. Vnde & merces appellatur plurimis sanctarū scrip­turarum locis. Quod est autem merces ope­ranti, hoc est militanti stipendium. Sed Apo­stolus aduersus elationem &c. And so it is termed, merces, vvages, in very many places of scriptures. For that vvhich is called, Sti­pendium, Stipend, to a souldiar, that is cal­led, merces, vvages, to a labourer. But the Apostle vsed that vvord against the pride of men, &c.

Thus far S. Austin. of vvhose vvor­des our note is only a short sūme & ab­bridgment, and so vvhatsoeuer sport M. VV. maketh to him self of the Sor­bonists of Rhemes, it nothing toucheth vs, but good S. Austin the Sorbonist of [Page 546] Hippo. And yet not to rest there, S. Au­stin quitteth him selfe vvel inough frō that drye iest, vvhen he affirmeth the same to be taught, Plurimis sanctarum scripturarum locis, In very many places of holy scriptures. For if they be Sorbonists that say, Vita aelerna est stipendium iusti­tiae, Al the Pro­phetes, E­uangelists & Apostles were Sorbo­nists by M. W. iudg­ment. or vvhich is the selfe same, Vita ae­terna est merces bonorum operum, then not only S. Austin is a Sorbonist, vvhich to say perhaps you streine not greatly (for in this place so you cal vs in word, S. Austin in deede) but long before him the Prophetes were egregious Sorbo­nists, in whom both in sense and word, this proposition is cōmonly founde. Prou. 11. v. 18. c. 24. v. 12 Sap. 5.16. ca. 10.17. Ecclesia. 16.12. c. 51.38. Salomon was a Sorbonist, Psal. 61.12 Dauid a Sorbonist, Esa. 40.10. c. 62.11. Esay a Sorbonist, Ierem. 31.16. Ieremie a Sorbonist, 1. Peter. 1.17. S. Peter a Sorbonist, 2. Ioan. 8. Apoc. 2.23. c. 22.12. S. Iohn a Sorbonist, Rom. 2.6. 1. Cor. 3.8. 2. Cor. 5.10. 2. Thess. 1. v. 6.7. S. Paule a notable Sorbonist, who hath it more oft then the rest, Mat. 5.12 c. 6.1 c. 10.41. c. 16.27. c. 20.8. c. 25. that I name not our Sauiour for honors sake, who notwithstanding in the gospel, many times teacheth his Christians, this Sorbonical conclusiō. But as for M.W. if he continue in this simplicitie or rather stupiditie, that he suppose eternal life not to be the sti­pēd of iustice or good workes, because it is the grace or gift of God, I wil geue [Page 547] him a quittance for euer deseruing the name of a Sorbonist. Sorbone a famous College in Pa­ris. For I thinke there is scant any boy frequenting the Sorbone schole, that is so dul and ig­norant as to doubte, but that heauen is the gift and grace of God, though he trust to atteine it by his good workes, Shameful ignorance. I meane, that knoweth not how to re­concile these two propositions toge­ther, heauen is the stipend of good workes, and heauen is the gift of God: which in deede to euery lad wel cate­chised, is no harder, then it is to beleeue that the father is God, the sonne God, and the holy Ghost God, & yet there is but one God: Christ is God, and yet Christ is man, our Lady was a mother, and yet a Virgin, our bodies are cor­ruptible, and yet shal liue for euer, and almost any other article of our religi­on. But hereof I haue spoken more at large before, See before pag. 99.100. &c. to which place I refer the the reader. And this is the last intolera­ble blasphemie vvhich M. W. hath found in the Annotations, common to vs vvith Christ him self, and euery pro­phet, Apostle, Euangelist, Father, and good man, that since Christs time li­ued in the vnitie of his Church.