Answer to Reynolds Book

CHAP. 1.

ALThough our Adversaries have continually endeavored to abase and extenuat the authority of the holy Scriptures, by matching with them the credit of Traditions devised by men, by submitting them to the judgment of Fathers and Councils, and hanging them upon their interpretations, and moste notoriously by bringing them into captivity under the Pope, so that his pleasure and determination must stand for their true sense & meaning, as it is confessed by them selves, and known to the world: yet will they seem nevertheless to be very zealous in defense of the scriptures, & charge the Protestants with that impiety, whereof them-seues are moste of all guilty. As this hath been their common practice of long time, thereby to make some believe that we contemn the Scriptures of God, which of all Christians are to be had in moste high regard and reverence, and of us always have been esteemed no otherwise, then their incomparable majesty & authority requireth, being the word of the eternal God: so of late Edmond Campian in his book, made this the first and principal cause of his Chalenge, for that he saw us through despair (as he saith) compelled to lay hands, and offer violence to the holy books of the Bible. For proof whereof Luther is charged to have written contemptuouslie, and contumeliouslie of the Epistle of Saint James: which though it had been true, and could not have been denied, yet did it nothing at all touch us, who therein agree not with Luther, neither are bound to justify all his sayings & private opinions, no more then they will be content to avouch what-soever hath been spoken or published by any one or other famous man of their side? Which thing if they will take upon them to perform, then let them profess it, or else they offer us the more injury, that object still against us a saying, which was never either uttered, or allowed by us.

This might suffice men of indifferent reason: but our adversaries will yet continue wrangling about nothing, and will trouble the world with frivolous writings, being neither ashamed, nor wearied of anything. For what matter is it worthy soe much ado, and soe many words, whether Luther ever spake so of Saint James epistle, as Campian saith he did, or no? If he had so spoken, as in truth he hath not, for anything I can understand, what have they won? what have we lost? what matter was it, to multiply words so much about? Is this the controversy between us and them? do we strive about men's words and writings? Is Luther our God, or the author of our faith, or our Apostle? No, they shall not bring us thus from the defense of God's truth to skirmish with them about men's sayings: we will not leave the great questions of Religion, and fall to dispute about matters of other nature & condition, such as this is concerning Luther's particular judgment of S. James Epistle. The truth of God's word is it for which we contend, against the which if any man have spoken anything, let him bear the blame himself, and let not the common cause be charged therewith. So if Luther, or any other learned man of our side, have either interpreted the scriptures in something amiss, or have doubted of someone book of Scripture, whereof doubt also hath been of old in the Church of Christ, we are not to defend their expositions, or to approve their judgment: and therefore in vain do these men spend so much time, and take such pains to prove, that Luther uttered reproachful words against the Epistle of Saint James: which, as though it had been a principal matter for their advantage, not only the Censurer in his defense, and Gregory Martin in his discovery, have spoken thereof, but now also my new adversary Master Rainolds in his book against me beginneth with the same, and saith, he hath thought good to set it down, and prosequute it somewhat more at large. But I for my parte have not thought good to spend my time, and comber the reader about such unnecessary, and impertinent discourses as these are, which the adversaries devise, and wherewith Master Rainolds hath stuffed his book: only it shall be sufficient, for answer to Master Rainolds, who in truth deserveth no answer, plainly and briefelie in every point to clear the truth from his cavils and slanders, for the satisfying of the godly in this behalf.

And first, what a silly argument he gathereth, for that Luther hath written somewhat hardly of Saint James his Epistle, that therefore the Protestants leave no one ground, whereupon a Christian man may rest his faith, I trust any man of mean discretion, can easily perceive. For the injury done to Saint James Epistle by Luther should not be objected against the Church of England, which doth receive the same, as the Canonical word of God, but against Luther, if he did so deserve, and such as maintain Luther's opinion herein. But neither I, nor any other that I know in our Church ever denied, much less doth the whole Church deny that epistle to be worthily rekned among the books of sacred Scripture, nor have taken upon us to defend either Luther, or any other, for rejecting the same. Indeed because Campian railed upon Luther, charging him to have disgraced that epistle with despiteful terms, I answered, that Luther had not so written of it, as Campian affirmed, which still I may truly hold, for anything hath been shown, either by any other, or by Master Rainolds him self, who, like a profound scholar, handleth this worthy matter thus at large.

Furthermore how doth that follow Master Rainolds, that if Luther thought Saint James epistle not to be Canonical, or equal in Authority with the epistles of Saint Paul, and Peter, that therefore he left no ground for a Christian man's faith, to stay upon? are all the grounds of our faith in Saint James epistle? is all foundation of Religion overthrown, if Saint James epistle should not be Canonical? Do they that deny or doubt of that epistle, destroy the credit of all other books of holy scipture? God forbid, that so we should think. Amongst the Auncient writers of estimation, Eusebius calleth this same epistle of Saint James, about which you make soe great ado, in plain words, a Bastard. I think you will not say that Luther hath written worse, or more against it. And Saint Jerome saith, It was affirmed, that this epistle was published by some other under the name of Saint James? whereby appeareth that many Christians in ancient time thought it to be in deed counterfeit: and yet did they not therefore overthrow all the foundations of our faith. Dionysius Alexandrinus writeth (as Eusebius reporteth) that many of his predecessors utterly refused, and rejected the book of Revelation. And so doth the Council of Laodicea leave the same out of the number of Canonical books. Iunilius Africanus, an ancient father, rejecteth not only the books of Judith, Hester, and Maccabees, as they are worthy, in that they are not canonical, but also of Job, Ezra, and Paralipomenon, which notwithstanding are canonical scriptures. And nevertheless for all this they left some stay for Christians in the other books of Scripture, wherein a man may find sufficient ground to build his faith upon. Yea Jerome was not afraid to discredit the truth of the history, written in holy Scripture, concerning David's marrying with Abisag, calling it, according to the letter, that is, the true and natural sense, no better, then either a poetical fiction, or unseemly jest: and therefore deviseth a proper Allegory of Wisdom, which cherisheth and refresheth a man in his age. I will not urge Father Jerome for his irreverent words, but sure I am he hath deserved more reproof for the same, then Luther hath done, for anything ever uttered by him against S. James Epistle. By these examples you may learn not to be so rash in your judgment, and hasty in your conclusions, as you show yourself to be in the very beginning, that because Luther denied Saint James epistle to be Canonical, following the ensample of others, hence do gather, not only that he, but we also, although herein disagreeing from him, and denying no one book of Canonical scripture, neither of the old, nor new testament, do raze the foundation of faith, and leave no ground for Christians to stand upon. We leave such ground, and thereupon do build our faith, as ye shall never be hable to shake with all the force ye have. Verily your Pope, and ye all that hang upon him, cannot well stand on this ground, because it is too narrow, and slippery for you, and therefore ye seek larger room, in the Fathers, Councils, Traditions, whereof you speak. These are in deed fit grounds for your Church to be founded upon, the corruptions of Fathers, the decrees of men, superstitious inventions, forged traditions: whereunto if you did not more lean, and somewhat stay yourselves, then to the books of holy scriptures, your Church, your Pope, your Cardinals, your monks, your friars, yourselves should surely lie in dust shortly.

But now to come to Luther, whom still you chardge, and me also, about Saint James epistle, I could use as many words against you, if the cause required, as you have against me, & handle the matter by points as you do: but what end, or use should there be of such kind of writing, or what profit could arise thereby to the Church of Christ? Had you clearly gained all that, for which you contend, yet had you not proved anything at all against our Church, or faith, nor yet against me, but only that Luther's writings have been changed, and altered: which because you have so paynfully euicted, I pray you take it unto you, and use it moste to your advantage. Howbeit for all your needles and unthrifty labor spent herein, yet doth Campian still remain chardged with that untruth, whereof you would so fain acquit him: which you may sone perceive, if you call to remembrance what Campian in his book objected to Luther, concerning this epistle of Saint James: namely, that he called it contentious, swelling, dry, strawen, and thought it not worthy an Apostolic spirit. All this doth Campian avouch Luther to have written of Saint James epistle. Now if Luther have in deed thus written, then have I unjustly accused Campian of untruth: if otherwise, then hath Campian slandered Luther foully. To know the truth herein. I used all convenient diligence in examining all the copies both Dutche and Latin, that I could get: and when I found in them no such words, but rather the clean contrary, I was persuaded, as I had good cause, that all this was but a forged matter, and therefore said it was untrue. Afterwards it fell out, that I light upon an old Dutch Testament of Luther's translation, with his prefaces, wherein I found something, like in one point to that which Campian had objected: the which when I had read, I dissembled not, but confessed it in my answer to Gregory Martin. And in that preface Luther in deed writeth, that Saint James epistle is not so worthy, as are the epistles of Saint Peter, and Paul, but in respect of them is a strawen epistle. His censure I mislike, and so himself, I think, afterwards, seeing those words in latter editions are left out. Yet I trust every indifferent reader will grant, that there is ods between this that Luther writeth indeed, and that which Campian saith he writ. For it is one thing to speak simply, and another thing to speak in comparison. Campian saith, Luther calleth Sainte James Epistle strawne: Luther saith, That it is in comparison of Saint Peters, and Saint Paul's epistles, strawne. If you can by all your wisdom prove these to be all one, and will farther busy yourself about trifles, I am content to give you the reading, but I will not vouchsafe to answer anymore such strawen, or rather wooden replies. And sure, Master Rainolds, if you can write nothing to purpose, and yet will needs be writing something, it were better for you to sit down and pick staws, then so to trouble yourself and others, wherein you shall purchase nothing else but commendation of a strawne writer, and your book shall be judged more worthy to be burnt, then to be answered.

But seeing you have taken in hand to prosecute this matter so largelie, why do you fail in that thing wherein most of all we need your hand and help? For this that you bring concerning strawne, hath already been confessed so much as is true: your parte had been now farther to have shown, that Luther likewse called the same epistle contentious, swollen, dry, not worthy an Apostolical spirit, as he is accused by Campian in the same place. But for proof hereof you can bring forth nothing and therefore you confess, that Campian laid more to Luther's charge concerning this Epistle then was true: so that if in one poor word you have a little avouched the credit of your Jesuit, for whom you fight: yet in three or four other you have condemned him: which you slylie pass over notwithstanding, as though Campian had never spoken so, or you had nothing to do therewith. Indeed I grant it maketh small matter, what Campian hath lied of Luther: but you that take upon you to defend him, may not think you have performed your duty, if of much that he hath said, you be able to justify his saying in one little point, & in three points have failed. Wherefore either cease to quarrel still about this one word, or show your proofs for the rest also, or acknowledge your lewd and miserable wrangling, as in deed you must, howsoever the matter standeth concerning Luther in this behalf. For what if Luther had plainly and constantly affirmed of Saint James Epistle, as much as Campian hath objected, though untruly? Is this a cause sufficient why you should make all these outcries generally against all Protestants? why then may not we by like reason complain of all Papists for that, which Cardinal Caietane hath written both of other books of holy scripture, and namely of this same Epistle, whereof we speak? was not Caietane a pillar of your Church, a peer of the court of Roome, the Popes Legate in Germany against Luther? Doth not this famous Cardinal of Roome set down in plain words, that the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews doth gather insufficient arguments to prove Christ to be the son of God, that the second and third of John are not Canonical scripture, that the Epist. of Jude is Apocryphal, that the last Chap. of S. Mark is not of sound authority, that the history of the adulterous woman in S. John is not authentical, & namely of S. James Ep. that the salutation is profane, having nothing of God, nor of Jesus Christ?

But what speak I of Caietane disalowing certain books, and parcels of divine scripture, whereas Hosius another Cardinal, and one chief founder of all your late sophistications, hath written most dishonorably, and vilely of the wholl scripture? for thus he saith: Scriptura quomodo profertur á Catholicis, est verbum Dei: quomodo profertur ab haereticis, est verbum diaboli: that is, The scripture, as it is brought forth by the Catholics, is the word of god: as it is brought forth by the Heretics, is the word of the devil. So that by this notable Cardinals judgment, if a Protestant, that is in their language and meaning, an heretic, shall allege for proof of Christ's eternal divinity the beginning of the Gospel written by Saint John, this scripture shall now become of God's word, as it is, and always shall be, the word of the devil, because it is used by such as they account and call heretics. O blasphemous hand and tongue! And can you prove this Master Rainolds? can the word of God be made the word of Satan? It will not stand with your honesty to maintain it. God's word, by whom-soever it be uttered, though by the devil him-self, is not the word of the devil. God is immutable, so is his word. Then hath Hosius blasphemed, in calling God's word the devils word: which you ought to consider, who think you have found somewhat against the Protestants, when you show what Luther hath written in some disgrace of Saint James Epistle. I can further put you in remembrance, what others of your side have taught and maintained to the great slander and derogation of the Scriptures, and that not in one word or two, but in earnest and long discourses. What doth Pighius labor to persuade in one whole Chapter, & often in other places by occasion, but only that the Scriptures have all their credit & authority from the Church, as though they had not any of them selves, & from the lord, by whose spirit they were written. For thus he saith, All authority of Scripture among us dependeth necessarily upon the authority of the Church: for we could not otherwise believe them, but because we believe the Church giving testimony unto them. And again, The primitive Church hath made certain proof unto us, that the writings of all the Evangelists are of canonical truth, and not the Evangelists themselves, that were the writers. And against SS. Mark and Luke he disputeth at large, and boldly avoucheth, that they were not meet witnesses of the truth of those gospells which they writ, & therefore even while they lived, that credit was not given to their Gospels for them-selves, no not of those that certainly knew they were written by them, yea and farther also had their very principal copies written with their ownehands, but for the Apostolic Church. Yea this presumptuos and arrogant spirit of Pighius proceedeth farther yet and saith, that the Gospel's were written by the Evangelists, not to the end that those writings should bear rule over our faith and religion, but rather be subject thereunto. And yet a little more blasphemouslie, That they are not the true Gospel, which Christ, ascending into heaven, commanded his Apostles to preach to every creature. What should I rehearse his often reproachful comparisons of scripture to a nose of wax, and a rule of lead, which may easily be turned, bowed, and applied every way at our pleasure? which also the Censure of Colen hath affirmed of them in like manner. And to the same effect hath Cardinal Cusane long before set down that the Scriptures must be expounded diversely, and framed to the time, and practice of the Church, so that one time they are to be understood and interpreted one way, and another time another way. Which is more unreasonable and absurd by many degrees, then if one should prescribe, that the Lady must conform hir self to the fashion and manners of hir handmaid.

William Lindane hath been and still is a stout Champion for the Pope, in whose defense he hath uttered many bold blasphemies against the Scriptures, as namely that the Evangelists took in hand to write the Gospels, not to the intent to set down any form of the wholl Gospel, or to write the sum of Christian faith. And that the authority of the word not written is greater then of the word written, which question he saith may easily be determined howsoever to some it seemeth full of difficulty and perplexity: and that whereas Saint Peter hath affirmed of Saint Paul's epistles, that in them are some things hard to be understood, the same must be taken and meant generally of the wholl body of the Scriptures: soe that according to this man's doctrine there is not in all the scriptures one easy sentence, and S. Peter was overseen to say, that but some things in the epistles of Saint Paul were hard, when he should rather have said that all things were hard. Furthermore that it is extreme madness, to think the wholl & entire body of Evangelical doctrine is to be fetched out of those sole Apostolic letters written with incke, and that little small book of the new testament. Thus scornefullie wirteth this proud Papist of the divine scriptures, and exemplifieth his meaning by a notable similitude, that it is as great a want of wit to esteem & judge that all Evangelical doctrine is comprehended in the books of the new Testament, as if one should say, that the wholl frame of the world is contained in someone sensible creature. So that by his comparison the doctrine of the gospel doth infinitely in largeness excel all the scriptures of the new testament. Such mad & wicked sentences hath he throughout his wholl book many.

Ambrose Catharine saith, It is the Popes proper privilege to Canonize scriptures, or to reprove scriptures, to Canonize true Saints, and to reject false: meaning thereby that the holiness, authority, and estimation of scriptures proceedeth frō the Pope. Wherein yet he seemeth to have foulie forgotten that canonical scriptures are a great deal more ancient, then the Pope: and therefore could not receive their Canonization from him. But thus they utter their mind, that scripture is no otherwise the word of God, then as it is approved, authorized, and Canonized by the Pope, which is in effect to bring the holy ghost under the censure & approbation of a man, and such a man as he. I omit, because I will not be tedious, a number of such sayings moe, wherein the holy scriptures of God are shamefully & intolerably dishonored by these men in their writings and disputations: and yet to procure a little envy to Luther, they accuse him without all measure continually for calling the epistle of Saint James a strawne epistle, not absolutely & in it self, but only in respect of S. Peter and Paul's epistles. Thus much now have I thought good (for satisfiing of the godly) to answer. If you will not be satisfied, you may write again twice as much more: who can let you? this matter requireth no longer talk.

CHAP. 2.

FRom Saint James Epistle Master Rainolds proceedeth to entreat of other books, refused by the Church of England, which yet he saith were not further disproved in times past, then that epistle of Saint James: whereupon he would have his reader believe, that in alowing some books, and rejecting others, we are led by opinion & fancy, not by learning, or divinity. Wherein, Master Rainolds, yourself have shown, that opinion, not learning, ruled you, when you writ this. For Saint James epistle was never disproved by the wholl Church of God, but only by some of the Church: but those books that are refused by us, were by the wholl Church distinguished from the canonical scriptures, & had no greater credit, then they are of with us, as shall appear.

The reason therefore of our refusing them, is not, as you imagine, because they contain some proof of your Romish Religion, which we cannot otherwise avoid, but by denying the books to be of Canonical authority: but because they do bewray themselves of what stamp they are by most evident marks: and therefore have been generally of the wholl Church heretofore set in the same degree, that they are left by us. These Reasons you saw coming against you, and because you durst not openly encounter with them, you steal by another way, & let them pass. But I must call you back a little, though it be to your grief and trouble: and require of you a plain and direct answer, how those books of the old testament, which are commonly called Apocryphal, written first in Greek, or some other foreign language, can be Canonical? For all books of holy scripture in the old Testament were written, and delivered to the Church, by the holy prophets of God, being approved by certain Testimonies to be indeed the Lord's Prophets. Therefore Abraham answered the rich man, requiring to send Lazarus to his fathers house, They have Moses and the Prophets: whereby it is plain, that the wholl doctrine of the church then, was contained in the books of Moses, and the other Prophets. And Peter saith: we have a more sure word of the Prophets, meaning the scriptures of the old testament. And so the Apostle to the Hebrews writeth that God spake to our fathers by the Prophets. By which testimonies of Scripture it is proved, that none could write books to be received of the Church for the Canonical word of God, but only they whom God had declared to be his Prophets. But the writers of those Apocryphal books, were no Prophets, as may easily appear: For then they would not have written their books in Greek, as is confessed most of these were, nor in any other tongue, then that which was proper to the Church of God in that time, as Moses and the Prophets after him, writers of the holy scriptures, had done. The Church was then amongst the Jews, and the Prophets were the messengers, & ministers of God in that Church, and unto it they delivered, & dedicated their books. Wherefore the Greek tongue, being not the tongue of Canaan, nor of the Church then, was not chosen by the Prophets to write, and set forth therein the doctrine and Religion of the Lord: so that the very tongue wherein these books were written being not the tongue of the Prophets, doth plainly convince them to be no prophetical, & therefore no canonical books of the old Testament. And here I omit particular arguments, which might be brought against everyone of those books severally, whereby it may be proved invincibly, that though you entitle them with the name of Canonical scriptures, yet they had not the spirit of God for their father.

Agaynst this reason you bring Saint Augustine's authority, who reckoneth them amongst the Canonical books of scripture, and so you say did the Catholic Church of that age. But that this is a moste manifest untruth, appeareth by S. Jerome, who plainly writeth that the Church readeth those books, but receiveth them not amongst the Canonical scriptures. So although Saint Augustine had thought them to have been of equal authority with the writings of the Prophets, which are called properly Canonical: yet was not this the common judgment of the Church in those days, as Saint Jerome doth let us understand, who lived in the Church of that age. Saint Augustine calleth them indeed Canonical, by a general and improper acception of that word: because they are red in the Church, and contain profitable and Godly instruction: but yet not so, as though there were no difference between them and the other which are undoubtedly Canonical. For in that very place Saint Augustine opposeth Canonical scriptures to such books, as by perilous lies and phantasies might abuse the reader, and bring prejudice to sound understanding. And then giveth a rule to prefer those books that are received of all Catholic Churches, before them, that some Churches receive: & of those that are not received of all, to prefer those that the moste & of greatest authority do receive. whereby you may see the vanity of that you said before, that the catholic church then judged them to be canonical. And further if Saint Augustine himself had been of your opinion, he would not have given this admonition to prefer some before some: but would have straitly, and precisely charged, that no difference should be made, but all received alike, being all of like authority. As for Daniel, albeit some parte of him be written in the Chaldey tongue, yet was it understood of the Church, being then in captivity under the Babylonians: and that tongue is but a diverse Dialect from the Hebrew, and differeth littel from it.

My second reason, you say, is of more force: and if I prove it, you promise to be of my judgment. Let us then set down the reason first, and see the proofs afterward. I said, between thosde books Apocryphes of the Old Testament, and Saint James epistle there was this difference, that they were refused of the wholl Church, and so was not Saint James: wherefor we had reason to reject them, and not this. By the wholl Church I meant, not only the primitive Church of Christians, as you supposed, but the Church of the Jews before Christ, which never allowed those books for Canonical, as yourselves confess: which is an invincible argument against them. For had they been Canonical, that Church would not, nor ought not to have rejected them: and other Church there was none then, to allow them. So by your judgment it must be thought that diverse books of Canonical scripture were never received for many years in any Church: which howe absurd it is every man seeth. The Apostle writeth, that unto the Jews were committed the oracles of God: whereby is meant his word: But these books the Jews never received, and therefore they are of another sort, then those that contain the oracles of God. And that the Jews did not amiss, in rejecting them, it may be understood in that they were never reproved by Christ or his Apostles for the same. Their false expositions of scripture are often times noted, and their errors confuted: but they are never found fault with, for refusing these books of scripture, whereof if they had been guilty, they should not have escaped reprehension. This argument you deal not with: but expound my words of the primitive Church, whereas I spake specially of the Church before Christ. For though the Catholic Church never thought these books to be Canonical, as that word is properly taken, yet it used in some places to read them, for instruction of manners, not for confirmation of faith, as S. Jerome teacheth: but the old Church of the Jews never vouchsafed them so much honor as to read them publikelie. And that the Catholic Church received not these books for Canonical, though it read them, you have already heard the witness of Saint Jerome: who also in another place writing expressly of the Canonical books, excludeth these out of the Canon, and calleth them Apochryphall. Hereunto might I add many testimonies of Councils, and writers, both old, and new, wherein appeareth what judgment the Catholic Church had of these books.

Gregory the great, who in your opinion was the head of the Catholic Church, being Bishop of Rome, and therefore one that by likelihood should not be ignorant of the Churches judgment, calleth the books of Maccabees not Canonical, yet set forth to the edification of the Church. Thus for 600. years after Christ you see these books were not esteemed in the catholic Church for Canonical: which also must be thought of the rest, whereof we speak, seeing there is one and the same judgment of thē all. And that this judgment hath ever since continually remained in the Church, is proved by Damascene, by Hugo S. victoris, by Radulphus, by Lyrane, by Hugo Cardinalis, and many moe, who plainly do affirm those books in the old Testament, that the Church of England now accounteth Apocryphal, to be so, and not, as you would have them taken, canonical. Yea since your Tridentine assembly Arias Montanus, a man of your own side, though not so absurd, & corrupt in judgment, as moste of you, in his Hebrew Bible interlined, is not afraid thus to write of the same books, and that not in a corner, but in the very forefront, and principal leaf of the book. There are added (saith he) in this edition the books written in Greek, which the catholic Church, following the canon of the Hebrews, reckoneth among the Apochryphall. Thus it is evident, that these books have been, and are refused by the catholic Church, and that our Church judging them Apochrypall, consenteth with the judgment of the catholic Church; and yours in receiving them for canonical, have not herein a catholic judgment.

Now for Saint James epistle, where you demand how it may appear that it was not refused by the wholl Church, I would know, whether you will say it was indeed refused by the wholl Church, or no? if you will so say, then you shall, as much discredit the authority thereof, as ever Luther or any Protestant hath done. For as the wholl Church never received any book for canonical, but that which was truly Canonical: so the wholl Church hath never refused any as Apocryphal, but such as were indeed Apocryphal. If then the wholl Church of Christ hath refused Saint James Epistle, it will necessarily follow, that S. James Epistle is not canonical. But that the wholl Church ever refused it, is untrue, as maybe proved by the testimonies of writers, and Histories of the Church. Eusebius, that was the greatest adversary of it, and did most sharply censure it, yet in the same place confesseth, that both that and the rest were received and published in moste Churches. Wherefore when you say, that for this part you must credit me upon my word, herein you bewray either great ignorance, or desire to quarrel. The difference then which I put between the Apocryphal books of the old testament, and these books of the new, that they were rejected by the Church wholly, these not so, is fully proved: whereupon it followeth that the Church of England had greater reason to refuse them, then these, and was therein led by learning, & knowledge, not by fancy and opinion, as you say. What learning, or what divinity is your Church led by, first to esteem of these alike, then to alowe for Canonical, such books, as you confess, and cannot deny to have been refused by the wholl Church?

Where you say, my reasons make moste against myself, I know not how I could have written more plainly, & more consonantlie to myself, then I have done. But some are so froward, that though it be beaten into them with hammer, yet they will not seem to understand. I say Luther followed the judgment of the ancient Church, in refusing Saint James Epistle. what maketh this against myself? Can you deny but some of the ancient Churches refused it? Doth not Eusebius prove it, when he saith, it was received in moste Churches? Then it followeth, not in all Churches. And would Eusebius have called it a Bastard, if some Churches had not so accounted of it? But what if some refused it? doth it follow therefore that the wholl Church did so? you may not think, M. Rainolds, to cast upon us such a miste, but that we shall be hable to espy your walking along. Saint James epistle was never refused of all Churches generally, it was refused only by some: Luther in refusing it agreed with the ancient Churches, not with all, but some, as many as refused it. But the greater number of Churches received it, as Eusebius witnesseth, and our Church is led by God's spirit, and true learning, to follow them. But for the Apochryphall books of the old Testament, I have proved sufficiently, and can further declare, if need require, that both the greatest part of the Church, and the wholl Church hath reproved them. As for that Jerome saith, The Church readeth them, it maketh little for their credit, seeing he addeth immediately, it was, to edify the people, not to confirm the authority ef Ecclesiastical doctrine: and that though the Church read them, yet it receiveth them not among the canonical scriptures: wherein he hath plainly cast them down from that height of authority and majesty, whereunto you would so fain lift them up.

The Tower conference is here brought in to no purpose. Their scope was to show, that in the primitive Church, not only some particular persons, but wholl congregations have doubted of many books of Scripture, and yet notwithstanding lost not their dignity of true Churches of Christ: and therefore that Luther doubting, or denying some of them, cannot for that cause iustelie in any indifferent judgment be condemned, seeing whatsoever they object against Luther in this behalf must light upon the ancient Churches & fathers, that have thought herein, as Luther did. Wherefore your conclusion that you set down in the end of this your idle, & wandering talk, is only devised of yourself, and not maintained by us. For you father upon us, that we think we may refuse all such books, as of old have been doubted of: which is as far from our thinking, as heaven is from earth: and if any man have ever uttered such a thing, as I think none hath, it is his own private conceit, not the approved and constant judgment of our Church. The books in the old Testament, that we refuse, besides that they carry in their foreheads evident notes of Apochryphall writings, have not only been doubted of, but clean cast away by the Church of God, as hath been proved: all the books in the new Testament do we wholly admit as canonical, not refusing any parcel or word thereof, because we acknowledge in them the spirit of God, and see no reason to move us otherwise. For though they have been doubted of in former times, yet it was upon no certain ground, and by few, in comparison of those that received them, undoubtedly. Thus in a word the neck is broken of all your notes that follow, where in you labor to say as little in many words, as possibly may be said. That we rente from the body of the Scriptures in the Old Testament, Toby, Judith, Hester, Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, the prayer of Manasseh, the song of the three children, the story of Bell, herein we do the canonical Scriptures no injury, deviding from them such books as are not of that absolute authority, that they which are in truth canonical, may remain entire, and wholl together: no more then the shepherd doth injury to the sheep, in sorting the goats and other cattle from them.

But which of our brethren are they, that join to these the two books of Cronicles, and the song of Solomon? If you can name any such in these days, it will soon appear they are not brethren of ours. You will not (I suppose) charge us therewith, and yet perhaps you will have men suspect us as guilty thereof. But your boldness is intolerable, that knowing both the common consent, and practice of our Church, do notwithstanding both labor to caste wrong fully upon us some suspicion for refusing these, and furthermore also plainly and most falsllie avouch, that we deny sundry books of the New Testament, setting down in a row Saint Luke's Gospel, the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistle of Saint James, the second of Peter, the second and third of Saint Iobn, Saint Jude, the Apocalypse, a parte of Saint John's Gospel. What meant you, Master Reynold, thus to say, and thus impudentlie to lie? Are you gone to Rheames, and have you left all conscience behind you? Care you not to publish in printe to the world so great, so many, so manifest untruths? before you use to make your sacrifice at Mass, do you not use to confess your lies, as sins, and yet will you print your lies, without repentance? Of these our Church denieth nor one, doubteth not of one. If you mean some Protestants in Germany, whatsoever they think of Saint James, S. Jude, the second of Saint Peter, the second and third of S. John, yet the epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse of Saint John they do receive as canonical. Saint Luke's gospel came never yet in doubt or question amongst us, and I muse what the occasion should be of this your so fowl untruth. If because in the Tower conference of the fourth day one said, that the Laodicean Council omitteth S. Luke's gospel, it is too frivolous, seeing that was a slip of memory or oversight in him. And though the Council had so done, as it hath not, yet how followeth it that we therefore do so?

[ 2] My distinction of the wholl Church, & some Churhes, is as clear as the day: & it is to be observed, that whereas in it resteth the sum of this your second Chapter, and you are desirous to have it removed, yet you bring nothing once to stir it. That S. James hath been douted of in such sort, as Judith, Maccabees, the counterfeit Hester, (for the right Hester we embrace) is proved already false: and that our own doctors refuse it, is another untruth. For were it, as you say, of that conference, yet is it but one single man's sentence, and that by way of arguing.

[ 3] Thirdly, you descant upon Bene habet, It is well, but so simply and fondlie, that everyone may see you are a trifler. It is well, I said, that Campian could not charge Luther, for denying a book, which never any Church denied, but for denying such a one, as had been heretofore by some Churches denied. And although I seek not herein to defend either Luther, or those ancient Churches that refused the same, yet is Luther's offense not so heinous, as it should have been, if this had first proceeded of him-self, without example of other Churches. If you will burden us with refusal of S. Luke his Gospel, the known truth will easily acquit us of that accusation. But nothing can be so falsely surmized, that you will not find in your hearts to burden us withal. As for Atheism, I doubt not but your own conscience doth tell you, our doctrine is far from it: which when you forsook, I will not say, how near you approached to Atheism, in yealding to the strawne opinions at Rome, but I am assured, you went from Christ, to follow Antichrist: and of a minister of the Gospel, became an open enemy of the Gospel. If you repent not, it had been better for you never to have been borne.

[ 4] Those forefathers of whom I spake, have given such a blow to your great fathers of Rome, as you and your companions shall not be hable to heal his wound. And though he live still, and breath, yet is he scarce hable to stand on his feet, and carrieth upon him that mark, that shall daily more and more discover him to the Saints of God. Arius, Uigilantius, Iouinianus, if they taught anything against the truth of God's word, let them be esteemed as they deserve. We lay the grounds of our religion, not upon the writings or opinions of men, be they good, or bad, learned, or unlearned, Catholics, or Heretics, but upon the written word of the eternal God: and therefore we pray not, as you do, nor offer sacrifice for the dead, we worship not, nor invocate Saints, we think the honorable estate of marriage is pleasing to the Lord as well as single life. For thus have the Prophets, the Apostles, the Lord him-self taught us: As for Marcion, Cerdon, the rest, we abhor them with all their damnable herisies, because the word of God condemneth them: the more is your fault, in saying they are our fathers. But you have drawn since your departure so hard a skin over your conscience, as you fear not to utter any untruth be it never so desperate. You say we match S. Luke and the Apocalypse with the book of Judith, and that we say most plainly we are not bound to admit those, and all the forenamed books, but may refuse them: which for shame of the world you would never have written, but that like an Atheist your pen is a ready instrument to publish any untruth. The book of Judith in deed admit we not: and that is no blasphemy: prove it if you can. But what should I require you M. Rainolds, to prove anything, that have taken upon you to say all things, and prove nothing?

[ 5] You reason, as if you had made a fraie with reason, that we are like those old brutish heretics, called Alogi, who denied the Apocalypse of Saint John, because we say, we know as certainly the scriptures to be scriptures, and every book thereof, as we know the sun, to be the sun, which is as contrary to those Alogi, as the light is to darkness. But whoever doubted of the sun, you say, that it is the sun? of Saint James epistle Luther doubteth, and the Lutherans: wherefor you say, I condemn them for the veriest sottes that ever lived. Not so, Master Rainolds, if you could see. For though we are as fully persuaded of the one, as of the other: yet doth it not follow that the clearness of this truth appeareth alike unto all, but to such only as it is revealed unto. Know you not as undoubtedly there is a God, as you know there is a sun? If not to you, yet to all Godly, the knowledge of the one is no less certain then of the other, though we cannot behold god with our eyes, as we may seethe sun? Will you then conclude, that all are stocks and stones, which cannot perceive this so clear, and evident a truth? Do not yourselves think all those books, for which you contend with us, to be as truly canonical, as that the sun shineth? you will not, I am sure say otherwise. Do you then besides an infinite number of ancient writers, condemn those of your side, for stocks, and sottes, that denied them? To omit the rest, of whom I spake before, was Sixtus Senensis a sotte, for denying your books of Hester? was Dryedo a sotte, for denying Baruch? Thus must it be, or else, your argument is too childish, I will not say sottish.

[ 6] Here is brought an argument for Traditions, such a one as M. R. divinity could afford. It cannot, he saith, be proved by scriptures that S. Mat. S. Mark, S. Luke, S. John his gospel, & S. Paul's Ep. are Canonical scripture, that is, penned by divine inspiration: then we must believe some what, which by scripture cannot be proved, & so tradition is established. I would your other traditions were of this sort, then should we sooner agree. But between this, and the rest of your infinite traditions, there is no likeness. For this is grounded upon the word written: the rest have no footing on that ground. Although it is not expressly set down in thus many words, S. Matthews gospel is Canonical, & so likewise of the rest, yet that we cannot otherwise come to the certain knowledge & belief thereof, but by report, is a vain, & foolish fantasy. For the history it self and doctrine therein contained, do plainly show & convince the book to be Canonical, that is, written by divine inspiration: so as although the Churches commendation and testimony of it may confirm our judgment in believing the same, yet our faith is built upon the written word it self. And so your other argument falleth of faith by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. For when we hear the doctrine of these books preached unto us, we believe the same in every point: whereof it must needs follow, that the books are Canonical, containing so heavenly and spiritual doctrine, as the like cannot be written of any, but the spirit of God only: so being enforced to alowe, and embrace by faith the doctrine of those books, how can we but acknowledge the books them-selves to be canonical? wherefor in that you say, we find not this word in the scriptures, unless you think no word is found in them, but such as is set down in express terms, you are abused. For this word is found in them by necessary collection, & so be not your vain unwritten Traditions, and therefore are neither parte nor parcel of God's divine word.

But here is by the way to be noted, how this man seeking to disprove my comparison of the sun, hath suddenlie overthrown the principal stay of their religion, which is the visiblenes of the Church. That which is known by sense, saith he, is no article of faith: for these two are directly opposite. Then the Church is not known by sense: and so visiblenes is not a mark of the Church. For if it be, then is it not an article of faith, to believe the Church. Thus sometime you can reason well, but then it is against yourself. The similitude was brought not to match our belief of scripture with knowledge of the sun, that as we know the one by sense, so the other: but that we have certain and undoubted belief of the canonical scriptures by themselves, as we know the sun by it self. Your belief in deed of the books of scripture is natural, and to use your own example, such, as when you believe Tusculans Questions to be written by Tully. For as you are led thus to believe of this book because it hath been so accounted in all times by constant tradition ever since: so likewise you have no better reason to discern the canonical scriptures from other books, but only this common received opinion of the Church, which you call Tradition. We have this as well as you, and we have also another, better and surer then this, which you have not: yea, which you blasphemously deride, the testimony of the spirit, whereby the authority of the scriptures is sealed in our harts and we are thoroughly induced to receive them, as the most blessed Testament, and truth of God. For example, that there is a God, who created heaven and earth, both the Scriptures teache, and the creatures them-selves confirm, soe as no man ought to stand in doubt thereof, Yet notwithstanding this persuasion cannot be faithfully settled and rooted in man's heart, unless it be approved, and as it were sealed unto us by the holy Ghost: without the confirmation whereof, great doubtfulness and distrust will arise in our minds continually, through the great corruptiō of our nature. Even so that these scriptures are in truth the very word of God, not only them selves do prove by their subject matter, & argument, but also the testimony & judgment of the Church, which ever so esteemed them, may invincibly argue the same. And yet for all this that we faithfully receive them, and submit our selves unto them, as to the word of God, without wandering or suspicion, God's holy spirit must inwardly persuade our hearts, that this indeed is his word, and therefore of us by all means to be embraced, and believed. Thus it appeareth how false it is, that you have noted in your margent, that the Protestants refusing the Church, believed not the scriptures. We refuse not the Church, but we know the Scriptures of God have greater credit and assurance, then the only approbation of the Church.

[ 7] I have allreadie answered whatsoever you bring out of Augustine, the Council of Carthage, or any other, both in what sense those books of the old Testament are called canonical by them, also how the other of the New Testament were refused, or received in times past. You shall never be able to prove that you set down in your margent, wherein the sum of your wholl speech is briefly comprised, that S. James epistle, and the epistle to the Hebrews, have been as much doubted of, as the books of the old Apochryphall Testament, which the Protestans reject. The moste you can allege is, that some Churches have doubted of those epistles but I have before shown, that the wholl Church rejected these of the old Testament. This was mine answer to M. Martines demand: this is mine answer still, which you cannot with all your endeavor take away. Something you write for a color and fashion, but you come always behind with your reckoning.

It offendeth you that I said, we have seen, we have confuted, we have trodden under foot all the arguments of the Papists, and whatsoever they could say. Unless you have some new harvest growing, which yet hath not been reaped, I might truly say, as I said: for you have uttered all your store, such as it was, and we have seen, and confuted it long ago, and that by the written word of god, against which, no tradition, no religion, though never so ancient, so universal, so glorious, may prejudice anything. What reasons moved you to depart from us, and become a feeds-man of the Pope, I leave to the Lord, and your own conscience: for anything that I could ever see (and I have labored to see the truth, and what could be said against it, by the best of your side) I do with all my heart rejoice in the cause which we maintain against you, and I think it to be the iustest, and honorablest defense, that ever was undertaken. What you have learned since you went, and how substantiallie you confute my brag, as you call it, shall hereafter further appear, as it hath in part already done.

CHAP. 3.

HEre again is repeated another quarrel about Luther to no purpose in the world, but only to discredit him a little with the simple sort. For our adversaries are so wasted and spent for good reasons, that whatsoever they light upon, though never so unfit to frame good arguments of, they handle it with great earnestness, like seelie fletchers, that having no store of steles left in their shoppe, are saine to make their blots of every crooked stick. What maketh it againest the truth of our reliligion, if Luther preferred his own judgment before the fathers? is our doctrine therefore false, and yours true, either in wholl, or in parte? Others desire to reap great profit of a little labor: but you are content to take a great deal of pain, for no commodity at all. I would not herein vouchsafe you an answer, but that I have respect to the readers weakness, who by such slanders may be abused. Your title showeth plainly there is in this Chapter no truth to be looked for at your hands: you say Luther preferred his private judgment before all ancient fathers and Doctors: wherein you would have men think, he was vnmeasurablie arrogant, and willful. But Luther's spirit was far from this insolent, and immoderate presumption, as may by his own words appear, which you have noted.

For he saith not, that he more setteth by his own private judgment, then he doth by all the fathers, and Doctors, as you report, but that he setteth against the sayings of fathers, of men, of Angels, of Devils, the word of the only eternal majesty, the Gospel. And again immediately he saith. The word of God is above all, the majesty of God maketh with me, that I care not though a thousand Augustine's and Cyprians stood against me. Is this to set his private judgment against all the fathers? is this pride? is this presumption? must God's word, and majesty, and Gospel, yield to the judgment of fathers, be they never so many? This forsooth is your modesty, that though the Lord hath spoken it, yet if the fathers say anything against it, you will not prefere your judgment, grounded on the scriptures, before the ancient fathers. Accursed be such modesty, that doth soe great injury, and dishonor unto god. This civility towards men, is treason, and blasphemy towards the lord. Remember what Elihu saith. I will not now accept the person of man, neither will I give titles to man. For I may not give titles, lest my maker should take me away suddenlie. If this affection was in Luther, as it was, what fault can you find therein?

You ask of me the reason, why I so busilie defend Luther. I ask of you the reason, why you so continually accuse Luther. If you seek for some reasons to accuse him, I cannot want better reasons to defend him, your accusations being so untrue. That you say, we advance him into the place of Christ, or at least among his Apostles, belike you imagine that Luther is to us as your Pope is to you, whom you more esteem, and honor, then Christ, and all his Apostles. For say they what they will, their saying hath little force or authority, if it like not your holy father: but his saying must prevail, whatsoever they say to the contrary. You think it good reason I should give over all defense of Luther, seeing he bare extreme hatred, as you say, against the Sacramentaries: & here you bring in much to that purpose, which yet you know is not the matter you took in hand. But it is always the property of such discreet, and worthy writers, whatsoever they find, though from the cause, to hale it in by some means in one place, or other. I answer in a word, Luther dissented bitterlie from Zwingli, and O Ecolampadius, in the matter of the sacrament, as it falleth out often times, that sharp contentions may arise amongst Godly and learned men: yet it is no cause, why we should not answer in Luther's behalf, when he is wrongfully charged by you. Therefore you come to scan my defense of Luther particularly, and find yourself occupied in devising diverse senses of Luther's words, and then disputing against them. First, if all the fathers teach one thing, and bring scriptures for them, & Luther the contrary, & bring scriptures for him: whether in this case Luther may prefer his judgment before all the fathers? This is not the case. M. R. that Luther meant: you must therefore proceade further yet in your suppose. Next then you put case, If a thousand Augustine's, & Churches teache some doctrine, citing no text for it, and Luther bring some text of scripture after his sense, against the same: the matter is not in citing texts, but in delivering the doctrine, that is approved by the text. Then leave your childish trifling, and take Luther as he meant. If Augustine, or Cyprian, or any other father maintain anything against God's word, Luther, or any other minister of Christ, may in such case prefer his judgment, warranted by the word of God, before theirs. If you deny this, you are not worthy to be called a Christian: and yet closelie you do deny it, in that you reprove Luther, and condemn him for saying the same. And where you say, I can bring no instance that ever the ancient fathers did so, have you forgotten what fell out in the Council of Nice, when the fathers agreeing to dissolve the marriage of ministers, were withstood by Paphnutius, and yielded in the ende? Here one Paphnutius judgment was preferred before all the other three hundred fathers. And so often times the judgment of many hath been corrected by one. S. Aug. saith, whether of Christ, or of his Church, or of any other thing, that appertaineth to our faith, and life, I will not say we, not to be compared to him that said, though we, but as he added: If an Angel from heaven shall preach anything besides that ye have received in the legal and Evangelical scriptures, let him be accursed. If we may accurse them, how many, and whosoever they be, that teach contrary to the Prophetical, and Apostolical scriptures, then may we prefer our judgment in such cases before them. Saint Augustine's words you see, are very sharp, but he learned thus to speak of the Apostle him self. In another place Saint Augustine saith; For all these (fathers) yea above all these, the Apostle Paul offereth himself: I flee to him, I appeal to him from all writers, that think otherwise. This was S. Augustine bold to write, even to S. Jerome, and feared not any suspicion either of arrogancy or heresy for the same: such accoumpte then must be made of the truth, that we must stand with it against all the world, and not for reverence of men's persons give it over, or betray it, or be afraid to defend it. If this be so, as you will not, I am sure, for shame or fear deny openly, then have you nothing to burden Luther in this behalf.

When you say, Though the fathers in the Councils of Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon, had alleged no direct and evident place against Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, yet the Christian people were bound to believe them, grounding them selves only upon the catholic and universal faith of the Churches before them, it is boldly, and bluntlie spoken. These godly and catholic fathers assembled in Council against those heritikes, confuted them by the authority of God's word, and as it were cut the throat of their heresies, with the sword of the spirit. This was only the weapon then used, and with this they prevailed, as likewise have all other godly councils ever done against all heretics, and enemies of the truth. For in Religion there is no truth, but grounded upon scriptures: no error or heresy, but repugnant to scriptures: no heretics, but refuted by scriptures. They dealt not against the heretics, as you imagine, omitting scriptures, and grounding upon the faith of Churches: but they proved their faith to be grounded upon the scriptures. So Cyprian, a wise and Catholic Bishop writeth, that in controversies of Religion, we must have recourse to the origin of truth, whereby he meaneth the scriptures, and that the cause of heresy is. for that the head is not sought: which he declareth, further adding, that the doctrine of the heavenly Master is not kept. And therefore, if those fathers had objected nothing, but the common belief of the Churches, against those heretics, they had taken a wrong course, and should never thus have stopped their mouths. But they had a surer way to convince heretics, then you have: who being of all heretics the greatest, would take away all means of confuting heretics, that so yourselves might not be espied, or not controlled.

As for Heluidius, who denied the blessed virgins to have remained a virgins afterward, the fathers Jerome and Ambrose, alleged against him not tradition only, but the scriptures especially: although what Saint Basel hath written of this wholl matter, you may read in his sermon of the Natiuitie, wherein he is not affraied plainly to affirm, that after she had borne our savior Christ, whither she married again, or remained a virgins still, belongeth longeth nothing to the mystery of faith.

Again you imagine a third sense of Luther's words, by supposing a thing impossible, that if all Churches and fathers teach against Scripture, & Luther with Scripture, then Luther may think him-self a better man then they all. What Luther's meaning was, you have heard, and therefore it skilleth not what you suppose further. Indeed M. R. as you say, the Church falleth not from Christ to Apostasy: but this is true as well of the Church in the old Testament, as in the new. yet as the visible Churches of the Jews fell away from God, and became open enemies unto our savior Christ: so it might come to pass since Christ, that the particular Churches and congregations did corrupt the doctrine of the Gosepll, and slid into that Apostasy, which the Scriptures foresaid should overspread the Churches afterward. But the Catholic Church, which is the number of God's elect, can no more fall away from Christ into Apostasy, then the course of heaven can be changed. For it standeth upon Christ the rock: and hell gates shall not be hable to cast it down.

Here again you come in with Luther's opinion of the sacrament, wherein as he dissented from us & the truth very much, so your popish Transubstantiation, then which was never a more impious, and absurd heresy maintained in the Church, he utterly abhorred. And what though herein Luther something swerved from the truth? might he not therefore, being in other causes assured thereof out of the word of God, reject the opinions of such as dissented from the same? By this reason no man in defense of God's truth may challenge, or bid defiance to the adversaries thereof, seeing they have no privilege or Charter granted to them, but that them selves may also be deceived. Luther was an excellent man, and a worthy seruante of Christ, whose Ministry especially it pleased the Lord to use, in revealing to these times that son of perdition, who sitteth in the Temple of God, and advanceth him self above God yet was Luther a man, and therefore no marvel if he were not exempted altogether from ignorance, and infirmity. And what miserable perverseness is it in you, that being not able to maintain your own heresies against Luther, will think to escape in the judgment of men, from being condemned, because Luther him self in one pointe of doctrine erred? Maie no man convince error, but such a one, as is free from erring at all him self? the scriptures are left unto us, to be our rule of truth: by them must all doctrine be squared, and directed, they sit in the highest seat of indgement to give sentence in every cause. With them did Luther cut down your errors: of them have we learned to think of the sacrament otherwise then Luther did: to them do we submit our selves in everything we teach, and are contented that our wholl Religion be tried by them: so that if you, or any other can show wherein we disagree from them, we are ready, and willing to be reformed. But one error of Luther cannot serve to excuse infinite errors in the popish Church. Thus have you my answer, as plainly as I could devise, in this matter: which though you have handled at large, as became a man of your learning, leisure, and discretion, yet in the end, you cast it away from you as not worthy to have any time bestowed about it. Now therefore I trust hereafter you will be better occupied.

CHAPTER. 4.

SEeing you will needs be called & accounted Priests, & that in the proper sense, and signification of this word, I require no pardon at your hands for terming you, as I did. For if Christ be the only Priest of the New Testament, and his sacrifice never to be repeated, as we are plainly taught by the word of God; what Priests can you be, but Baalites, and what sacrificers, but Antichristian? show your order, your Author, your institution: otherwise we must esteem and speak of you, as such a generation deserveth. It is not lawful for any to take honor to him-self, but he that is called of God, as Aaron: If you can prove that God hath called you, it is meet you be received, & reverenced, as the ordinance of God in all functions deserveth: but this can you never do, and therefore both your name, & your profession is of all the godly to be detested, as a venomous plant, never planted by the heavenly father. Two ways you have chosen, by which you will prove yourselves lawful priests: principally, you say, by mine own words, secondarily by deduction out of the scriptures. Let us consider of both these arguments in order, and so it shall appear in the end, that your Priesthood was hatched of an ill egg.

And here you declare evidently to the world in the very begininng your pitiful ignorance, not knowing against whom you fight. For was it ever of us doubted, that Melchizedek was a Priest, and offered sacrifice? doth not the scripture teach the same moste expressly, and that in many places? yet you say, you could never obtain so much of our brethren: which argueth that God hath smitten you with marvelous senselessness, and as it were suddenlie bereaved you of your understanding. Thought you any so simple as to believe you, that we deny Melchis. to have been a Priest, & to have done the office of a Priest, which consisteth principally in making outward sacrifice? Bestowed you so litlte time in reading the writings of those you call our brethren, that you know not what their judgment was herein? or could you find in your heart at adventure thus to report of our brethren in a matter whereof you were ignorant what they taught? Take heed Master Rainolds, you may abuse the ignorance of some, but God will be revenged of you for your untruth. As for your reason, that if Melchizedek sacrificed, that was in bread and wine, because there is no mention made in the scripture of any other sacrifice, I marvel you see not the looseness of this conclusion. For how is the head and body of this argument joined together? Melchizedek was a Priest, therefore he sacrifided in bread and wine. Of sacrificing in bread and wine, there is no word in the scripture, which only recordeth, that Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine; whereby is noted that Melchizedek presented Abraham with victuals, when he returned from pursuit & slaughter of the kings: which is so clear in the text, that it is confessed by your own Champion Andradius. Is this then an excellent proof that Melchizedek sacrificed in bread and wine, because he relieved Abraham & his servants with bread and wine? And that seeing the Hebrew word which the holy ghost used, never signifieth to sacrifice, in any one place of the scripture, but only to bring forth, as all men know that have but a little taste in the Hebrew tongue. But if he sacrificed not thus, then saith M. Rainolds, his sacrifice is not mentioned in scripture. And what if the scripture hath not particularly set down what sacrifice Melchizedek offered? was it not sufficient to declare that he was a Priest, unless it were also added, what manner of sacrifice he offered? will you not believe the scriptures testifying that Melchizedek was a Priest, unless you understand what sacrifice he made? How many Priests doth the scripture speak of, and yet omitteth their kind and manner of sacrifice? Can you then reason, they were no Priests, because it is not expresslie noted, in what things they offered their sacrifice?

Furthermore, was not Melchizedek a King also? and yet we read not anywhere in scriptures what Kinglie duties were performed by him, unless you will acknowledge this to be a token of his royal dignity, that he relieved Abraham and his men with provision: which though it be no proper mark of a King, seeing it may be done by others also that be no kings, yet doth it rather show unto us a Kinglie estate in him (as it is alleged by learned men) then a priestly. For to bring forth bread and wine, that is, meat & drink for the sustenance of a multitude, must rather be thought a princelie magnificence, then a priestly sacrifice. Seeing then it is as necessary for us to believe that Melchizedek was a King, as that he was a priest, because he was a figure of Christ, not only concerning his preisthoode, but also his Kingdom: then must you as well note unto us what princelie act of his the scripture reporteth, as you demand of us what sacrifice he offered. For if this proveth not he was a King, then to use your own words, there is no syllable in the scriptures of any kingly deed, that ever he did: and so by your profound and invincible reason, as you call it, we must be forced contrary to plain scriptures to deny he was a king. For that he was a priest, besides he is so called in the scriptures, may also further appear unto us by his doings, in that he blessed Abraham, which duty belonged to the priest, as well as to offer sacrifice. Thus your goodly argument, whereof you brag so much, if it be of such invincible force, as you pretend, though it may put a sacrifice in Melchizedek's hand, yet it taketh the kingly crown from his head. Wherefore you see, if you can see anything, that your proof whereupon you lean, will not one lie fail you, if you press it too much, but also break in pieces, & hurt yourselves.

You see therefore how little cause you had to charge my fellows and masters, as you name them, with stubbernnesse, who never denied, nor doubted, but that Melchizedek was a very priest, and executed the office of a priest, which chiefly consisteth in sacrifice and oblation, as the Apostle teacheth. Then your fellows & masters must needs be stubbernly set in maintenance of falsehood, if they either taught you thus to write, or will commend you for writing thus beyond all compass of modesty and truth. But now, as though Melchizedek's sacrifice could have been no other, save that which you dream of, you gather of my acknowledging him to have offered sacrifice, that therefore he did it in bread and wine: which is an absurd, and senseless kind of gathering, meet for such a petty proctor of the Popes sacrifice, as Master Rainolds is. The scriptures testify that Melchizedek was a priest, and this both I, and all my fellows and masters ever confessed. That the sacrifice which Melchizedek offered, was bread & wine, the scriptures nowhere give us to understand, & therefore we believe it not, & you can never prove it. You allege the testimony of Moses thus: Melchizedek rex Salem, proferens panem & vinum (erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi) benedixit ei. Melchizedek king of Salem, bringing forth bread & wine (for he was a Priest of the moste high god) blessed him, that is, Abraham, you must have a divine power of working miracles before you can prove hereof that Melchizedek offered bread and wine in sacrifice, seeing your own translation saith no more, but that he brought forth bread and wine: and that was, as I shown before, for another purpose, then to offer sacrifice: unless with the same mouth, wherewith you said even now, that we deny Melchizedek to have made sacrifice, you will also further say, that to bring forth bread and wine is to offer sacrifice: whereas no man seeth not, that this may be done many ways, and for many other uses, then for this of sacrifice. Wherefoe your reason, Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine, is not of the same length with your conclusion, that therefore he offered sacrifice in bread and wine.

But that you say is a reason of his priesthood, which I deny, and it is the thing in controversy: & should by you have been proved, not barely affirmed. For though as you report the words of Moses, it may seem that the reason of Melchizedek's bringing forth bread and wine was, for that he was the Lord's priest, yet Moses in in his own language saith not so, but thus, And he was a priest of the most high God, as it is also translated by Pagnine, and Vatablus, and Arias Montanus, according to the original verity. And though sometime it may so be taken, yet how can you prove that so it must of necessity here be taken? And if it be, your sacrifice for all that will not here of follow, as you may learn by Andradius your greatest Doctor, who maketh that a reason why Melchizedek, being a Cananean, and joined perhaps in blood or friendship with some of the Kings that Abraham slue, notwithstanding was so far of from seeking to be revenged of Abraham, that he met him frendlie and presented him with gifts, because the bonds of country and kindred are not so strong, as of godliness & religion. So the reason is not as you imagine, He offered sacrifice in bread & wine, therefore he was a Priest: but by Andradius judgment, he was the Lord's Priest, and therefore he refreshed Abraham a true worshipper of the Lord.

But what if all this were granted without resistance, that Melchizedek offered a sacrifice in bread and wine? it must be cast in a strange mould, before the sacrifice of your Mass can any ways be framed hereof. For first this sacrifice might be a figure of Christ's body and blood, represented and offered unto us in bread & wine without any such unholy sacrifice as is imagined in your Mass. And so did the ancient fathers mean, when they applied this history of Melchizedek to the sacrament of Christ's supper. Wherefore when you have digged as depe as you will yet shall you not find the mine or spring of your sacrifice here. Again, what resemblance is there between Melchizedek's bread and wine, and your Mass, wherein you teach is neither bread nor wine remaining at all? That you bring out of Musculus and Calvin, concerning referring those words (and he was a Priest) to that which followeth, and he blessed him, you are not hable to confute, and therefore you do well, and wisely to note it, but show no reason against it: and so likewise you set before your reader another place of Calvin, wherein he writeth that their opinion is confuted, who seek out the chief resemblance between Christ and Melchizedek in offering of bread and wine, seeing the Apostle who standeth upon other points not so notable, and principal, as that, speaketh not so much as once thereof. This was to hot for you to bear, & therefore you let it fall to the ground, covering it with the naked names of Jerome, & Gregory Nazianzen. Out of Calvin's words by you repeated, you will the reader to note two things, which being noted never so much, make nothing for your profit. The first is, that Calvin, and the Calvinists (as it pleaseth you to speak) find nothing wherein Melchizedek sacrificed, and so by sacrificing prefigured the sacrifice and Priesthood of Christ: whereunto I have already answered, and further add now, that we find in Melchizedek as much as the Apostle hath found, & the Apostle hath found as much as truly can be found: unless you will say the holy ghost was grossly & foully overseen in omitting the chiefest thing, wherein Melchizedek represented our savior Christ. We think it no shame to find no more then the clear light, and wisdom of God's spirit could find, wherewith the Apostle, examining & searching thoroughly the wholl history of Melchizedek, hath not given the least inkling of your surmised sacrifice. He showeth diverse properties in which Melchizedek was a figure of Christ, comparing not any sacrifice of Melchizedek with the sacrifice made by Christ, but the person of Melchizedek with the person of Christ. So you have found such a property betwenee them two, as he never saw, and therefore must needs account yourselves wiser then he, which we by your leaves cannot acknowledge, and therefore refuse your invention.

The second is, that the ancient fathers acknowledge Melchizedek to have sacrificed in bread and wine, and so to have foreshowed Christ's sacrificing in like manner. To this an easy answer may serve. First, that whatsoever the fathers teach without warrant of God's word, must be judged no better then stubble and straw, which hath no use in the building up of gods spiritual Temple, but serveth only to be burnt. Secondly, that the fathers, not one of them all, apply this of Melchizedek, to the Popish mass, which was not hatched in the days of the ancient fathers, but is a latter birde of Antichrists brood. Thirdly, that none of the ancient fathers do prove by this any real sacrifice of the Church, wherein Christ is to be offered continually, as the Papists do most wickedly and horriblie maintain. Lastly the fathers only meant to commend the excellency of the Lord's supper, which Christ instituted in bread and wine, by this fact of Melchizedek, that brought forth bread and wine, as it were in these signs shadowing and figuring Christ unto us, who long after appointed the same to be sacraments of his body and blood. This was the cause why they so often allege this example of Melchizedek, as you may perceive by Cyprian, who saith. In sacerdote Melchizedek sacrifice, Dominici sacramentum praefiguratum videmus: that is, In Melchizedek the Priest we see the sacrament of the Lord's sacrifice prefigured. Thus Cyprian writeth in the same epistle, that you allege here, by whose words you may learn to what purpose the fathers applied that of Melchizedek, far otherwise then you do. And in that Cyprian calleth bread and wine his body and blood, therein is no difficulty, meaning sacraments of his body and blood. As for the new oblation that Irenaeus speaketh of, it is the prayers and alms of the faithful, which they offer unto God in the celebration of the Lord's supper: which is so far from your sacrifice, that you may as soon make the north and south pole meet together, as this testimony of Irenaeus with your idol of the Mass.

In that you bear your reader in hand, I have dissented from Calvin, and the Protestants, that argueth a weakness of your brain, which causeth you to utter such idle talk. All Protestants, not only I, confess that Melchizedek was a Priest, & that he offered sacrifice: doth it follow therefore M. R. that the sacrifice was in bread & wine, as you pretend? whom then do I forsake? with whom do I join? what fantasie is this that troubleth your head so much?

In this taking you begin to throw out arguments, which must needs be full simply and miserably made. Howbeit sooner may you devise many formal syllogisms for your facrifice, then make one sound reason in divinity for confirmation thereof. Thus you have framed your argument with your own hands: That Christ did, and appointed to be done, that may & ought to be done: But Christ at his last supper offered sacrifice according to the order of Melchizedek, and appointed the Apostles and priests to do the same: Ergo the Apostles & priests may, & ought to offer sacrifice. This syllogism seemeth to be terriblye compounded, and to prove invincibly the sacrifice of the Mass: doutlesse Master Rainolds is persuaded he shall herewith fray us all away. But be not dismayed (good Reader) the light driveth darkness before it, and truth cannot be vanquished with an army of false arguments, be they never so cunningly framed, much less with such slender sophisms as these. Your Assumption hath two partes, & they both are false: whereof the conclusion following cannot be hable to look the truth in the face. For where you say I have acknowledged the former part, I acknowledge no such thing, nor ever did. Christ at his last supper offered no sacrifice according to the order of Melchizedek: Christ appointed not the Apostles, nor any else, to offer the same. Neither of these parts shall you prove whilst you live, though you live the last on the earth. For what sacrifice offered Christ at his supper? and what was the effect thereof? was this a sacrifice according to the order of Melchizedek? then was it not the same he offered on the Cross: for that was not of Melchizedek's order, being not in bread and wine, as you will have it, but the very body of Jesus Christ. But your Church maintaineth that the sacrifice which Christ offered at his supper, was the same that he offered on the Cross. Thus handsomelie your dreams hang together.

Again if Christ at his supper offered such a sacrifice, as was prefigured by Melchizedek which you affirm, then must it follow that Christ fulfilled that figure perfectly, and so the same sacrifice nead no more to be offered: whereof ensueth the desolation of your masmōgers, whose occupation only and wholly standeth in renewing the sacrifice of the mass. Then would I demand what virtue and effect that sacrifice had, which you teach to have been offered by Christ at his supper? Did Christ thereby fully appease the wrath of his father? Did he fully redeem mankind? Or did he these things, but yet so slenderly & insufficiently, that there needed another sacrifice after, namely his own death upon the Cross? Answer plainly as becometh a divine, yea a Christian, yea a reasonable man.

And because you framed an argument for me, as you say, I will do as much for you, and thus I frame you another. If Christ offered are all external sacrifice of him self at his supper in bread & wine, then did Christ fully redeem mankind by a sacrifice made in bread and wine: But Christ redeemed not the world, by a sacrifice made in bread & wine, but by the sacrifice of his own body upon the cross: Ergo Christ offered no such sacrifice, in bread and wine at his supper. The partes are plain, & need no further proof. And where you say, that seeing Christ was prefigured by Aaron & Melchizedek, therefore he offered a sacrifice both in bloody manner, as Aaron did, and in unbloody, as did Melchizedek, I see you labor to put life into the dead carcase of your argument, but all in vain. For it cannot be shown either by scriptures, or else by any ancient fathers of the Church, that Christ offered any real sacrifice, but only in bloody manner. Wherefore the Apostle so often repeateth the word (Once) excluding thereby all other manners of offering this sacrifice, but one. By one oblation (saith the Apostle) hath he made perfect forever those that are sanctified. Tell us what manner of oblation that was, bloody, or unbloody? bloody, I trust, you will confess: and therefore no unbloody was necessary, which neither could have holpen, seeing without shedding of blood there is not any remission of sins. Whereby also may appear that though the sacrifice of the mass be gainful to such Popish Priests, as M. R. & his companions are, yet in truth being unbloody, it is utterly unfit, and vnhable to purchase remission of sins. Such merchandise is lightly to be valued, as it deserveth.

But to answer a little further, concerning Melchizedek, the similitude between him and Christ consisteth not in offering unbloody sacrifice, as you untruly and wickedly imagine, but as the Apostle teacheth, in that Melchizedek, was both a king, and a priest, and is set forth unto us in the scripture as eternal, and more excellent then Abraham, and the Levitical priests. In these respects was he a figure of Christ the eternal king and priest, far excelling all the priests of the Levitical order. Because these things make nothing for your sacrifice, you devise a matter that was not, to prove a thing that is not, and so build one lie upon another, the unbloody sacrifice of Christ upon the unbloody sacrifice of Melchizedek. But this is the just judgment of the Lord upon you, that seeing you have trodden under your feet, the blood of the everlasting Testament, you should be givē over to effectual illusions, to embrace an unbloody sacrifice, which is the devise of your own brain, for the true & glorious sacrifice of Christ vpō the cross.

This former argument of M.R. hath begotten another like to it self, or rather more monstrous. Thus it standeth; They who may & ought to offer sacrifice, as did first Melch. & afterward Christ, are truly & properly sacerdotes: But priests of the New Testament may & ought to offer sacrifice in such sort: ergo they are truly & properly sacerdotes, priests. The Minor is the same with the conclusiō of your other argument, as evidently false, as the word of god is clearly & vndoutedlie true. For if your priests offer sacrifice, as Melchizedek and Christ did, then are they priests of Melch. order, & not priests only but kings. For so was he the figure, & so is Christ the truth. You cannot pul in sunder these two offices, but if you will needs be priests, & that properly, according to this order of Melchis. then seeing that order of priesthood hath a kingdom inseparablie annexed to it, it must necessarily follow, that you are also kings, and that properly, which were a very proper thing indeed, and greatly to be accounted of. If you devide these offices in sunder, it is blasphemy; making a Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, whoeis not also a king: If you take both iointlie to yourselves, then will every hedge Priest be a gentleman, a lord, a King. As this is most absurd, & monstrous, so is that also, that you should be priests according to Melchizedek's order. For then further ought you to be eternal, without beginning or ending of days, without father or mother, as Melchizedek is described unto us in the scriptures, and as Christ is in truth, and only Christ. So taking upon you this priesthood of Melchizedek, you commit horrible sacrilege, and treason against the person of Christ our savior, who will in time tread such vermin under his feet, that creeping on the earth do presumptuously challenge to themselves his special perogatives and royalties.

S. Augustine calling the ministers of the Gospel Priests, speaketh improperlie, as hath been answered. For although he saith, that all Christians are improperly called Priests, and others in the Church are so called properly, yet he meaneth not that there are any such priests in the Church, as Melchizedek, or Aaron, or Christ was: but only that they are so termed by an usual, and peculiar name, which is not in custom of speech given generally to all Christians. This to have been S. Augustine's meaning, and the judgment of the Church heretofore, we may learn of Peter Lombard, to let the ancient writers pass. For Peter first asketh this question, whether that which the Priest doth, may properly be called a sacrifice & oblation. His answer he maketh thus, To this may be said briefly, that which is offered, and consecrated of the Priest, is called a sacrifice, and oblation, because it is the remembrance, and representation of the true sacrifice, and holy oblation that was made upon the altar of the cross. If then there remain in the Church no sacrifice in proper and natural sense of the word, as your own doctor, and Master of sentences confesseth, there cannot be remaining any Priests, that may so be called properly. For such as the kind of sacrifice is, such is also the kind of priesthood: if the sacrifice be not a sacrifice properly, the priesthood cannot be a Priesthood properly, but only by a figurative and improper manner of speech.

That Augustine was a priest him-self, you labor to prove out of his book of Confessions: in which place though he speak of an altar and sacrifice, yet he meaneth not such altares and sacrifices, as you have erected and offered in all places. This sacrifice that he speaketh of, is the sacrament of Christ's death, the altar is the Lord's table, the remembrance of his mother in offering this sacrifice on the altar, is giving of thanks to God for her in celebrating the Lord's supper. Although I deny not, but the superstition of praying for the dead was then crept into the Church: so that if you will needs urge that Monica desired to have prayers made for her, I will not greatly stand with you herein. But that any real sacrifice of Christ, as you mean, was offered for quick or dead in those days, that I deny, and you cannot prove it by this, or an • other testimony of S. Augustine.

Where I say, that Christ hath committed his Church to be ruled by Pastors and Doctors forever, and not to Priests, you demand whether this appointment had effect or no & give me warning to beware (as though some danger were at hand) what I answer. But we shall easily, I trust drive away this craking Annibal from the gates of our City, who cometh only to make a show, and hath no force to hurt. That Christ ordained Pastors and Doctors to rule his Church, the scripture is plain, so that you may not forshame deny it: now if these were priests truly and properly, then should they have been so called, and by this name commended unto us in the scriptures. But whereas their office is declared diuerslie in great variety of names, y • t is this name never once given unto them in no Gospel, in no epistle, in no book of the new testament. And may we think that if the ministers of Christ in the New Testament were by God's institution very Priests, as these men bear us in hand, and had commission to offer so excellent a sacrifice, as no Priest ever the like, save Christ himself, may we think, I say, or is it likely that this name should never have been found in all the New Testament in this sense, where are so manifold titles given unto them, as of Elders, Overseers, Rulers, Shepherds, Watchmen, Ministers, Stewards, Servants, and such like? Of all which names none pleaseth their humor: but Priests they will be called & accounted, as though God's spirit which appointeth offices in the Church, could not have given fit names unto them, but would rather give them any name, then that which is their proper name. Anie man then, that hath but half an eye, may soon see, that the holy ghost in avoiding this name so carefully, hath given our Popish Priests a clean wipe, and both left them out of the door, and shut the door against them: & though they strive never so much to creep in, yet are they to be driven away by lawful authority, and kept forth, as they that have nothing at all to do in God's house.

But here M. Rainolds hath gotten a doughtie argument, which I think because he knew not how to bring it in fitly in some other place, hath halde it in here out of place. He bids me show where this Church for many hundred years was gogouerned thus, which is as common an argument with them, to use his own words, as Dunstable hiewaie. For this reason is even their common pack-horse to bear the wholl burden, when all other fail, where was your Church, where were your ministers before Luther? Whereunto, that you may perceive how far we disagree from the Donatists, of whom you speak, I answer, that our Church was never so straited, but that it might be found in all countries christened, and our ministers had the chiefest rooms, till Antichrist by little and little had driven them out: and then afterwards the Lord continually raised up, and provided for his Church, such pastors and doctors, as were necessary for the gathering of the saints together. Further answer in this place is not needful.

As for Augustine the monk, and Laurentius, and the rest, whom you call the first Apostles, and conuerters of our nation, I neither acknowledge them for Apostles, nor Priests: yea sure I am, if they were true Apostles, then were they no Priests, and if they were Priests, their Apostleship was of a wrong stamp. And though Beda so call them, yet it followeth not that they were popish priests, seeing he used but the phrase of common speech, by which the preachers and Ministers of the word and sacraments were so called: in which respect myself also called S. Jerome a priest of the Roman Church. But this though an usual, yet is it an improper kind of speech.

What wanteth in reasoning, you supply in railing. John Bale you call a sink of iniquity: Calvin, you say, is more execrable then the rest: of such flowers Master Rainolds garden (good reader) hath abundance, as lightly thou shalt find anywhere. Those servants of Christ, of whom you speak your pleasure, have noted the fathers for their declining from the purity of the gospel, & that may they in some things worthily do, even as Paul did Peter. And touching this matter we have in hand, there were amongst them some superstitious offerings, which even the papists themselves have abandoned: but that the fathers were priests in our meaning, or thought they had any real sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, you have not shown, nor can. The fathers deny that any such sacrifice remaineth. Tertullian saith, we sacrifice, for the safety of the Emperor: but to our God, and his: but as God hath commanded with pure prayer. Tertullian knoweth not of any external sacrifice among the Christians: for then would they have offered that also for the Emperor. And Justinus Martyr before him, saith, that Christians have learned to offer the sacrifice of supplications, and thanksgiving only. Which he would not have said, if Christians had learned to offer the sacrifice of the mass. S. Chrysost. saith, If Christ be perfect, never sinneth, always liveth, why should he offer for us many sacrifices? And again, There is no other sacrifice: one hath purged us. After that remaineth fire and hell. S August. saith, Christ only is our priest, our sacrifice, our Temple. I omit many moe: by these testimonies the Godly reader may understand, that in the primitive Church was no such sacrifice, nor priesthood, as the Popish is pretended to be. And therefore I see no cause, why I should be afraid to stand in maintenance of M. Jewel that godly and learned Bishops challenge in this behalf, which hath not hitherto, nor cannot be disproved. And though you, as also many of your fellows are still pinching at it, yet you are all content to let it rest, as Doctor Harding left it, which was full greatly to your discredit. And as for the Doctors that Calvin alledgeth, although they force the scriptures, as he saith, manifestly to a wrong purpose, in applying Melchizedek's example to the matter of the sacrament, yet none of them proveth that sacrifice, that Master Jewel denieth, and therefore you do but idlelie and triflinglie spend your time, and trouble your reader with your follies. But you would, I dare say, better entertain him, if you had any better provision. Yet you might have seen that Calvin in that place censureth those fathers with these words by you alleged, for another place of scripture wrongly & strangely applied, not for defending the unbloody sacrifice as you affirm.

Then you come to lift at my argument, which I gathered out of the Apostle against your sacrificing Priests: but your strength faileth you much in this enterprise. The Apostle saith, that Christ hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, an everlasting Priesthoode. Here you rehearse diverse interpretations of the Greek word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the Apostle useth: although there are none but meanlie seen in that tongue, that need your help therein. For that properly is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that passeth not away from one to another. And herein the Apostle compareth our savior Christ with the Priests of Aaron's order, & showeth a manifest difference, that the Levitical Priesthood rested not in one man, but went from man to man, by reason of death, which suffered not one & the same Priest continually to enjoy his office: but Christ liveth forever, and therefore his Priesthood abideth with him only, and is not in execution enlarged to any other. And this reason of the Apostle debarreth as well the popish, as the Aaronical priests. For the Priests of the popish order are no more exempted from necessity of dying, then were those priests of Aaron's stock, so that they are no less opposed unto Christ, then the other.

Herein therefore lieth the force of the Apostles argument, that the Priesthood of the New Testament belongeth only unto him, that is immortal: for otherwise he had not put any necessary difference between that and the other: whereof it doth invincibly, and necessarielie ensue, that the only priest of the New Testament, is Jesus Christ. This Chrysostom concludeth out of the Apostles words moste plainly: As there were (saith he) many priests, because they were mortal so there is but one, because he is immortal. For can they answer for them selves, that though they die, yet Christ liveth, whose partners herein they reckon them selves to be? might not the Jewish priests likewise have said as much, seeing it cannot be denied, but their priesthood also was referred unto Christ? But as those Priests together with their Priesthood expired, when our savior Christ, the true Priest and sacrifice, was exhibited, so their was no place left for other Priests, nor other sacrifice, all figures being in Christ moste fully and perfectly accomplished. Yet as though Christ had been either a mortal priest like to Aaron, and his children, or his sacrifice had not at once satisfied the wrath of God, they substitute to Christ an infinite multitude of priests, far moe then were ever the Levitical priests, & take upon them blasphemously to offer again daily the same sacrifice that Christ once offered, which is impossible for any to offer, but only the son of God himself. O that Christian people would consider the horrible dongeon of iniquity, that lieth hid under the abhominable sacrifice of the popish mass, then which the sun did never behold a thing more loathsome and detestable in the eyes of the God of heaven.

This therefore is a sure reason, and shall stand against the gates of hell, and force of all papists, that Christ is a Priest forever, and hath an everlasting Priesthood. Therefore he is the only Priest of the New Testament, and his Priesthood is not communicated to any other: and so your priests are no priests, your sacrifice is no sacrifice, your Religion is no Religion, your Christ is no Christ, your God is no God. Depart from them whosoever will not be partakers of their condemnation.

To show this reason to be childish, you have brought indeed a childish exception. Christ is (you say) a true man forever, a king forever, our doctor, master, and teacher forever: yet are there many men, kings, doctors, & teachers, besides Christ. This man is suddenlie so drowned in the dregs of popery, that he hath lost all taste and sense of truth: for else he would have been ashamed of such an answer, which nothing cometh near the matter. We speak of those offices, which Christ was appointed to bear by the annointing of the holy ghost, and special commission from God: you bring instance of things that be of another condition and nature, as to be a true man, an earthly King, an outward minister of the word, & such like. Christ is our only king, Prophet, and Priest: so that in this sense, in which these are given to him, none can be King, Prophet, or Priest, but he. For he only is our spiritual King, he only is our teacher, and author of all heavenly doctrine, he only can offer the sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the world. If you think any can be a King or Prophet in this manner, but only he, you take his honor from him, and give it to another, to whom it doth not appertain: which you do indeed most notably in sesing yourselves upon his Priesthood, which doth as truly belong to him alone, as the other of his Kingdom and Prophecy do. Now then weigh with yourself, what a witles objection you have made: and if you can bring no better defense for your Priests, then your have hitherto done, you have good cause to be sorry, and ashamed that ever you changed your copy, and of a minister of the Gospel, became a priest of the popish order. God give you grace to repent, that the fruit of Christ's priesthood may not be denied unto you another day.

That which followeth, is but a supply of superfluous words, without wit, without learning, without truth. The comparison you make between an earthly prince and Christ, doth nothing fit your purpose. For if you have as lawful authority under Christ to exercise a priesthood, as the civil governors have under their prince to execute their office laid upon them, then show your commission, and we require no more. For as no man dare presume in the affairs of the state to command or enterprise anything in the princes name without a sufficient warrant from the prince: so may no man take upon him any ecclesiastical function in the Church, vlnes he have a commandment from the Lord. But Christ never gave you any such commandment, he never laid upon you any such office, he never called you to this honor, to be his fellow priests: else bring us your Charter, that we may se it, and show us your letters of orders, that we may try them. And further you are to consider that although the prince bestow offices & preferments upon his subjects, as pleaseth him, yet his Regalities he keepeth to himself, and no subject will presume to challenge them. Pharaoh gave Joseph as great authority, as any princes use to give any of their servants: yet the chair of estate he kept to himself, & therein he was above him. But you moste rudelie and arrogantlie intrude yourselves into Christ's seat, and will not only be his vicepriests, but as good priests as he, joined in the same commission with him, according to the same order of Melchizedek, that he was of: & so you are not content with such offices as he hath appointed unto you, but you claim his chiefest principalities, which is no less a fault, then high treason against the highest majesty.

M. Rain. maketh an end of this treatise with another foolish cavil taken out of the communion book, wherein, he saith, commission is given in some cases, to the minister, to remitt sins. why say you, in some cases? The Minister of God hath power to forgive sins, not in some cases only, but in all whatsoever, if the sinner repent & believe the gospel. This authority is given unto him by Christ, this the parliament, & communion book confess, this the ministers daily practice amongst us. Neuertheles you are still as far from your purpose, as before. For this maketh not our ministers to be priests, but preachers of repentance, which bring the glad tidings of the gospel, to all those that be heavy laden, and desire to be refreshed. Neither have they power themselves to forgive sins, (for God only forgiveth sins ) but having the word of reconciliation committed unto them from God, they offer pardon, and in his name pronounce pardon to the sinner, that turneth from his sins unto the Lord. If you know this, why strive you against a known & confessed truth? If you be ignorant what commission the ministers have received of Christ, then be content to learn it out of the word of god. As for your priests you have alleged nothing, to prove their calling and authority lawful, and I have shown that the scriptures giving all priesthood, after Melchis. order, to Christ only, have wrung in sunder the necks of your popish sacrificers, and therefore it is the duty of all Christians whose salvation consisteth in the sacrifice & priesthood of Christ, to think of you, as you are indeed, enemies of Christ, Baalites, idolatrous Antichristian Priests whose punishment shall be with the Beast in the lake that burneth with fire & brimstone forever. The Lord open the eyes of his people, that they may see your wickedness, and beware of you, least they be in wrapped in the same condemnation with you.

CHAP. 5.

IN the beginning of this Chapter M. Rainolds chafeth and layeth about him on every side, striking now at one man, now at another, sometime this way, sometime that, as though he were suddenly fallen into some malady, & great distemperature in his head. The occasion riseth upon my words, in saying our adversaries doctrine cannot stand, unless we will alow for good those things that in the writings of the fathers are moste faulty. And who knoweth not, if he have read anything in the fathers, but that the popish religion for the moste part is even a very scomme of ancient & new errors, or as it were a body consisting of rottenness and corruption? Their free will, their merit of works, their purgatory, their sacrifice for quick and dead, their transubstantiation, their Popes Supremacy, their superstitious fasts, their worshipping of Images, their praying unto Saints, their praying for the dead, their satisfaction, forgiveness by works of penance, whereof Master Rainolds hath now taken in hand to speak, and other many moe the like points of false doctrine they can as soon prove out of the scripiures, as they can draw a fountain of water out of a flinte. And therefore although for a fashion, in defense of some of these, they pretend scriptures, yet being easily beaten from them, they fall at last to rail on them as not containing sufficient doctrine, and rather will be tried and judged by the writings of fathers: at whose hands albeit they find not such relief as they would make men believe, in no one controversy between us & them, as hath been oftentimes plainly proved, notwithstanding by reason of the fathers manifold ouersightes and slips, & the corruptions that daily increased in the Church, they may bring somewhat, such as it is, for their maintenance. wherefore that we will not admit the fathers for judges in matters of Religion, but hold them hard to the trial of the Scriptures, which they cannot abide, this doth put them out of patience, & driveth them into vehement passions. But let them mend themselves where they can: they shall never get at our hands more then this, to receive that which the scripture delivereth, to reject that which the scripture reproveth: to read the fathers with indifferent and free judgment, waying all their doctrine in the balance of gods word, and thereby either alowing, or refusing the same. This we must do, or else of fathers we make God's, of men's writings we make canonical scriptures, of doctors opinions we make articles of faith. And herein we do no otherwise, then we are taught both by scriptures, and fathers to do, as hath been shown a thousand times, This shall be your answer, & more you are not to look for of me, neither in this question of penance, nor in any other: and though it be your grief to have your nose held to this grindstone, yet shall the truth thus be cleared from your mists, & God shall have the glory.

Where I have said, that repentance consisteth in inward sorrow for our sins, and amendment of life, not in outward penalties, and chastisments of our bodies, M. Rainolds granteth the former part, but denieth the latter. Join them both together (saith he) the • greatly please God. Though he labor with all his force to smother the truth, and keep it from shining forth, yet is he constrained to confess that no external chastisement of the body, or rigorous manner of discipline, whatsoever we can submit our selves unto, profiteth anything, without the inward grief of mind conceived for our sins. Wherein as he hath given a right sentence agreeably to gods word, so hath he marked with a black cole the superstition of the Romish sectaries, whose whole repentance is nothing else, but a voluntary affliction of their bodies, by abstaining frō meats, by whipping their carcases, by putting on rough apparel, by lying hard, and such other outward exercises, of which the Apostle generally pronounceth, they profit but a little. Then he must confess, that Repentance standeth not in outward penance, as they term it, but in the inward sorrow of the soul. For this alone pleaseth God, & turneth away his wrath from us although we do not join therewith external penance: but external penance is nothing worth, unless we have an inward sorrow. Seeing then true repentance may stand without that painful, and extreme punishing of the body, I conclude by necessary consequence of reason, that it is not any parte of true repentance, although sometime it hath a profitable use, for the furthering and practicing of repentance. If you grant this, as you must, then we shall agree in this matter. For I deny not, but some outward penalties may be used, and do please God, not of them selves, but because they help as means in true repentance. As for example, he that offendeth in eating or drinking too much, must not think tha he hath sufficiently repented of his sin, if he punish him self by fasting never so much, unless he be also inwardly sorrowful for the same, and purpose ever after to live soberlie: which affection if it be wanting, though a man fast all his life long, yet he hath not truly repented. But the godly Christian, who hath perhaps oftended in surfeiting, or drunkenness, and is truly sorrowful therefore, hath repented, though he fast not every Fridaie from morning to night, but useth a sober and moderate diet every day. Neuertheles if he prescribe unto himself, without superstition of satisfaction or merit, some abstinence for a time, that thereby he may be further estranged from that vice, who will deny but this is well and Christianlike done? And this was commanded by God in public and private fasts, and practiced by the godly, as we read in the scriptures. Thus may you see what an idle head you have, that allege so many testimonies of scripture, to prove a thing, which no man ever hath denied. I perceive your leisure is great, but you should have more discretion to use it well. In a plain case, wherein we need not your help, you bring plenty of scriptures: in a matter of controversy and debate, which beggeth relief at your hands, you pass by, as though you heard not: which yet I impute not to want of compassion, but of ability. We dispute not whether the children of God have used, and ought to use sometimes outward punishing and afflicting of their bodies (for this we do willingly confess) but whether this outward affliction be a proper part of repentance, and whether it satisfieth for sins. The first is an error, the second is an heresy, or rather blasphemy. These things you should have proved, for these we deny: the other being not denied, required no proof.

The Apostles place was rightly alleged, & you cannot tell how to shift it from you. He condemneth the superstition of such, as put holiness in outward things, and namely in punishing of the body, which Ambrose calleth vexing of the body: Oecumenius, not regarding the body. whether this belong to you, let all the world judge, seeing you make it a part of repentance, and think to deserve thereby a great recompense at the hands of almighty God. But because you perceive the edge of this scripture to be sharper then you would, you seek to blunt it some what, and therefore say, it is obscure: whereas nothing could be spoken more plainly, if the light of your understanding were not dammed up.

The reason, which I brought against the works of satisfaction, is grounded upon the rock, that never can be shaken, even the word of god, that abideth forever. For as the redemption of mankind is to be ascribed only to the sacrifice of Christ's death, and cannot without singular blasphemy be assigned to any other thing: so likewise is the satisfaction for sin appropriated to the same sacrifice of Christ, & cannot without like blasphemy be given to any works of man, how excellent soever. You make it a small matter to satisfy for sin, that teach it is in the power of man, by his own pains and penance, to appease the wrath of God, whereby it plainly appeareth, you neither know the grievousness of sin, nor the justice of god, that requireth a greater punishment for sin, then any man is able to suffer: yea you charge the Lord himself with injustice, in that having laid the guiltiness of our sins upon his son, and punished them all in him, is not content with that punishment & satisfaction, but exacteth of us a further payment and satisfaction for the sins, for which Christ hath once sufficiently satisfied already. The prophet saith: He is punished for our transgressions, he is bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace is laid upon him, & by his stripes are we healed. And immediately again he repeateth the same, and saith, The Lord maketh the punishment of us all to light upon him. The Apostle John saith: The blood of Jesus Christ doth purge you from all s •• ne. And in his revelation he saith: that Christ hath washed us from our sins in his blood. Thus are we taught in the scriptures of God to believe, that our sins are forgiven, and we reconciled to God, not for anything that we can work or suffer, but only for the death & blood-sheading of Christ. So all your satisfactions are hanged upon the hedge, and serve for nothing else, but to plunge you deeper into the pit of condemnation, which you shall never escape, so long as you trust to any satisfaction, but only of Christ.

As for your Tridentine council, which you allege, it is but a bable. A child may soon espy the vanity and falsehood of this divinity, that you deliver us here, by warrant of that Council. This it is, The satisfaction which we undertake for our sins, is ours, but yet by Christ Jesus: which in effect is all one, as if they had said that Christ him self hath not satisfied for our sins at all, but only hath purchased to us a faculty and ability every man to satisie for his own sins. This is the mystery of your satisfactions, a mystery of great impiety. For the scriptures teach the clean contrary. S. Peter saith, that Christ hath borne our sins in his body upon the cross. And how hath he borne them, if he hath not satisfied for them? did he take them upon himself to return them back to us again? or did he not perhaps fully satisfy for them? Tell us then how far Christ hath satisfied, and how much remaineth for us to satisfy, that we may know how to devide aright the satisfaction between Christ and us. But accursed forever be they, that deny the satisfaction of Christ to be most perfect, and will supply it by their own diligence and labor. Christ hath perfectly redeemed us, therefore Christ hath perfectly satisfied for us. For this redemption consisteth in fully satisfying the warth of God against sin. Neither is it possible for any to satisfy for sin, but a redeemer only. For this cause was the name of Jesus given to our Redeemer, because he saveth us from our sins. And how is this salvation wrought? In that he became man for us: that is, our sins were imputed to him, and he made a sacrifice for them: and by this one oblation hath consecrated forever those that are sanctified. Then is there left to us no parte of satisfaction, but whensoever we repent of our sins, and believe in the satisfaction of Jesus Christ, we are clerelie acquitted of all our offenses, for the merit of that perfect sacrifice, which Christ offered for us. If you deny this, think of yourself as you list, you have no more parte in Jesus Christ, then hath an Infidel.

That you rehearse out of Brenz, and Andreas Fricius, is idle, and serveth only for stuffing. Brenz saith truly, we must not only take away nothing from Christ that belongeth unto him, but not give him more, then the scriptures have taught to be due unto him. For he is injured and dishonored both ways: nevertheless this, that you will seem to give him more then we, is by no means to be accepted, for so much as it taketh from him a thousand times more, then it can pretend to bestow upon him. For in ascribing that virtue to the sacrifice of Christ, to make our works of force to satisfy for our selves, you pull away from it violentlie that full and perfect power of satisfying once for all of it self, which doth truly and properly belong unto it? so herein you may well be compared to those wicked Jews that made cursie to our Savior Christ, and yet did buffet him on the face with their fists. Andreas Fricius if he have any private opinion of his own, let him take it to him self: he may not obtrude it upon the Church, without warrant of God's word. And yet out of his words by you rehearsed, what can you gather, serving for proof of man's merits or satisfactions?

What your opinion and judgment is, M. Rainolds, of my learning and writings, I trust you think I make no great account. Verilie among the wholl rabble of popish proctors, there is none, that I have read, of less wit and learning, then yourself. What account your fellows make of you I cannot report, but if they esteem you for one of their worthies, you are more beholding to them, then you have deserved of them. For alas what have you brought, th • in truth is worthy answer? what have you said, wherein appeareth any learning more then moste common? what cause have you thus to brag in yourself, thus to contemn others? God give you grace to see, to know, to examine yourself, that you may perceive your own weakness and poverty. If I should boast of myself, mine own tongue would condemn me: this childish & profane manner I leave to you, and your companions, who hunt so greedelie for the praise of learning, that you despise the simplicity of God's truth and Gospel. Yet there is none of us, how unlearned soever you think we are, but by the grace of God and light of his word, can easily discover the falsehood, and corruptions of your Religion. Let us now consider upon what points you were bold to utter so fondlie your judgment of me, and thereby make trial of that profound learning, which you take to yourself without cause, as shall here, and everywhere appear.

First you charge me, that I understand not M. Martins meaning: which though it were true, yet were it (I trust) a venial offense. But I perceived his meaning well enough & framed mine answer directly to the same. The question was: whether to attribute to our sufferings the virtue of satisfying for our sins, be not injurious to the passion & satisfaction of Christ, I said it was, and so I say still. Master Martin allegeth against me the words of the Apostle Saint Paul's, who saith, we shall be heirs with God, and follow heirs with Christ, if we suffer with him, that we may be glorified with him. Mine answer was, that our sufferings are required, not as causes of our salvation, and eternal glory, yet to be borne of necessity, unless we will fall away from his grace and glory. Wherein now have I swerved from M. Martins purpose? His argument was you say, to prove, that good works are not injurious to salvation, because the scripture requireth them as necessary to salvation. But why tell you not, how M. Martin meant they are required as necessary? then had you disclosed your own folly. For we grant they are necessarily required in that sense, that the Apostle teacheth, and are not in that respect any ways injurious, or derogatory to the sacrifice of Christ. But this proveth not that they satisfy for our sins: for then should they be efficient causes of our salvation, as you would have them to be thought, and then should they derogate greatly from the merits of Christ. Were you so astonied, that you could not make mine answer agree to M. Martins argument? or had you a pleasure thus to cavil?

Secondly you say, I understand not S. Paul alleged by M. Martin, yourself setting down such an exposition of his words, as both is contrary to his wholl doctrine, & disproved by the very words themselves. For where you say, this place of the Apostle proveth invincibly, that works are the efficient causes of our salvation, it shall easily appear, that herein you do not only misconstrue the Apostle, but utter blasphemy against the blood of Christ: such a notable expositor are you become of the holy scriptures. S. Paul saith, we are joint heirs with Christ, if so be we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified with him. Doth this prove our works or sufferings to be causes efficient of our salvation? By what divinity? by what Logic? by what sophistry? wherein lieth the invincible necessity of this consequence? doth not the Apostle himself conclude the contrary in the words immediately following, when he saith, I account that the sufferings of this present time, are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed unto us? If then there be not any proportion at all between our sufferings and eternal glory, as the Apostle plainly affirmeth, how can our sufferings be causes efficient of that moste excellent glory & salvation, which Christ hath purchased for us? doth he not cal it our inheritance, when he saith, we are the heirs of god, & fellow heirs with Christ? then doth it follow most invincibly, that it is not obtained by our works, but doth belong unto us by the right of our adoption, whereby we are made the sons of God. Neuertheles as the father requireth obedience of his son to whom he leaveth his inheritance, so the Lord most justly may exact of his children to whom he hath prepared a kingdom, all duties of service and obedience. And as the obedience of the child is not the cause efficient of the earthly inheritance, no more are the works of godliness, wherein the faithful are occupied, causes efficient of immortality and salvation. When the earthly father saith to his natural son and heir, thou shalt inherit my lands, and goods, if so be thou wilt obeie my will, can your wisdom hereof gather an invincible argument, that this obedience in the heir, is the proper and efficient cause of that inheritance? so when the Lord speaketh to his children in like manner, I will give unto you eternal life, if you can be content patiently to wait for the time of your full deliverance, and to suffer afflictions in this life, as it is necessary for you to do, who but a blind papist will argue hereof, that these afflictions endured in the mean time are causes of eternal life, which is the free gift and grace of God? and yet is this M. Rainolds invincible argument, or rather invincible sollie and ignorance.

Now where he maketh a comparison between Christ's sufferings & ours, and because Christ's sufferings merit eternal life, reasoneth that ours therefore do the same, he deserveth that all the boies in the school should clap their hands against him, as not only disputing moste absurdlie, but dishonoring our savior Christ intollerablie. Will you match yourselves with Christ, your works and your sufferings with his? you make a very unequal & moste unreasonable comparison. For is there in you that perfection of virtue and excellency of grace that was in Christ, whereby he fully satisfied the law of God, and therefore deserved worthily the Kingdom of heaven? All our righteousness is imperfect, all our obedience is full of infirmity, whatsoever we can do or suffer, is stained with some pollution of sin, and therefore of due can merit nothing at the hands of God, much less the Kingdom of heaven and life everlasting. Thus your sum was not rightly gathered, as you may see.

Thirdly M. Rainolds saith, I understand not S. Paul, alleged by myself, that eternal life is the gift of god. Whereupon I gather that seeing it is the free gift of God, our works are not the causes thereof. For if our works were causes efficient of eternal life, the Apostle would not say that eternal life is given freely unto us by God, seeing to give freely, and to give upon desert, cannot be verified of one thing. But eternal life is a free gift, as the Apostle doth affirm expressly, and therefore is not purchased by merit of our good works: where is to be noted the opposition between eternal death and life, touching the cause of either, which the Apostle doth so plainly propound unto us. The proper working cause of death is sin: so the Apostle saith, The wages of sin is death: so that no man's labor is more truly the cause of his reward, then sin is the cause of death and condemnation. Why did not S. Paul on the other side say likewise: the wages of good works is eternal life? Nay why said he the clean contrary, that eternal life is the free gift of God? Can you tell us any cause, but onelly to exclude from our works all merit of eternal life? And where the Apostle admonisheth us, to finish our salvation in fear and trembling: his meaning is nothing less then to ascribe the finishing of our salvation to good works, as though the Lord began, and left the rest for us to finish: but to teach, that we must run our race in careful obedience to God's commandments, until we come to the end of our course, & receive our reward. Nether may you bear us in hand here, because the kingdom of god is called in the scriptures a reward of our well-doing, therefore it dependeth upon the worthiness and merit of our good deeds. For it is a free reward of only grace, not of desert or merit: as the father rewardeth his son of love and favor, not of debt, seeing he oweth him nothing at all. This you have been answered a thousand times: & though you can say nothing to purpose against it, yet you will not submit your hearts to the truth of God, but seek occasions of wrangling without ende.

Fourthly you say, I understand not the state of the question, whereof I write: and then you make a long discourse of grace, and works, of mercy and justice, to prove that in the regenerate there is not any contrariety between these, but that they may stand well together. A man would think yourself were not altogether ignorant of the matter whereof you speak, taking upon you to reform the judgment of another: yet have you herein bewrayed more want of skill, then I would have thought had been in you, unless perhaps you dissemble your knowledge, which I do not easily believe. For although grace is not contrary to works, because the cause cannot be contrary to the thing, whereof it is the cause, yet who seeth not that grace may have another effect besides good works, where of it self, alone is the cause, and must not in that respect be joined with good works, but discerned, and distinguished from them? By grace in this controversy I understand, not those graces of God's spirit, which are infused into us, when we are regenerate, as our adversaries do, making grace and works all one, but the love and mercy of God, as the scriptures have taught us to take the same: as when the faithful servants of God are said to have found grace in the eyes of the Lord: and when the Apostle writeth, that grace was given unto us in Jesus Christ before all worlds. And so likewise in this question must it be taken, when we are said to be elected, called, justified, & saved by grace, that is, by the love of God, where with he embraced us freely, unless you will say we had grace and good works inherent in us before we were create • , yea before the world it self was framed. From this grace proceed both good works and our salvation, yet so as salvation is to be imputed, not to our works, but only to grace, and although these two are not contrary the one to the other, yet in the matter of saluatiō there is not the least cooperation between good works & grace, but works are wholly excluded from all society or fellowship in that business. So the Apostle hath plainly taught: If by grace, not of works. Again, If righteousness be by the law, then hath Christ died in vain: Again, If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to boast, but not with God. Again, the just shall live by his faith: but the law is not of faith. Again, f the inheritance were of the law, then were it not of promise. wherefore in effecting our justice and salvation, good works may not draw in the same yoke with grace, notwithstanding otherwise they agree well together. Thus have I briefly answered all your frivolous discourse, and shown that you objecting ignorance of the question to me, in truth never understood it rightly yourself.

The scriptures you bring for your purpose to prove that eternal life is of works, as well as of grace, are but wrested, and shamfullie abused by you. When S. Paul saith, that God shall render to every man according to his works, we confess, and always have, that God not only doth recompense the wickedness of the sinner with deserved punishment, but also rewardeth the virtues of the godly with life, and felicity everlasting. And when Christ shall sit on his judgment seat, every man shall be tried by his works, which in the wicked do deserve condemnation of themselves, and in the children of God are signs and fruits of their faith, whereby they have laid hold upon Jesus Christ their only Savior and justifier. But make your argument good, if you can, which you gather of these words, God shall render to cuerie man after his works, therefore good works are efficient causes of our salvation: or as you moste untruly and wickedly do set down, good works and evil are laid in indifferent balance, so that one is the cause of heaven, as the other is the cause of hell. This divinity M. Rainolds you never learned of Saint Paul, but have drawn it out of the stinking puddle of popery: and it smelleth so lothsomelie in the noses of the godly, that if your senses were not by custom of such filthy doctrine altogether stuffed, you could not abide the savor thereof. Do good works deserve heaven, as evil do hell? what Prophet or Apostle ever said so? sin is indeed the cause of death, and deserveth everlasting pain, because it is a transgression of God's law: but good works are not the cause of heaven, nor can deserve eternal life, because they do not perfectly answer the justice of God's law, which pronounceth them accursed, that abide not in all things written in the law, to do them. Are your good works so absolute, and entire in every respect, that being examined by the law of God, & laid in the balance of perfect justice, they are found in nothing too light? if you say so, you are past all shame, you forget yourselves, you know not God: if otherwise, how can you escape the curse, but only by forgiveness through Christ? And so it followeth that eternal life is not of works, but only of grace and mercy, whereby our sins are pardoned, and our iniquities covered, according to the doctrine of the prophets and Apostles. Thus your balance is proved to be false, and you shall one day see the difference, when you are laid in the balance yourself.

That God is called a just judge, not only in respect of the wicked, whom he punisheth, but also of the godly, whom he rewardeth, and that he will render in just judgment to every man according to his works, what can you gather hereof against the free grace of our justification & salvation? Is just reward, and free grace so great an enemy one to the other, that they cannot be coupled together? This detecteth your gross blindness, that think the undeserved mercy of God to be contrary to his justice, as though because he giveth eternal life, as a just judge, therefore doth not give it freely, but in respect of the worthiness of our work. When god elected us to be his children, before we had done good or evil, yea when he gave us the first justice, as you cal it, when we had committed many sins, and oftentimes offended him, was not this of only grace and mercy, without our worthiness and desert? you will not deny. Yet in this remained he just, unless you say that God is unjust in some of his dealings. Then is your argument in miserable case, whereof you make so great account, God doth give to his children eternal life of justice, therefore not of grace. God is just, in that he keepeth promise, and doth not deceive his of that reward, which they hope for: but the promise is free. For freely he promised, and freely he giveth. Yet in that he bound himself unto us by his free promise, it was just that he should perform the same, not for that we have justly, and worthily deserved any part of that reward, but because it is meet that God be always faithful in his words. And as for that you allege of Reward, & Rendering, you have been answered, that this reward and retribution is of the free mercy and grace of god: which answer you cannot disprove, and therefore whatsoever you have said, is to no purpose at all. Saint Augustine now must help you, or else you are gone. Yet saith he not in these testimonies, that works do fully and perfectly deserve the crown of immortality, as you say, and more too. The moste he saith, is, that the crown is due unto our good works: which in some sense is true. For it is that reward, which God hath prepared and promised to the work, not because the work is worthy thereof, but because it pleaseth him so gratiouslie and liberallie to bestow such excellent rewards upon us, that have deserved so little. This will I make plain to have been S. August. meaning by his own writings, and then also further declare, that this was the constant and catholic belief of Christ his Church, by the testimonies of other ancient Fathers. Thus writeth S. Aug. And that what the just Judge, when he shall sit on his throne, shall find secret, or not thoroughly purged, by his mercy may be forgiven, that by seeing God, the wholl may be made sound and clean. For judgment is without mercy, but to him which hath done no mercy. But mercy doth surmount judgment. Which if it were not so, what hope had we? for so much as when the just king shall sit on his throne, who shall glory that he hath a chaste heart, or who shall glory that he is clean from sin? Therefore then the just being fully and perfectly cleansed by his mercy, shall shine as the sin in the kingdom of his father. here S. Aug. plainly teacheth, that when we come before the tribunal seat of Christ to be judged, we had no hope to escape condemnation, but that we trust our sins shall be forgiven: whereof it followeth, that our good works cannot deserve, or by their merit procure unto us eternal life. For if we be justified and saved by pardon, we cannot any ways say truly, that justification & salvation cometh unto us by our deserts. In another place he writeth, That our justification is wrought by remission of all our sins. If our justification consist in the forgiveness of our sins, how can it be ascribed to the worthiness & perfection of our works? Again in another book he teacheth that Christ's justice is our justice: and so that we are justified not by our merits or righteousness, but by the justice of Christ imputed unto us. These are his words: How then saith he, of my faults? but because he prayeth for our faults, and hath made our faults his faults, that he might make his justice our justice, speaking of our savior Christ. And that you may know what merits Saint Augustine trusted unto, I will further set down one other place out of him. All my hope (saith he) is in the death of my Lord. His death is my merit, my refuge, salvation, life, and resurrection: my merit is the compassion of the Lord. I shall not be void of merit so long as the Lord of mercies shall not want. And while the mercies of the Lord are manifold, I am also manifold in merits. Thus S. Augustine standeth not upon his own merits, as proud Pharisees and papists do in the sight of God, but falleth down flat in confession of his guiltiness, and flieth only to the mercy of God in the merits of Christ. And this is our very Doctrine that we hold, and our hope of salvation that we have, for which we are by the Adversaries so much accused, and reviled.

Origen lived before S. Augustine two hundred years, and was for his learning and skill in the scriptures universally renowned, although he be not sound in every pointe of Christian faith. Let us 〈◊〉 what he hath delivered unto us concerning this question in hand, whether our works can merit the kingdom of heaven. These are his words: But when I consider the loftines of the words, in that the Apostle saith, to him that worketh, recompense is made according to debt, I scarselie believe, that there can be any work, that may of due demand the reward of God, for so much as even this same, that we can do, or think, or speak anything, we do it by his gift and bounty. Then how can he owe us anything, whose grace did preuente us? And therefore we must rather consider, least perhaps, that he said, To him that worketh, the reward shall be imputed according to debt, ought to be understood of the debt due to the wicked work. For that debts are called sins in the holy Scriptures, you shall often find. Then he alledgeth sundry places to this purpose, and afterwards proceedeth thus: whereupon the same Apostle in another place saith, the wages of sin is death: and he added not and said likewise, And the wages of justice is eternal life, but he saith, But eternal life is the gracious gift of God; to teach us, that wages which is like to debt and reward, is a recompense of punishment and death, and to assign eternal life to grace only. And thus determining that reward according to debt belongeth to the wicked in respect of their works, but not the believers, he goeth on forward and saith, To confirm as it were his former saying, to him that worketh not, but believeth in him, that justifieth the wicked, his faith is imputed for righteousness. the Apostle taketh a testimony out of the psalms, and saith, As David doth declare the blessedness of the man, whom the Lord accounteth righteous without works. This is Origen's judgment, that our ill deeds deserve of due and debt punishment, and condemnation, but that our good deeds cannot merit the reward of eternal life: & so hath he discovered the inequality of those balances whereof you speak

S. Ambrose speaking of David saith, that he desired to depart out of this place of pilgrimage to the common country of the Saints, entreating that for the pollution of his abode here, his sins might be forgiven, before he departed out of this life. For he that receiveth not here remission of his sins, shall not be there: and he shall not be there, because he cannot come unto eternal life, for so much as everlasting life is forgiveness of sins. In these words we are taught that whosoever will have eternal life, must look to receive it, not for merit of his good works, but through forgiveness of his evil works: and this namely he affirmeth of David, the holy Prophet and servant of god, with whom in godliness and good works our Papists may not any ways compare.

Saint Jerome hath many goodly sentences in his books against the Pelagians, flatlie overthrowing the popish doctrine of justification by merit of our works: as when he saith, that before God, who seeth & beholdeth all things, and to whom the secrets of the heart are not unknown, no man is just. If in the sight of God, no man is just, as Jerome truly according to the holy scriptures maintaineth against the wicked Pelagians, who then can trust by his justice to be saved? or how can any man otherwise be saved, then by the clemency, mercy and forgiveness of the judge? can he that saith and confesseth, I am unjust, I ask pardon of my God for my sins, say with the same mouth, I have deserved heaven by my good deeds? Again S. Jerome saith, this is the only perfection of men, if they know them selves to be imperfect. And you saith Christ, when you have done all things, say, we are unprofitable servants, we have done, that we were bound to do. If he be unprofitable, who hath done all things, what shall we say of him, that could not fulfill all things? and he proveth at large that never any either did, or could fulfill all, that of due was required of him. In another book he saith, then are we just, when we confess our selves to be sinners, and our justice consisteth not of our own merit, but of God's mercy, the Scripture saying, the just man is an accuser of him self in the beginning of his speech. Our righteousness by Saint Jerome's doctrine consisteth not in the merits of our good works, but in the confession of our sins, and mercy of the Lord. Furthermore he saith in the same book: In Deuteronomy it is plainly shown that we are saved not by our works & justice, but by the mercy of God, when the Lord saith by Moses, say not in thine heart, when the Lord shall destroy them before thy face, the Lord hath brought me in for my righteousness, &c. If the Israelites could not deserve the land of Canaan to be given unto them for their righteousness, who can trust to receive the land of life for his worthiness? This was S. Jerome's faith, and this he constantly defended against such wicked heretics, that troubled the Church of Christ then, as our Papists have longe done. S. Mark the Eremite hath written a book against those, that think they are justified by works, wherein thus he writeth, Therefore the kingdom of heaven is not a reward of works, but the free gift of the Lord, prepared for faithful servants.

S. Gregory came after S. Augustine the space of two hundred years, yet held he the same truth, concerning this point, as by his writings appeareth. As if (saith he) a mind that is tempted, and taken in the need of his own infirmity, should say, Grace hath begotten me in the first faith being naked, and the same grace shall save me in the last day being naked: And further addeth, that though a man have some virtues, yet it is best for him, to cast him self down, to acknowledge his own infirmity and wants, to f •• e to the only hope of mercy. And thus writeth the same Gregory in another place, Every sinner turning to God with weeping, now beginneth to be just, when he beginneth to accuse that which he hath done. For why should he not be just that now is cruel by tears against his own injustice? Therefore our just advocate shall defend us to be just in judgment: because we know and accuse our selves to be unjust. Let us therefore put our confidence not in our tears, not in our deeds but in the allegation of our advocate. Could anything be spoken more directly against the vain & damnable persuasion of Papists, that think they shall be saved by their doings and sufferings?

Now let us descend lower to S. Bernard, who lived after Saint Gregory five hundred years, and see how the same doctrine hath been continued, and believed of the godly. Thus writeth Saint Bernard: It sufficeth to me for all righteousness, to have him alone merciful to me, to whom alone I have sinned. All that he hath decreed not to impute to me, is as though it had not been at all. Not to sin, is God's justice: man's justice is the mercifulnes of God. In another sermon upon the same book, If (saith he) the mercies of God are from everlasting and forever, I also will sing the mercies of God forever. Shall I sing mine own righteousness? Lord I will remember thy righteousness only. For that is mine also. For thou art made unto me of God righteousness. Neede I fear lest that one be not sufficient for us both? It is not a short cloke, which (as the Prophet saith) cannot cover two. Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness. What is longer, then eternity? It will cover both thee & me largelie, being a large and everlasting righteousness. And in me it covereth the multitude of sins: in thee O Lord, what else, but the treasures of piety, the riches of goodness? Here S. Bernard teacheth us two pointes against the Papists: one, that our righteousness, whereby we are justified before god, is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us: another, that we are saved not by the goodness and desert of our works, but by covering and forgiving of our sins. Thus in another place saith he to like purpose, A man was indetted, and a man made payment. For if one (saith he) died for all, therefore all are dead, that the satisfaction of one might be imputed to all, as he alone bare the sins of all. Again in this same epistle he saith, Therefore where reconciliation is, there is remission of sins, and what is that else, but justification? If remission of our sins be our justification, then cannot the Popish doctrine be allowed, which teacheth that we are justified and saved by our merits. Yet further in another place the same good father. He that hath taken away the desert of sin, by giving unto us his righteousness, he hath paid the debt of death, and restored life. For so, death being dead, life returneth, as sin being taken away righteousness cometh again. Furthermore death is abandoned by Christ's death, and Christ's righteousness is imputed unto us. Thus plainly doth Saint Bernard teach imputed justice, which our Papists now a days make a mock at, but to the destruction of their own souls.

One other place more out of S. Bernard, wherein he writeth moste sweetlie and comfortably, that the testimony of a good conscience consisteth in three things. For first of all, it is necessary to believe, that thou canst not have remission of thy sins, but thorough the mercifulnes of God. Secondly, that thou canst have no good work at all, unless he also give it. Lastly that thou canst deserve eternal life by no works, but also it must be given unto thee freely. And of this last pointe thus he addeth, Now concerning eternal life, we know, that the sufferings of this life are not worthy the glory to come, no not if one man should suffer all. For man's merits are not such, that for them eternal life is due by right, or that God should do any injury, unless he sholulde give it. For to omit, that all merits are the gifts of God, and so man for them is rather made debtor to God, then God to man; what are all our merits to so great glory? Thus notably doth S. Bernard approve the verity of our faith & doctrine, concerning the cause and means of our salvation, and treadeth down and stampeth under his feet all Pharisaical and Papistical merits.

And forsomuch as M.R. hath a special grace, more then any of his fellows, to object one Protestant against another, and with such oppositions hath replenished his book, I may be bold to put him in mind, what one of his grand masters hath taught touching this principal controversy of our justification and salvation: I mean Alberte Pighius, who notwithstanding he were a captain Papist, and hath written much in maintenance of Popish religion, yet in this matter hath given all papists the slip, & hath subscribed to our doctrine. Out of his long discourse I will set down only this sentence: And thereof is it that our righteousness is placed in Christ's obedience, because the same is imputed to us being incorporate into him, as though it were our own: so that by it we are accounted righteous. And as once Jacob, being not the first borne by nativity, hyding him-self under his brothers garment, & having put on his coat, which smelled most sweetlie, did insinuate him self to his father, that under another man's person he might receive the blessing of the first borne: so also it is necessary that we lie hid under the precious pureness of Christ our eldest brother, that we savor of his sweet smell, that our sins be buried & covered with his perfection, & that we thus offer our selves to our most loving father, that we may obtain of him the blessing of righteousness. Herein as Pighius agreeth with the truth & with us, so hath he much offended his own friends for thus leaving them in the plain field. Tapper the wise Dean of Louaine writeth bitterlie against him for his opinion herein, and saith he learned it by reading Calvin's Institutions. Which perhaps was true, seeing of him also he learned much more. You see, Master Rainolds, our doctring justified both by the scriptures of God, and by the testimonies of moste learned and godly fathers, and by consent of as learned a Papist, as your Church hath in these later times bred any. Now then peruse over again your wholl tale, and weigh it in a true balance, and you shall find it lighter then any fether.

Fiftlie you object, that I understand not our own doctrine, and here according to your manner, you wander up and down, as a man that had lost his way, who though he know not whether to go, yet will be going still. It pitieth me to see your miserable folly, and blindness, whereinto you are willingly fallen. But thus will the lord deal with such as willfully give over the known truth. Where I say, that we must necessarily suffer with Christ, if we will be glorified with Christ, this seely sophister asketh, how this standeth with our doctrine of only faith: as though there were any likeness of contradiction at all, between these two sayings. For know you what is meant by only faith? If you do not, you are to blame to charge me with ignorance of that, which yourself do not understand: if you do, then can you not but plainly perceive, that the doctrine of necessary suffering with Christ, is not any way contrary to the Doctrine of our justifying by faith only. Although we truly teach, that only faith doth justify, because it is the only instrument, by which we take hold upon Jesus Christ, and so are justified: yet we teach that iustifiing faith can never lack good works, and hereof it followeth that whosoever hath faith, must also bring forth the fruits of faith, which are good works, & that necessarily, thereby to declare, and testify his faith, as the Apostle Saint James doth fully prove. This necessary conjunction of works and faith, the effect and the cause, doth not disprove, but that our apprehension of Christ is to be attributed to only faith: as the beholding of the light is the only & proper function of the eye, although the faculty of seeing cannot be divided from the sense of feeling. Yet no man will say that we perceive the brightness of the sun by our feeling, but by our seeing only. So though our faith can never be alone, but is always fruitful of good works, yet it only doth iustifye, and not good works, in that it only layeth hold upon Christ our righteousness. You have a weak head Master Rainolds, if you stagger at this. But blessed be God, that striketh his enemies thus with giddines.

To like purpose serveth that you allege out of Illyricus and others, concerning the controversy, whether good works are necessary to salvation. There is none so ignorant, but knoweth the judgment, and resolution of the Church. And although Illyricus be earnest, & saith, they are no way necessary to salvation, yet he confesseth a faithful man must needs do them, as duties necessarily required by the Lord: not that they are any ways the cause or merit of salvation. If you understand the proposition thus, then in this sense they are not necessary: for then should they derogate from the merits of Christ. But as effects of faith, and justification, so are they necessary: and this doctrine as it is true, so is it far from all papistry. For papists teach that works are efficient causes of their salvation, and that is moste false, and injurious to the blood of Christ: Christians hold that good works are necessary fruits of faith, and that those who are justified, and reconciled with God, must walk before him in new obedience, and serve him in righteousness and holiness all their days. You wish I were a Papist for mine own sake: and for your sake again I wish that you were none. Which of these wishes is better, the day of the Lord shall make manifest. In the mean time enjoy that happiness, which you have purchased by your falling from us, or rather from Christ: I will be no companion of your Apostasy.

CHAP. 6.

IF wrangling were any ways to be commended in these great and weighty controversies of Religion, then had Master Rainolds deserved praise and thanks for his pains in this behalf. But as in all debating and trial of truth it is accounted an dishonest part to devise false shifts for maintenance of untruth, so in matters of God's worship and Religion to use crafty cavillation is a most wicked and damnable practice. The ancient fathers holding the ground and foundation of doctrine, did oftentimes build thereon stubble and straw, partly by some superstitious opinions which themselves conceived of such inventions, and partly by the sway and violence of custom, whereby they were carried to a liking of those things, which they saw commended, and practiced by others. And yet God forbid that because of some errors which they held, we should raze their names out of the Calender of God's Saints, or think otherwise then reuerentlie of them.

Among other infections that reigned in the fathers days, this was not the lease that they hoped in some sort to make some parte of amends to God for their sins, by voluntary punishments, which they sustained in this life. Whereof although by a consequent it followeth, that they did injury to the satisfaction of Christ's death, yet they meant not directly to take anything from it, but trusted by it only to be justified and saved. Neuertheles being led by a likely and probable persuasion of man's wit, that God would spare them, if they punished them selves, they trusted by this means to make some recompense for their offenses, and therefore suffered much hardness, travail, and penalty in the course of their life: which if they had done simply with desire and purpose thereby to make themselves fitter for the service of God, it had been a godly and profitable endeavor. And this no Protestāt misliketh, seeing the Apostie hath taught, that it is expedient for all Christians to beat down and subdue their own bodies. But to put any confidence of appeasing God's wrath in these actions devised by them selves, cannot be excused in any whosoever.

Howbeit I would not any should think that when the Fathers speak so often of Satisfaction and Penance, they mean always a satisfaction unto God for sin, as the Papists do. For those satisfactions were nothing else, for the most parte, but penalties appointed by the Church, for such to endure, as had by some open falling into greater transgression given a public offense to the Church of Christ. Such were brought under penance by the censure & discipline of the Church, which when they had accrodinglie performed, in token of their unfeigned repentance, then were they received again into the company of the faithful, and then was satisfaction made, namely in respect of the Church. Of these Ecclesiastical satisfactions we read often in the fathers and councils: but hereby is not meant that by these they purchased remission of their sins at the hands of God. And yet I deny not but many did put too great superstition in these outward exercises, trusting something thereby to find favor with God, the rather for their hard usage of themselves. Which though it be an error, yet were they notwithstanding good men, and holy fathers, as I called them.

In which respect, when you labor and spend much of your oil, to prove me contrary to myself, you may see what a trifler you are, and how unworthy of answer. Were not the Apostles holy men, when they dreamed of an earthly kingdom in this world? yet this opinion is contrary to a principal article of our faith. were they void of holiness, when they believed that the gospel was to be preached to the Jews only? which is greatly derogatory to the grace of God, and salvation of his people. Then every error doth not overthrow all holiness in the servants of God. In the primitive Church many holy fathers were infected with the error of Christ's reigning a thousand years on earth, who notwithstanding are worthily accounted Saints of God. Cyprian and many godly Bishops with him erred about the baptism ministered by heretics: yet lost they not for all that the opinion and name of holy fathers. Thus the vanity of your challenge appeareth in finding fault with me, for calling the fathers holy, whom I charged with error: it being such as in them did not raze the foundation of the gospel.

Your argument of the Church is frivolous. True it is, that he that maketh a schism in the Church, and cutteth himself from the same, cannot be saved. But to err in this point as the fathers did, is neither schism, nor so dangerous to salvation as schism. Nether is it like to the error of the Galatians altogether. For it was in the fathers only an oversight of infirmity, by leaning somewhat too much to their own reason, and not considering the matter so deeply as they ought: and yet they held not, that works are to be joined with Christ, as necessary causes of our justification and salvation, but ascribing the wholl work of our redemption unto Christ, they erred a little in applying this redemption unto them-selves. Your case is the same that was of the Galatians. For as they thought to be justified by the works of the Law, so do you: as they were warned of their error, so are you: as they without repentance lost the benefit of Christ's sacrifice, so shall you. If the fathers had been as often & plainly admonished, as you have been, they would being holy and sincere men, have reformed their judgment: and keeping the head, though they erred in some part, the Lord will not impute that error unto them for condemnation.

All that you allege here out of that worthy servant of Christ M. Luther, I acknowledge for true, seeing it is the very same that the Scriptures them-selves have taught. For this is the voice and doctrine of the gospel, that by faith only in the mediator, who by his sacrifice once offered upon the cross hath reconciled the father unto us, we are justified and saved. Then to live straitlie, and to do good works with this purpose and persuasion, that thereby we shall obtain justice or salvation, is contrary to the truth of Christ's gospel, and may not in any be allowed, although otherwise moste learned and godly. Will you reason hereby against Luther and me, because we charge the fathers with some oversight in the truth of this doctrine, in that they thought somewhat too well of their own deeds, we must therefore repute them for wicked men, and make them no better then Papists? They erred not so much as you, they erred not so willfully as you: and therefore though there besom likeness between their error & yours, yet we account not of them, as of you, who besides that you err in this point of justification most damnablie, have also multiplied your errors in other articles, & almost left no one ground of pure religion unshaken. And therefore you greatly deceive your own heart M. Rainolds, when you think yourself to be in the same case that the fathers were in, because sometime the fathers gave more to their works, then they should have done, you trusting to be justified and saved by the worthiness and merits of your works, which the fathers did not. So between you and them there is a great space of distance: although I grant that some things which they have written of this matter, and practiced in their lives, tendeth somewhat to your heresy of justification by works. For the mystery of iniquity, which in papistry is fully finished, began to work in the Apostles age, & so continued still forward in the fathers days, until it came to his height and perfection in the kingdom of popery. They slipped a little, you are fallen headlong into the pit: they were overseen through infirmity, you are blind of malice: they scattered some darnel in the Lord's field, you have plucked up by the roots the good corn. They have suffered loss of this building, being not agreeable to the foundation, yet are saved: you overthrow the foundation it self, and therefore cannot in this opinion be saved.

The contradiction which you have found in my words, is a knott in a rush: your head is crazy, I perceive, by your wandering and frivolous talk: or else your wit is often very fugitive. Although the fathers sometime do require satisfaction by works, not only in respect of the Church, but of God, as appeareth by Saint Cyprian plainly in sundry places, and therein have obscured the doctrine of repentance and Justification, yet they never meant so groslie, as you do, that this satisfaction of theirs should be a worthy and sufficient recompense to god, for their sins committed against his moste holy majesty: but that they ought to crave humbly for pardon at gods hands, by humbling themselves be fore him in fasting, and praying, and punishing their bodies in this life. This appeareth by the 55. epistle of Saint Cyprian, as I noted: who speaking of Christians committing Idolatry, saith, They make intercession, that Christ may not be entreated by prayers and satisfactions. This godly father ascribeth remission of sins to the pardon of Christ, being entreated by prayers and satisfactions. If remission be of pardon, then is it not of satisfaction, as you mean: if it be obtained by prayers, then is it not given to the worthiness of our works. Again he saith, I embrace with ready and perfect love, such as return with repentance, confessing their sins with humble and simple satisfafaction. What else doth he mean by this humble satisfaction, but humble and earnest supplication for pardon? in his book against Demetrian he saith, speaking to the heathen, we exhort while there is leave, that you satisfy God. And can the works of such men make a full satisfaction unto God? No: But Saint Cyprian expoundeth himself by & by in these words: Thou even at thy hour of death, and end of this temporal life, entreat God for thy sins, who is one & true: pardon is given to him that confesseth, and to him that believeth, gracious remission is granted of God's mercy. Thus with this godly father, to satisfy God, is to make humble suit and request to God for our sins: and gracious or saving indulgence is the effect of this satisfaction. Although their meaing was nothing so corrupt as yours, yea for the moste parte was sincere, yet the manner of doctrine is unsound, in that our satisfaction is required as necessary, whereas Christ hath already made a full satisfaction for us: and by occasion hereof it grew in time to be an opinion received of the moste, that these satisfactions did in some part appease the wrath of almighty God, and deserve reward, which is contraie to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Where is now that contradiction M. Rainolds, which you imagined? look better what you say, or else we may worthily think your dealing is very childish, & indiscreet, & nothing seemelie for a sober man, or learned divine.

But little hope is there of more honest dealing at your hands, who as may seem, have hardened your face against the truth, & set yourself willfully in the chair of scorners and slanderers. For your railing at our doctrine of only faith, is too impudent, as though it left no place for bewailing of sins, for fasting, for praying, for watching, for giving alms, for doing good works: yea you call only faith, only fancy, and imagination. You were a very evil scholar in our school, who in all the time you tarried amongst us, and had the charge also of a Church committed unto you, did no better learn the doctrine of justification by faith alone, then thus untruly, and blasphemouslie to report of it. Doth faith exclude good works, because it alone doth receive & embrace Jesus Christ our savior and redeemer? is the faith of Christians, whereby alone Christ is apprehended and applied unto them, no better then a vain imagination and fancy? Repente M. Rainolds of these spiteful and malicious slanders against the eternal truth of Christ's Gospel: or be assured your portion shall be with infidels and renagates in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone forever.

Now that you bring against me, to prove us to be Ministers of Antichrist, by the same reason that we prove you to be priests of Antichrist, let us in a word consider the force of it. I say, that seeing of Christ's priesthood there be two parts, the one to offer a sacrifice once for all, the other to make intercession for us, the Papists overthrow both, in that they teach that Christ is offered daily, & that there be innumerable Mediators. Master Rainolds saith, If they be Antichrists for offering sacrifice, we also are Antichrists for praying: for so much as the one belongeth to his Priesthood, as well as the other. A blind and witles cavil. They pretend to offer a sacrifice, no less then Christ himself, to make atonement betwixt god & man. This sacrifice is offered already by Christ, and never must nor can be offered again: and therefore they are indeed Antichrists, in denying the only absolute sacrifice of Christ. Again in appointing so many Mediators, by whose intercession they may be brought into God's favor, they do open injury to the other part of his priesthood, which is to offer prayers for us, that by the worthiness & acceptation thereof, we may be reconciled with God Do we pray in this manner, that for the virtue and merits of our prayers, God would be gracious unto us, and to others? Noah, but only for the merits of Christ: where as you pray to be heard of God, not only for Christ's sake, but also for the worthiness and merits of a thousand Saints, and so bereave our savior Christ of these two principal offices belonging unto him only, as he is our Priest. Had you but a grain of true divinity in you as bigg as a mustard seed, you could not thus groslie be abused with such absurd, and peevish sophistication.

CHAP. 7.

IT much offendeth you, M. Rainolds, that I will seem to uphold the challenge, which that learned and godly Bishop of Sarisbury, M. Jewel, did once make against your side. But as the author thereof, while he lived, maintained the same most truly & worthily against your betters, so I have no cause to be afraid of anything, that can be alleged in disproof of it, by you, or your companions, who may not rightly be compared with D. Harding, and such others, as then toke part with him against the Bishop. And you may be ashamed to make mention of that challenge, which you have so long ago given over, as a desperate cause, wherein the chiefest adversary could not make show of proof, without using the testimonies of forged & counterfeit writers, as Amphilochius, Clemens, Abdias, Hippolytus, and such others, whereof no more account is to be made, then of fables, and shameless forgeries. Such were the chiefest proofs, which D. Harding was able to bring, and whatsoever he brought, hath been fully answered in the Reply by the Bishop himself: which book as yet though it hath been in some parts nipped at by diverse, yet thoroughly confuted was it never. What you can do in this case may easily be geassed: & God knoweth, full little have you done to any purpose, as shall appear.

Your beginning is of another matter. For this question of Peters being at Rome, M. Jewel made not any parte of his challenge, knowing well enough, that this might easily be proved by testimony of fathers a great many. And this was I not ignorant of neither, when I said, that no Papist can prove, that Peter indeed was at Rome. For albeit I know that diverse have so written, since the Apostles times, yet can I not receive this as a sufficient proof, neither yet ought you, there being against it so many reasons out of scripture, whereof everyone hath more weight, then all the testimonies of fathers alleged. You know, and cannot deny that your wholl Church & religion is built upon Peters sitting at Rome: which being a matter of such consequence, as that the wholl is upholden, and sustained theruppon, so as if it shake, all is in danger, if it fall, all is clean overthrown: it ought to be made manifest to all Christians, that Peter was at Rome, by greater proof and warrant, then is in the writings of men, which being as good as any of that nature can be afforded, is not of sufficient strength to stay the conscience desirous to be soundly and perfectly resolved in points of faith and religion: but now further being by sundry testimonies of holy scriptures utterly discredited, it must be thought that they have small conscience of truth, or regard of their everlasting estate, that hang the salvation of their souls upon so uncertain and rotten a stay. The first reporter of Peters being at Rome was Papias, a man of mean credit & authority in the Church of God, and as Eusebius writeth of him, a father of diverse fables: a fit father of your faith. Of him Hegesippus received this, and of Hegesippus others, as in writing histories the latter follow those that went before: so that this wholl matter is grounded upon Papias word, for which your pope hath good cause to give him thanks. Now the scriptures in many places weigh so strongly on the other side, that if many a thousand such as Papias should tell us Peter was at Rome, their report were not to be trusted. Peter promised to remain with the Jews, and be their Apostle: and Paul assigneth unto him the Apostleship of the circumcision. If Peter were Bishop of Rome, how was this promise kept? Saint Paul writeth an epistle to the Romans, wherein he saluteth many persons by name, but of Saint Peter he maketh no mention: and from Rome he writeth many epistles at sundry times, and sendeth salutations to the Churches from many faithful, but of Saint Peter in none he speaketh ever a word. Doubtless it was because Saint Peter was not there. And if he had been Bishop, as your men affirm, twenty five years almost, it may be thought strange how it could come to pass, that when Saint Paul writ to Rome, and came him self to Rome, and tarried at Rome, writing from thence so many epistles, S. Peter should ever be absent for his charge.

Other arguments might I use against this common opinion of Peters sitting and dying at Rome. But as you lose all, if you cannot prove him to have been Bishop there, so though you could prove it, and we should of necessity confess it, yet had you gained nothing at all. For though it must needs follow if Peter were not Bishop of Rome, that all your religion is false flowing from that head, yet being granted that Peter had been Bishop there, it maketh neither hot nor cold for proof of any point in question between us. Of this therefore no more now.

The largeness of the challenge containing in number seven and twenty articles of controversy, you labor to extenuate, by an old history recorded in Liuie of Titus Falminius host, who by diverse manners of dressing and preparing one only kind of meat, furnished his table with great variety of dishes. And would you bear us down, Master Rainolds, that this multitude of articles is but of one matter, drawn forth into sundry partes, by skillful varying and mincing the same? If any will look upon them, he shall soon be hable to control you. The first of Private mass, the second of receiving in one kind, the third of common prayers in an unknown tongue, the fourth of the Popes supremacy, the fifth of the real presence, the seventh of elevation, the eight of Adoration, the ninthe of Hanging the Sacrament under a Canopy, the tenth of Accidents without subject, the fourtenth of worshiping Images, the fiftenth of reading the scriptures in the vulgar tongue, the seauententh of the sacrifice of the mass: can you deny that these controversies, being the arguments of several articles, are diverse and differing one from another? And are not these weighty pointes, general heads, principal questions, great mysteries, and keys, as Master Jewel calleth them, of your religion? some of the other articles (I grant) have more affinity together, yet not so great, except in one or two, but that they may in reason and nature be distinguished, and stand each by them selves without necessary support or defense, from others. And what though there had been a nearer respect between them, might they not therefore be propounded and handled severally? The manner of your own schools, and controversy lectures, prove the contrary, wherein every question according to the subject matter is divided into sundry articles, and every article hath a special treatise. Your tale therefore of the Calcidian host, who entertained the Roman Captain with one only kind of meat dressed diversely, commendeth the cunning of that cook, but serveth nothing to your purpose, though you set it out with as great show as you can.

Three articles you acknowledge to be of weight, The primacy of the Pope, thereall presence, and the sacrifice: wherein you have uttered your judgment of the rest, that they are not of such weight as your Church would have them to be esteemed. And of these three you might with as good reason except the two latter, & so make the first only a matter of weight. For that indeed is the substantial point, in mainteance whereof all your labors are bestowed. Otherwise were it not for defense of your Popes wicked, unreasonable, Antichristian monarchy, you could easily agree with us for these two, & all the rest, I doubt not. But what think you then M. R. of private Mass? Is it a thing of no weight as here you would have it accounted? there is not, I suppose, anything in your Church more used, or better liked. Your half communion, your latin service, your Images, your keeping the scriptures in a tongue unknown to the people, and other such heads of your Romish religion, are they of no weight? are they trifles? are they not worth the striving for? Then let your men give over all defense of them, let private masses be abolished, let the communion be administered in both kinds, according to Christ's institution, let the public prayers be said in the tongue that every country useth, let Images be burned and Idolatry forbidden, let it be lawful for the people of all countries to read the scriptures in their own language, let there be no controversy about the other articles. For while you stand so stiffly in maintenance of all these and others, you cannot truly say, and bear us in hand, they are not of weight in your account.

That Master Jewel promised to give over and subscribe, if any of those articles could be proved by scriptures, councils, or Doctors, within 600. years after Christ, it was not because he meant ever to subscribe to your doctrine, or was vnstaied in his religion, but of a most assured knowledge and resolute persuasion that you were utterly destitute in this behalf of all truth and antiquity, as indeed you are. Otherwise you may remember that our religion is grounded only upon the holy scriptures of God: and therefore though you brought against us writers and fathers never so many for these matters, as you can bring not one of credit and age, yet will we never subscribe unto you, having once subscribed to the certain truth of God revealed unto us in his holy, perfect, & written word, by which all sentences, opinions, and writings of men whatsoever, must be examined.

Now cometh M. Rainolds to avouch the truth of these three notable articles, out of ancient writers against the Bishop of Sarisburies challenge: & first of the Popes supremacy. Where (good Reader) I pray the consider the wrangling and cavilling spirit of this sophister. Master Jewel in that sermon wherein he bad defiance to the Popish sectaries, speaking against their private mass, and single communion, and having proved by evident testimonies of antiquity the contrary use and practice of the Church, in the end nameth sundry Bishops and Doctors of the Church, of whom he saith we have learned these heresies, as our adversaries account them. Among other he reckoneth Anacletus, and Sixtus, that were Bishops of Rome. Master Rainolds taking upon him to prove the Popes supreme authority by the same witnesses that M. Jewel here alledgeth, bringeth in the decretal epistles set forth under the names of these two Bishops, which no man of wit, or judgment can once imagine to have been written by them, they are so foolish & unlearned: but yet the Church of Rome maketh no small reckoning of them, being the best evidences she hath to show for her unlawful & tyrannical usurpation. To what purpose M.R. do you object those Epistles in the cause of supremacy against M. Jewel speaking of private mass and half communion? Have you thus sold yourself to devise crafty sleights, that you may abuse the simplicity of your Reader? Master Jewel speaketh of one thing, & for proof thereof appealeth to those two Bishops among others: you bring against him their forged writings for another matter, wherein Master Jewel himself hath already shown his judgment of them.

But you say, what other books hath he seen of theirs beside these epistles? And what though he hath not seen any? what though there are none to be seen? might not he therefore say that we have learned of them this doctrine, which no man can doubt, but they followed, and practiced, and left to their successors behind them? for it being the clear doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles, those godly and faithful Bishops so near the Apostles time departed not from it. And a Bishop of Rome, Calixtus by name, reporteth that the Apostles ordained, and it was the practice of the Roman Church, that after consecration, all should communicate, unless they would incur excommunication. It is but loss of time to answer such palpable cavillation, as this book hath almost nothing else. And were it not for regard I have to the godly, that desire the adversary may be answered, though never so unworthy of answer in respect of himself, & might be offended, if he should pass without answer, I could easily have suffered M.R. to have enjoyed quietlie the fruits of his labors, and otherwise spent my time more profitably to myself and others.

Next in like manner S. Leo, and S. Gregory, two other Bishops of Rome, but long after, are objected: and M. R. translateth out of the Centuries a great deal, to show that by confession of the more famous & learned Protestants (as he saith) the Roman sea had primacy over all Churches in Christendom.

True it is that the Century writers in that Chapter do largelie and plainly discover the mystery of iniquity, that in those days did mightelie work for the obtaining of that universal primacy, which afterwards with much endeavor was gotten. And as the Church of Rome was then in great estimation and authority, far beyond other Churches; so the Bishops of that sea used all occasion to increase the credit and prerogative thereof, especially this Leo, and Gregory also not a little. All this, as it is in the Centuries discoursed, we confess, and withal justly mislike and condemn that ambition in those Bishops: but what gather you hereof M. R. for your purpose? doth this prove the Popes supremacy? doth this disprove Master Jewels challenge? Do the learned Protestants also confess the same? what notable and shameless untruths are these? Not one of all these examples alleged, doth argue the Popes universal power or headship over Christ's Church, nor cometh near unto it. That Leo calleth it the chiefest Church: that he requireth Anatolius Archbishop of Constantinople to make relation unto him, if any matter of controversy should arise: that he willeth Maximus Archbishop of Antioch to write to the sea Apostolic, how the Churches there increase: that he reproved other Bishops, if they did ought amiss: that he appointed in some places orders, and ceremonies, and did these and many other such things, as in his epistles is manifest, although he took upon him more then he might or ought, & for advancement of his own seat, encroched much upon the liberty of other Churches, yet never meant he to make himself universal Bishop, and head of the Church, which your Pope claimeth, and M. Jewel denieth. This was his endeavor to lift his chair above the rest, to be accounted a chief Bishop, to be had in greatest regard, to procure to his seat a principal reverence, to obtain privileges, and perogatives above others: but of this pontifical power, & universal jurisdiction, which afterwards your Popes usurped, he never dreamed, for ought that you have alleged, or can furthermore allege out of his Epistles. And though you could, what had you greatly gained against M. Jewel, who requireth a lawful and irrefragable testimony, his being partial, as in his own matter, and for his own commodity? Yet how far Leo was from the papal supremacy, may in one example appear, that he had not authority to call a council, but was fain to be an humble suitor to the Emperor, that he would by his commandment summone a council of Bishops in Italy: (which yet he obtained not) that the same Leo fell on his knees before Ualentinian: to have a council that a Council by the Emperor Martian being called at Chalcedon, he labored instantlie to have it somewhat deferred until a more convenient time, & could not prevail. Doth it not evidently hereby appear, that he was not accounted, neither by the Emperor, nor the Bishops of Christendom, Head of the Church, & universal Bishop? And this is the thing in controversy, whereof you have not shown any proof as yet, for all your childish bragging: and what you will hereafter do, I need not greatly stand in doubt.

For your demonstration following, which you full ignorantly and vainelie commend, comparing it to the brightness of the sun in a sommers day, hath no light at all in it, to show that thing, which you have taken in hand to prove, no more then the moon in the wane giveth light to passengers at midnight. And doubtless unless the Lord had in his displeasure towards you, bereaved you of common judgment and reason, you could not yield your understanding captive to such loose and light persuasion. The question in controversy is, whether the Pope were acknowledged for head of the universal Church within six hundred years after Christ. This you say appeareth by the confession of the Centurye writers: and so you translate out of them many authorities, which being all put in one, conclude nothing to this purpose in the end. They show how the Popes have labored to get superiority to themselves, especially in the example of Leo, who as he was learned and eloquent, and stoutlie maintained the Catholic faith against Eutyches, so is he truly noted of ambition more then beseemed the minister of Christ. But admitting the Popes testimony for the Popes primacy, what have you found in the Centuries against Master Jewel? that they warned Bishops of other provinces to come to general councils? this is not the thing we require. Let them write to whom, and whither they list: this officious writing proveth not universality and supremacy of power, as any man may easily understand. That Leo could not appoint a Council, that he sued to the Emperor to call a Council, that the Council was gathered by the Emperors, not by the Popes authority, I have already shown. What maketh then the writing of a few letters to prove the Popes power in summoning councils? that they were presidents in general councils? And can you or dare you avouch that this was so in all general councils? And though it were, what matter maketh it for your purpose? A general council must have a president: which presidencie if it were granted to the Bishop of Rome in respect of his place, which was the first amongst Bishops, will you of your wisdom hereof gather, that he was Uniuersall Bishop, and head of the Church? A senseless and frantic conclusion. That he confirmed general Councils? This is like the rest, a worthy reason forsooth. All Bishops were bound to maintain and approve the godly decrees of councils, that so heresies might be repressed, and the purity of religion preserved. Is it then a great marvel, if the Bishop of Rome, that was accounted first and chief, confirmed good councils, and disanulled wicked? who is he that hath the reason of a man, that will hereof conclude in sadness and sobriety the popes supremacy? If M.R. be blinded, it is no wonder. All this, and ten times as much, cannot prove that the Pope is the head of Christ's Church, or that he was so esteemed in the primitive age: and therefore that you allege out of Luther, that before Boniface the third, in the days of wicked Phocas the Emperor, the Bishops of Rome had no greater authority then other Bishops, is true. For albeit they had gotten greater privileges of honor and other preferments, partly through the reverent opinion, which the Emperors & Bishops had of them, partly by their own seeking, as appeareth in stories moste evidently, yet sovereignty of power, and jurisdiction over the wholl Church had they none, until Phocas the tyrant bestowed it upon Boniface the Pope, a worthy founder of the Popes Antichristian supremacy.

How Leo behaved himself in magnifiing his own dignity above measure, is to plain by his writings: so as although he thought nothing less, then of that pontifical supremacy and authority which afterward in that seat of Antichrist was erected, yet hath his pride been justly and worthily reproved, for claiming more honor then belonged unto him. But you must remember that all authority and honor is not that universal supremacy of power, which your Pope challengeth and usurpeth: the which neither Leo desired, nor yet Gregory the great, who succeeded him in that sea almost two hundred years after, did exercise, for anything that you have alleged in proof thereof.

The Century Collectours declare indeed how that mystery of iniquity wrought and increased then in the Roman sea, in that the Bishops thereof took upon them more rule and authority over their brethren, then they ought: and namely this Gregory, in whom the virtue & godliness of Roman Bishops died. But have you found in the Centuries such plain proofs ot the Popes supremacy, as you affirm? First, you bring nothing, but the speeches or practices of Gregory, who was a Bishop of Rome: secondly you cannot thereof gather that he was universal Bishop, or head of the Church. For that he calleth the Apostolical sea head of all Churches, he meaneth nothing else, but that it was the chief Churhc, which is confessed. That he saith, the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolical sea, who denieth this? but what subjection mean you, M. R? that the Roman Church had power over the Church of Constantinople, to command, ordain, disannul at her pleasure? that is utterly false, and disproved by all stories that have written, testifiing that the Church of Constantinople accounted her self equal in all privileges too the Roman, save only that the Roman in order was the first. That he intermeddled in the doings of certain Bishops of diverse provinces, it is evident: but not in all Churches of all provinces over the world. For the Church of Christendom was then divided into partes, & the same were assigned to the government of Patriarchs. The Roman province was greatest, containing the Churches of the west: wherein Gregory had authority, not by God's word, but by appointment of man: and yet his authority was no other, but the same that the other Patriarchs practiced in their provinces, & namely S. Chrysostom long before Gregory over Thrace, all Asia, and Pontus, as Theodoretus writeth. What can you allege more for Gregory, then I can for Chrysostom? Gregory reproved & corrected Bishops of Cicilie, Afric, Spain: Chrysostom punished and deposed Bishops of Thrace, of Pontus, of Asia. Hereof is concluded no less the supremacy of Chrysostōme, then of Gregory: such notable demonstrations can you make.

Yea how much S. Gregory always abhorred that tyrannical supremacy, which your Pope of long time hath usurped over the Church, is manifest, in that he so often & so bitterlie inueicth against the name of universal Bishop: which he would not have done, condemning it wholly as most wicked, unlawful, ambitious, profane, Antichristian, if he had thought his own episcopal government and jurisdiction had extended over all Churches. For as John of Constaninople challenged that name, in the same sense & meaning doth Gregory reject it: but John meant only thereby to make himself a chief Bishop over all Bishops, and to bring under his jurisdiction the wholl Church of Christ: and therefore it is evident, that S. Gregory utterly misliked, that any Bishop whosoever should have an universal authority over the whole Church, which is to bring the Church in subjection under him.

That this was the meaning of that title of vniuerssall Bishop, S. Gregory himself doth testify in these words, who by the name of universal, goeth about to make subject to himself all the members of Christ. And doth not you Pope affirm, profess, defend, proclaim by all means possible, that all the members of Christ must be subject to him, and that no hope of salvation remaineth for any, but such as continue in his obedience? Then deny if you can, but that the self same authority which Saint Gregory reproved in John of Constantinople your popes have approved in themselves, even this last 13. Gregory, who latelie deceased: and therefore by judgment of S. Gregory many hundred years ago they are Antichristian Bishops, and not Catholic pastors of Christ's Church. Wrangle all ye can, S. Gregory hath plainly condemned your Popes for taking upon them both the name, and office of universal Bishops. Andreas Fricius, whom here again you allege, I have not to deal with all: what thing was meant by this name of universal Bishop may better be learned of S. Gregory himself, who knew best the meaning thereof. If you require further proof, consider that S. Gregory reporteth also that the council of Chalcedon offered that name to Leo, but he would not accept of it. Did the Council mean to take from all other Bishops of the world, yea themselves, all bishoplie grace and power? what madness is it thus to think? what impudency to stand in maintenance thereof, as you do?

Futher, when the Bishop of Alexandria Eulogius, in a letter called Gregory universal Pope, meant he to deprive him-self of all bishoplie authority? Nothing less. And yet Saint Gregory reproveth him for so writing, and will not suffer himself to be so called. The name then signifieth that universal authority over all Bishops and Christians, which John claimed, and your Popes obtained, and long practiced, and will not yet give over. This was unlawful in John: this Gregory condemned not only in others, but in the Bishops of Rome also: therefore your Popes by witness of S. Gregory a Pope, are clearly convicted of unlawful and Antichristian usurpation. If your Pope refuseth this name of universal Bishop, why doth Bellarmine, his greatest divine, reckon this for one of the Popes names of dignity? but chiefly why doth the Pope mislike the name, and allow the thing signified by the name?

Concerning the two other articles, of Real presence, and sacrifice, you are content to say little, which in effect is nothing. For what have you brought to prove either of these your opinions? you tell us Saint Gregory was a Priest, and said Mass according to your popish fashion: but whe will believe your report, you have told us so many untruths? That Bibliander calleth him the patriarch of ceremonies: that Melancthon saith, he horriblie profaned the communion: that Illyricus rehearseth out of a popish writer certain of his miracles about the sacrament: that Paulus Vergerius hath written a book against his trifles & fables: that M. Bale preferreth Latimer before Agustine the monk, whom he sent into England: that the Bishop of Winchester. M. Horne calleth this Agustine a bussard: what maketh all this (I beseech you) against Master Jewels challenge? how conclude you hereof your Real presence, or your sacrifice of the Mass? surely your masters that set you on work, and made you an instrument to publish these things, abused you much, that you might abuse others more.

To Luther's judgment of Saint Augustine, that after the Apostles the Church had not more excellent and worthy doctor then he, I willingly subscribe: but Luther accuseth the sacramentaries (as he calleth them) for mangling and abusing him in the question of Real presence: herein I have nothing to answer in Luther's defense. Saint Augustine teacheth no otherwise of Christ's presence in the sacrament then we do, as by the large treatises that have been written of this matter, doth appear: yea neither Zwingli, nor Calvin, nor any other of our side, hath more fully and directly written a gainst the Real and corporal presence of Christ in the supper, then S. Agustine hath in sundry places. That Luther judged otherwise, it was his error, which he retained of his old leaven, wherewith in time of papistry his judgment was corrupted. Hereof what argument can you frame against M. Jewel? something would you fain say, but your words have no pith of reason in them.

Saint Chrysostom (you say) hath written six books of Priesthood, and none of ministerhood: verily this is a very poor argument for the sacrifice of your Mass. If this reason hold from the authority of Chrysostom, I trust the like will not be denied, taken from the authority of the scriptures. In the New Testament, Ministers are named six and six times, priests in your sense never: therefore no Priesthood remaineth, and so by consequence no sacrifice. But concerning the name of Priest, how it hath been used of the ancient writers, not in the proper and natural sense, but after the common custom of speech, I have already before declared. Thus have you M. Rainolds uttered all your skill in confutation of the Bishop of Sarisburies challenge. Howbeit if D. Harding were alive, I suppose he would think you had deserved small thanks. Medle no more M. Rainolds in this matter: the more ye stir, the less ye prevail: your learning is not much, your judgment is less, you are but a weak instrument to deal with him, whom D. Harding could not match. M. Jewels challenge is proved wise, true, learned, to the praise of God's truth, shame of papistry, and worthy commendation of that famous Bishop, whose memory is everlasting, and most honorable among the godly.

CHAP. 8.

MAster Rainolds leaveth M. Jewel, and proceedeth to maintain a quarrel of M. Martin against Beza's translation of certain words uttered by the Apostle Saint Peter, and recorded by S. Luke. Act. 3. v. 21. It were a vanity to spend many words about so small a matter: and therefore suffering, this man, that knoweth no measure either of speaking, or holding his peace, to talk his pleasure, I will herein use no more words, then the thing requireth, that is, as few, as I can possibly.

The words are these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in latin, word for word, quem oportet quidem coelum recipere: the words both in Greek, and latin are ambiguous, as any man may see: in which respect Beza thought better to translate them thus, quem oporter quidem coe locapi, which, in effect and true meaning, is all one with the other, but yet something plainer. This worthy matter you handle by several pointes, as becometh a man of such discretion.

[ 1] First, you say, it is saucy and malapert for any man, of purpose to restrain that, which the holy ghost hath left at large. If this be so, then hath your vulgare interpreter been over saucy and malapert often times. Examples of such saucines I might allege many in his translation, if cause required. I grant a man cannot be too precise, and religious in translating the words of holy scripture: and that it ought to be the especial care of a godly translator, neither to restrain, nor enlarge anything, as far forth as he may perform by skill and diligence: for so much as the text may afford a doctrine, sometime in his original and natural words, which by altering in the translation is soon marred. But these admit no other sense, then one; & therefore no matter whether a man say, that heaven must receive Christ, or Christ must be received in heaven; the meaning is all one. For as for the conceit of some, which you affirm may perhaps be true, that Christ should receive heaven, it passeth all compass of reason or divinity. Howe, I pray you, doth Christ receive heaven? by his divine power? but the Apostle speaketh of Christ's ascension, as in the text appeareth, and all interpreters understand the words: how then doth Christ receive heaven in his humanity, wherein he ascended, and whereof the Apostle speaketh? tell us if you can. Again, why saith the Apostle until the time that all things are restored, if he mean that Christ's divinity received heaven, which then received it no otherwise, then it hath ever, and shall ever receive it? for that by taking heaven should be meant the rule and government of heaven which Christ at his ascension received, this interpretation I know seemeth but absurd to yourself: and therefore you may leave it for others to defend, whom for this matter Beza hath fully answered. Your second & third points, where in you urge and prosecute M. Martins reprehension, I omit, as vn worthy of answer. Beza transtated the place truly in sense, as yourself cannot deny: the cause that moved him a little to alter the words, was to avoid doubtful and ambiguous construction. That Illyricus is not contented with this translation, what marvel, seeing he will have Christ's body contained in no place? If you be of his judgment, you may use his authority against Beza herein. But where hath Calvin reproved Beza's translation of these words? why have neither you, nor Gregory Martin noted the place, or set down the reprehension? you have good cause to be ashamed of such egregious trifling.

Beza hath sufficiently cleared his translation from charge of corruption in sense by S. Nazianzens authority, who reporteth in Greek, these words of S. Peter even altogether in such sort, as Beza hath expressed them in his latin translation. So all you have to say against Beza or me in this matter, is for rendering a verb deponent by a verb passive, keeping threrein the sense moste truly, and exactly.

Your friuolus invective against our translations and translators, I pass over. M. Martin hath written of this matter so much already, as your wholl College of Reims could utter: unto whose unlearned and weak discourse, which he calleth (a discovery) a learned Doctor hath made answer long ago. The answer you have amongst you, confute it if you can. Otherwise in this behalf think yourselves fully satisfied.

Here are we entered into a large treatise of Real presence, for which M. Rainolds seemeth to be very zealous and careful, lest it should receive some discountenaunce by the former words of S. Peter, as needs it must, translate them how you list, so you translate them truly. For Saint Peter, speaking of Christ's humanity, saith, that heaven must receive him, until the time that all things are restored. Hereof it followeth, that Christ as touching his humanity is not received or contained in the sacrament, or else in any other place, then heaven. This is a plain, a certain, an invincible truth: so not we have taken from you Christ's Real presence, but Christ, in carrying up his body out of this world into heaven, hath himself actually overthrown your fantastical imaginations of his bodelie and carnal presence on the earth.

Before you come to answer this argument, according to your old wont you speak and spend much idle talk, wherein nothing asketh answer, but that by conference of other places you would weaken the force of the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which Saint Luke useth in reporting S. Peters words. For you say that this proveth Christ's body to be contained in heaven no more, then Saint Luke, writing that Samaria received the word of God, affirmeth the word of God was contained in Samaria. An objection doubtless that came from a deep understanding: to make the word of God, which was to be preached over the wholl world, of like nature with a body, which must be contained in one place. If you can see anything, you may soon see that the word, receive, is otherwise taken here, as also in the two other places, which you allege of receiving children and Apostles in Christ's name. Saint Peter speaketh of local receiving or containing: the other places understand a receiving of relief, or entertainment. Your reproaches, as they well become your person, so being usual, require no answer, but are to be contemned.

Being come to the matter in hand, you show yourself more hot and hasty in words, then discrete or pithy in your arguments. For that I said it is a contradiction, to maintain that one and the same body should together both be visible & invisible, circumscriptable and incircumscriptible, as you do moste fondlie imagine and teach of Christ's body, you charge me with infidelity for denying gods omnipotency, which every Christian professeth in the first article of the Creed. Of Atheism and infidelity take heed yourself, M. R you have already made a dangerous step. God forbid I should be guilty of that sin, whereof you do without all conscience or reason accuse me. God is omnipotent, and ever was, and ever will be. But his omnipotency proveth not your Real presence. For have you learned to conclude, that seeing God is omnipotent, and hath power to do all things, therefore he doth all things, yea offereth violence to his own body for maintenance of your absurd & heretical assertions? must God's omnipotency attend upon your fancies? Cannot god be omnipotent, unless your real presence be granted? No such matter, thanks be to God: & so your accusation of infidelity is vain and childish. Albeit I suppose you are not ignorant altogether of your own scholastical doctrine concerning God's omnipotency. Your schoolmen teach that God cannot do anything wherein a contradiction is implied: & that all other things he can do, and therefore is omnipotent. But herein a manifest contradiction is implied, that Christ's body should be visible and invisible together, that it is compassed and circumscribed in one certain place, and that also it is contained in an infinite number of sacraments, without any circumscription of place. And thus your own schoolmen teaching, and that truly, that god cannot do anything, wherein is included a contradiction, because he cannot lie, have in deed ground to powder your conceit of Real presence, which without moste clear contradiction can never be maintained. For if Christ's body be visible, how is it then invisible? If Christ's body have all properties of a natural body, whereof this is one, & that moste necessary & inseparable, to be contained and circumscribed in one certain place: how can it then be true that his body is in infinite places without any circumscription at all? Never deny for shame, but if there be in the world any contradiction, this is one. And yet here Master Rainolds taketh in hand to prove contrary to the doctrine of their own schools, that God worketh as flat contradictories, as this: then which none can be devised more flat. But these examples, Master Rainolds, which you bring, are nothing like this, whereof I speak.

For concerning the holy virgins birth, therein is no contradiction. There was a miracle indeed, that a virgins should bear a son contrary to the course of nature. For to be a virgins, & yet to have a child, are not contradictory, if she have conceived and brought forth by miracle, as did the blessed virgins: but to be a virgins, & not a virgins at once, this is the contradiction. So for Christ's body to be visible & invisible, local and not local at once, is in every respect the like contradiction: and therefore impossible to be true.

Your other example of Christ's entering in, the doors being shut, what show of contradiction hath it? Can you prove he entered through the doors? and if he did, then was there an alteration of qualities, & that by miracle, either in Christ's body, or in the doors, but no contradictiō in nature: unless you know not what is a contradiction. Your third and last example of the fire in Nabucadnezars oven, which consumed the Ministers, but hurt not those that were in the midst of it, appeareth to be of no weight, by that hath already been answered. You imagine belike that in every miracle a contradiction is implied: which is absurd. If you can prove that this fire was both hot and cold, then you say something to the purpose: but that it burnt up some, and hurt not others, is no contradiction, because by miracle the force thereof was repressed. Thus are you truly and fully answered to your simple sophisms: and your Real presence is disproved by the eternal law of God in nature, whereunto he hath even bound himself, never to do anything, wherein there is a contradiction to be found, as your own Divines have well and truly taught. Then may you see that my argument was not taken out of Aristotle and Euclid, as you say, but is grounded upon the eternal decree, and moste unchangeable truth of God: to which your Real presence must give place, being nothing else, but an irreligious and cōtradictorius devise of your own brain.

By this is answered that which followeth, wherein are alleged certain miracles, vainly & altogether from the purpose. The question is not, whether is more repugnant to nature, to be borne of a virgins, or a body to be incircumscript (although herein you speak without reason or authority) but whether it be either agreeable to nature or God's will, that one & the self same body be at once circumscript and incircumscript, as you defend Christ's body to be.

First you say the body of our savior Christ was incircumscript in his nativity, resurrection, & ascension. Although this be moste false and heretical, destroying the truth of Christ's humanity, yet if it were granted, it argueth nothing, unless you will say, that when it was incircumscript, it was also circumscript, as now you affirm of the same body: for you confess his body is circumscript, and yet you say the self same body is incircumscript: and herein is an evident contradiction, which when you labor to defend, what do you else, but with intolerable boldenes maintain moste monstrous absurdities?

Likewise S. Peters body you say was incircumscript, by Paulinus authority, who saith S. Peter came out of the prison being shut. And meant Paulinus, that Saint Peter came through the walls or doors of the prison? so saith not the scripture. If the iron gate opened of it own accord unto him, why also might not the doors of the prison open, and give place unto him?

Secondly you say, Christ's body was invisible, when he passed through the midst of them, that would have cast him down headlong from the hill. This is more then you learned in the text. The scripture saith that he passed through the midst of thē: But not, that he passed inuisiblie. Christ was able to escape their hands as well being visible as invisible. Also Elisha was invisible, you say, and I say, it is untrue. For though the Syrians saw him not, yet remained he still visible: but the Lord cast a mist before their eyes, and stroke them with blindness, that they could not see him: and so the scripture plainly affirmeth. The same may be said of Felix, whom his enemies could not see being amongst them. It was the Lord that shut their eyes, & blinded them with giddines, who hath (as by this your reasoning may seem) taken frō you also all your light of understanding.

Thirdly you say, the first heaven, according to the opinion of Philosophers, being a perfect natural body, is notwithstanding in no place. Be it even so: then I say, it is not in a place. Saie you the same of Christ's body, and then shall you prove yourself to be a perfect heretic: and so must you say, or else you say nothing to the question,

Can you deny, M. Rainolds, but that Christ's body is altogether of the same substance with our bodies, and hath the properties of a true and natural body? speak plainly, and tell us your mind, lest you give us cause to doubt of your soundness in this article, as you have here given very great. For if you confess this to be true doctrine, as you must, unless you be indeed one of those heretics that held the contrary, why bid you me look how I free myself from the filthy and wicked heresies of the Ebionites and Nestorians. Mark I beseech you (good reader) how this prating patron of Real presence, would have it seme to savor of wicked heresy, to affirm that Christ's body is a true body, consubstantial to ours: and all this, because the same wicked heresy of real presence can never be defended, unless this be denied. Yea Master Rainolds saith, those heretics not only may, but must thereof infer, that Christ was begotten between our Lady, and Joseph. Wherein as he hath avouched a plain heresy, which he cannot clear him self from, unless he will openly recant his own words: so is it most false, that he saith it must be inferred hereof, that Christ was begotten as other men. No such necessity, Master Rainolds. That he was miraculouslie borne of a virgins, is no reason but that his body may be of the same substance with ours, a true and natural body, endued with the same qualities and properties, that ours are, save sin, from his conception, and glory from his ascension: whereof in saying it must follow, that Christ was not borne of a virgins, you have uttered in plain terms an heretical assertion: defend it, or retract, whether you will. For if this follow thereof indeed, which is heretical, then that must of consequence be heretical, which yet is a most true and Catholic doctrine.

A third answer you make out of Chrysostom, who surly answereth nothing at all for you? He exhorteth that we believe Christ's words, This is my body, to be true, although we see not his body with our eyes. And who confesseth not this? we grant that the bread is Christ's body, as Christ said, who ever said the truth. But the meaning is, that the bread is a sacrament of Christ's body, as S. Chrysostom in the same homily twice or thrice in plain speech affirmeth: not that the bread is changed into Christ's natural body, which Chrysostom never once dreamed of. And that you may perceive he meant no transubstantiation, the same he said of this sacrament, he also saith by and by of baptism: wherein yourselves accord with us, that no transubstantiation is wrought. As Christ is in the supper, so is he in baptism: inuisiblie, mystically, truly in both: carnallie, bodily, really in neither. Chrysostom hath spoken never a word for you.

But M. Rainolds according to his manner translateth a pace out of the Centuries, out of Melanchthon, Westphalus, and Luther: & with their sayings filleth a number of pages, only to show there is a difference of judgment among the protestants about the sacrament: which to be indeed true all the world knoweth. But what hereof will you have your Reader to conclude, when he seeth that Luther, and some others mislike our doctrine, and reasons concerning the sacrament of Christ's supper? That neither he, nor we teach thereof a right? That you hold the true part? That no credit in other pointes is to be given to any of us all? This is the mark whereat you aim here, & else where, in citing so manifold testimonies out of our writers: which sleight although you must confess is false, and know yourself there is no plain dealing nor soundness therein, yet you are content for advantage to set it out with greatest countenance, that it may blear the eyes of the simple. If Luther teaching otherwise of the sacrament, then Zwingli and Oecolampadius did, disputed against their reasons, this is no matter to marvel at: for granting the premisses to be true, it is to late to deny the conclusion.

The argument that is grounded only upon reason, in matters of Religion and faith, we grant moste vnfainedlie to be no lawful weapon in the Lord's warfare. And therefore whatsoever they have said against Philosophy and reason, when it disagreeth from the faith, which in the scritures we learn, all that we allow with all our hearts, and never used thus any argument taken from natural reason against either you, or Luther. For reason must submit it self to faith we know, faith must not be restrained or stretched according to reason. But when reason in not controlled of faith, then I think you will not say, but an argument built upon reason maketh a necessary proof. Now in this matter faith and reason are not contrary: no faith teacheth that Christ's body is without the properties of a true body: all reason proveth, that if Christ have a true body, as he hath, then his body is endued with natural qualities and properties of a body. Reasoning against this sound & immutable reason, you plainly show yourselves to be void of reason.

Now that one and the same body (as Christ hath but one only body) should be at once of contradictory dispositions, as namely both visible, and invisible, both in a certain place, & in no certain place, as you teach, and boldly, but moste untruly maintain, this is contrary not only to reason, but also to faith, which teacheth that God cannot lie, and therefore never can make two contradictories true; for in the one always an untruth of necessity resteth. As for example, if Christ's body be always visible and circumscripte, then is it a manifestly, to say, the same body is invisible and incircumscripte: but Christ's body is always both visible & circumscripte: and therefore in saying his body is invisible and incircumscripte, you cannot be excused from untruth and contradiction. In faith is no contradiction: in your assertion there is a foul and palpable contradiction: wherefore your assertion is not of faith. If I had to deal with Westphalus or Illyricus, further would I answer there speeches: but as you make them here to serve your purpose, I have not anymore to say unto them. Then leaving them, I return to yourself M. R. to examine what you bring for defense of the cause, which you have taken in hand to maintain.

The testimonies of Cyril and Damascene you lightly pass over. Cyril saith that Christ touching the presence of his flesh is absent from us. Which though it be contrary to your Real presence, yet you say, you believe as your Creed: your belief perhaps is according to some new Creed: for of this belief, one parte cannot stand in the same Creed with another. First the true, ancient, and Catholic creed teacheth, that Christ is ascended into heaven touching his humanity: whereunto Cyril agreeablie writeth, that he is absent in flesh. your newfangled Popish Creed would have us believe, that Christ touching the presence of his flesh is in the sacrament. If his flesh be in the sacrament, then is not his flesh absent, but the scriptures, and fathers and all Catholic Creeds do set it down as a ground of faith, that Christ's flesh is only in heaven, and there remaineth until he come again in carnal presence to judge the world. What have you to answer now? forsooth, now must you fall into your former contradiction, that Christ's flesh is visible in heaven, and invisible in the sacrament: which doctrine is repugnant to divinity, to reason, to sense, to all principles of truth, as you have heard already: or else must you say, that Christ hath two bodies, one visible, and another invisible: which though it be heretical, yet is it less absurd and unreasonable then the other. But answer what you list, this is sufficient to overthrow your real presence before God and all his saints, that Christ's flesh is absent from us: the sacrament is with us: and therefore Christ's flesh is not in the sacrament. Your assertions are to gross; your answers are absurd: your Real presence is a real contradiction.

Cyril, you say, was no sacramentarie. No verily: for your sacramentary heresy was vnhathced in Cyrills time. But did Cyril ever teach your real presence? a place you bring, that maketh nothing to this purpose. Cyril speaketh not a word of the sacrament, but generally that Christ giveth us his flesh: which is true of those also that never received the sacrament. Wherefore Cyril meant not any real presence, as you full ignorantly allege him. He only disputeth against the infidelity or curiosity of such as inquire, How it is possible that Christ should give us his flesh to eat. we know that Christ can give, and doth give his flesh to all faithful: and make no doubt, nor question thereof. But think you all means of eating his flesh is removed, if real presence be denied? Consider this point a little better M. Rainolds; and I doubt not but you shall easily espy your own oversight. That you bring out of Peter Martyr, is idle. That which he saith, if Cyril should avouch, it were not to be granted, yourselves will not maintain: namely that Christ doth dwell in us corporallie, and mingleth his flesh with our flesh. Then to what use serveth your real presence? tell us if you can: but prove by scripture that which you tell; else we shall not greatly regard what you tell us.

Damascene you are content to handle as lightly. He teacheth against your real presence, that the nature of Christ's body remaineth circumscript and visible, as it was. So your fantasie of Christ's body being present in the sacrament really, but incircumscriptly and inuisiblie, is proved to be vainer then any dream. Al you allege at large for the real presence out of him in another place, may shortly be dispatched. That Christ can make the bread his body, we grant. For Christ being god can do whatsoever he will. Onelie show that Christ will make of real bread, his real flesh, and then this controversy is brought to an ende. Christ indeed maketh the bread his body, not really, but sacramentallie. For Christ hath not a body made of bread, his body was made once of the pure substance of his blessed mother: and other body then this, or oftener made then once, hath he none. Whereof all doctrine that teacheth Christ's body is made of bread, is impious and heretical: the popish doctrine of Real presence teacheth that Christ's body in the sacrament is made of bread, by changing the bread into his body through force of consecration: wherefore we may boldly and truly conclude that the popish doctrine of Real presence, which Master Rainolds holdeth, but miserably defendeth, is both wicked and heretical.

CHAP. 9.

Two places out of S Chrysostom were alleged by M. Martin, to prove thereall presence. The first out of his second homily to the people of Antioch, wherein by an excellent and fit allegory, he compareth our savior Christ to the Prophet Elias. For as Elias ascending bodelie into heaven, left his cloak with Elisha his scholar, so Christ the son of God as • ending up, left his flesh with us. S. Chrysostom's meaning to any that readeth the place is evident enough: & M. R. though he multiply words after his simple manner, yet my former answer he cannot disprove. That Christ left unto us his flesh in the holy sacrament, whoever doubted? that therein we receive his true and natural flesh, we believe, we teach, and always did. But the Real presence of his flesh, such as you maintain S. Chrysostom never knew and we utterly deny. For can you reason thus, and reason truly, that if Christ left us his flesh, he left it in real presence? this is the point: this prove if you can: else you talk to no purpose. Christ left his flesh, that is, a sacrament of his flesh, wherein is most truly and effectually, but spiritually offered unto us, and of us received, the very flesh of Christ.

Having spent many unprofitable and superfluous speeches, at length you force the comparison, and show a threefold difference between Elias leaving his mantel, and Christ leaving his flesh. And are you indeed in your right understanding? who, I pray you, M. R. denieth this? you migh allege not three only, but three and three points of difference between Elias and Christ's leaving the one his mantel, the other his flesh. This then being wholly granted, what is your argument? will you reason thus, There is great difference between Elias leaving his cloak, & Christ leaving his flesh: therefore Christ left his flesh unto us really? If this be not your argument, frame another yourself as you can.

[ 1] The first difference is, that Elias left his cloak, Christ his flesh. Flesh indeed differeth from a cloak: & so the difference is clear, but your argument is blind. How Christ left his flesh, I have said already.

[ 2] The second, Christ left his flesh with us, & yet carried the same with him into heaven: Elias leaving his cloak lost it. And how gather you hereof an argument for real presence? Christ carried with him into heaven his flesh in the natural substance thereof: Christ left with us his flesh in a sacrament of his flesh. If you still urge, that Christ's flesh is there, and Christ's flesh is here, let Chrysostom declare his own meaning, whose words you seek moste shamefully to abuse. For that Saint Chrysostom spake thus, not of the carnal and natural substance of Christ's flesh, but of the spiritual presence thereof, we may perceive by his words a little before of Elias: Afterwards (saith S. Chrysostom ) Elias was double: there was an Elias above, and there was an Elias beneath. Elias touching his natural substance of body and soul, was only above: though in some kind of presence true also it is, that Elias was beneath. Even so our savior Christ in carnal presence of his body is above: but in another manner, namely in spiritual presence of the same he is beneath. This is Saint Chrysostom's plain meaning: which God wot maketh full meanlie for proof of real presence.

[ 3] The third difference, Elias shed not his blood for his people, but Christ shed his blood, and imparted the same unto us. And would you have us think, that because Christ imparteth unto us his blood, therefore we drink it really? what should one answer such unworthy and senseless arguments? Leave your geasses, and speak to the purpose

Here you talk, as well becometh a man of your profession, falsely, vilelie, blasphemouslie against the true doctrine of Christ's sacrament. I am unwilling to answer such profane speeches of an opprobrious & slanderous enemy. So much only will I speak as shall serve to stop the mouth of this railer. Do we think no otherwise of our communion, then as of common bread and wine, without all grace, virtue, and sanctification? do we make it a bare figure of Christ absent? Have we as good figures at our common breakfast, din • ers and suppers? Thus you say, but all the world knoweth you say moste untruly. Common bread, common wine, bare figure was never any part of our doctrine: this is your unlearned collection of that we deny the real presence. For had you but half an eye, you might see how this slander is easily disproved. In baptism, a sacrament of Christ's own ordinance, there is not any real presence of Christ's blood or body, as yourselves confess. Now if one had as heretical a judgment of this sacrament as you have of the other, he might charge you as justly for denying Christ's real presence in the sacrament of baptism, as you do us, for denying his real presence in the sacrament of the supper. For if you reason with any truth against us, that we make it common bread, common wine, a bare figure, without grace, virtue, or sanctifying power, because we affirm that Christ is not present carnally & grossly therein: then must it as truly and necessarily follow, that the water of baptism is common water, is a bare figure, is void of all spiritual effect: because in baptism there is no real presence. And surly by this your kind of argument it plainly appeareth, you have no other opinion thereof, then, as you have said, of common water, wherein is neither grace, nor virtue, nor sanctification: and of a bare figure, such as you may have enough, whensoever you wash your hands.

Certain sentences of Zwingli you snatch, to prove we think as b • seely & contemptiblie of the sacrament, as you report of us. Zwingli saith, it is nothing but a commemoration. Zwingli meaneth not that the sacrament is only a bare remembrance of Christ's death: he teacheth and protesteth the contrary in a thousand places. His meaning is no other but to show, that Christ is not offered really in the sacrament, but that therein is set forth unto us a remembrance of his sacrifice: he opposeth commemoration, not to the spiritual presence, and participation of Christ, but to the imagined real and substantial presence of Christ's body. So when he speaketh of only figures, nothing but bread, he excludeth not the spiritual, but carnal presence, and that with the bread is not joined any material thing besides. Also that he compareth the sacrament to a Kings banner, which is a token of his presence, serveth only to show that Christ is not bodily, but spiritually present. And therefore for ought you have alleged, Beza hath truly said, that there is no coatrarietie between the doctrine of these most excellent men, Zwingli, OEcolampadius, Calvin, touching the sacraments. For they taught both soundly in truth, and moste consonantlie among them selves.

Thus all your notes following of difference between Saint Chrysostom's text, and my answer is discharged: and whatsoever else you bable in this place, to no purpose in the world, but to show your ignorance.

[ 1] The cloak, you say, was a more lively figure of Elias, then your bread and wine is of Christ. Now this toucheth neither Zwingli, nor Calvin, but Christ himself, who appointed these to be figures and signs of his body. If you rail at Christ, no marvel though you rail at his ministers.

[ 2] By it Elisha you say, received great grace and strength: that your bread should • give grace is against your wholl doctrine. Indeed we say that with the bread is not mingled grace; for then both godly and wicked should be partakers of Christ's grace: but in the right use of the sacrament, to the faithful person is given moste plentiful and excellent grace.

[ 3] The cloak, you say, had a virtue surmounting the ability of man. Yet I trust you will not say, this virtue and grace was in the cloak really, as you teach that Christ is in the sacrament. That you say, our bread is nothing but a sign or banner, as it were a maipole, or token of a tauerne, such words do well be seem your spirit, Master Rainolds. The time will come, when the mouth of blasphemy shall be stopped.

The other place of Saint Chrysostom hath less force for proof of Real presence, although Master Rainolds decke & garnish it all he can, as if he would make say thereof. The moste that Saint Chrysostom saith is, that Christ sitting with his father above at the same moment is handled with all men's hands: wherein first of all private mass, used in the Popish synagogues, • eceaueth a blow. For Chr • sostome saith, Christ is handled wit • all m • ns hands 〈◊〉 the Popish mass the priest only h • adl • h all, that is handled. 〈◊〉 who is so • imple not to see 〈◊〉 m •• ni • g of that godly and eloquent father, in this kind of speech? Do all men handle Christ with their hands indeed? doth Saint Chrysostom mean a real handling, as a man handleth bread? do yourselves think thus groslie, • r else for a show pretend you to maintain the same? That Christ may thus be handled taken up, laid down, broken, eaten, swallowed, removed from place to place, tossed to and fro, and all this, as you speak, really, is monstrous, and loathsome doctrine, in the ears and harts of all godly and reasonable men. This S. Chrysostom once to have imagined, never shall you show in this world. Chrysostom meaneth the sacrament of Christ, which we handle indeed, and which in some sense in called Christ himself. This to be moste true, is plain by Chrysostom in the same place. For he saith, We see the Lord sacrificed, and the people are sprinkled, and made red with his blood: and this done plainly without deceit in the sight of all men. If Chrysostom may be allowed to expound himself, your gloss of real handling Christ in the sacrament must give place. For if he meant, as you mean, that Christ is handled indeed, then meant he also that Christ is sacrificed indeed in our sight, that the people are died and embrued with blood indeed, that all men see the same indeed. For these speeches are all of one stamp, all after one sort to be understood: as one parte is true, so is another. Then tell us M.R. if Christ be sacrificed indeed, if the people be embrued with his blood indeed, if this be evident to all men indeed: you may not urge us so extreamlie in one, and give us the slip in all the rest. Let us then consider what reply you make to this answer, which to be true and sufficient you cannot deny.

First you say, I am ignorant of the catholic faith. For in the Church catholic we see Christ offered. Then you maintain that S. Chrysostom, in saying we see Christ sacrificed, speaketh properly: for this, you say, is seen in the catholic Church. The godly, I grant, see in spirit this sacrifice of Christ: & thus the oblation of Christ is seen in the catholic Church. But we speak of a real sacrifice of Christ, which no man seeth, nor ever shall see. For a real sacrifice proveth a real death: & so Christ when he was sacrificed really, died also really. But no man seeth Christ dying, who died but once, & now liveth forever. And they that really sacrificed our savior Christ, did in that act really & wickedly murder him: & so your Priests if they be real sacrificers of Christ, are in the same action also real murderers of Christ. Take both, or refuse both: if you take upon you the one, you must not, nor cannot deny the other. Murderers of Christ you will not be accounted, & yet you profess yourselves to be sacrificers of Christ, & that openly: which is all one, as if the Jews should confess, that they crucified Christ, but yet they murdered him not: wherefore it is in a word an heresy & blasphemy, to say Christ is sacrificed in the Church, otherwise then in a sacrament & remembrance of that one sacrifice, as both Chrysostom, & the fathers write commonly: in which manner, and no other, he is seen to be sacrificed in the Church. That you add of seeing god, is poor divinity: & being admitted that we see Christ in the Catholik Church, how followeth your reason, therefore we see him sacrificed: if you have either wit, or religion, yourself may see you speak without all wit and religion.

Secondly you answer, that I am ignorant of the Lutherans doctrine: and then, as you are wont, you rehearse certain places out of Luther, whereunto I have no need to answer. How cunning you yourself are of that doctrine, let others judge, when you say, they acknowledge bread to be the body of Christ. Doth Luther or any Lutheran teach that bread is the body of Christ? Do they adore it, as you also affirm? This to be false who knoweth not? They neither acknowledge the bread to be God, nor give any godly honor to it. And that might Kemuitius have taught you in the same place that yourself allege. He saith we adore in spirit & truth, not the bread, but Christ in the action of the Lord's supper. And so do we also acknowledge & teach that Christ in the supper is to be worshipped, & adored in spirit & truth of all Christians.

That you allege out of Master Calvin for your third answer, as it is of us entirelie allowed, so it notably detecteth the falsehood of your slander, when you write and bear your reader in hand, that we make the sacrament a bare sign and figure. For we teach, and ever did, as Calvin doth in this place, that it is joined to his truth and substance: and not only representeth, but also exhibiteth unto us the body of Christ. Now then this being our doctrine touching the sacrament, as yourself may see in these words of Calvin plainly declared, cease for shame hereafter contrary to your own knowledge and conscience to charge us for making the sacrament a naked and only figure. But now Master Rainolds draw these things to the point, and match them with your conclusion, and then see what agreement there is between them. Can you gather of that Calvin saith, we see the body of Christ in a sacrament, that therefore we see Christ visibly sacrificed in the Church? such reasons are too lamentable, as here, and everywhere you bring us.

Then Master Rainolds admitting this to be indeed a phrase of speech, asketh whether it follow, that therefore it is a phrase of speech also to say, that Christ's body is there at all. I answer expounding Chrysostom by Chrysostom, and that in the same place and words, as Christ is handled with all men's hands, so is he visibly sacrificed, and so are the people made red with his blood: that is, by way of a sacrament. Therefore set your heart at rest M. R. out of this place shall you never prove your real presence. That you add of figurative expositions, is superfluous.

Of Saint Chrysostom's vehemency in amplifications, known to all that know Chrysostom, this place hath a lively example, peruse it yourself, Master Rainolds, compare one speech with another, and say, if you can, otherwise. That you ask, whether he amplify a lie or truth, I answer, his amplification is true, as he meant it, and as it must of necessity be expounded. Of Priests and sacrifice enough hath been spoken before. Such priests as Chrysostom after the common manner of speech speaketh of, we acknowledged, which were the Bishops and Pastors of the Church. And concerning the amplification, which you say it is impossible to interpret of our communion, if you had will, this thing is possible and easy enough. We say therefore with Saint Chrysostom, we see Christ, that is, we see a sacrament of Christ. For Christ him self I think you will not say is seen. We see Christ sacrificed, that is, we see the sacrament of Christ's sacrifice administered, wherein Christ's sacrifice is recorded according to his commandment. The Priest is bent to the sacrifice, that is, the minister of Christ ministereth the sacrament of the sacrifice, & offereth the sacrifice of prayers and thanks giving. The people receive the precious blood. nay M.R.S. Chrysostom's words are more vehement then so: he saith, the people are sprinkled & imbrued with his blood: belike S. Chrysostom was here somewhat too vehement in your judgment. The exposition I leave to yourself, & tell us withal how the people are thus sprinkled in your Church, that come not once near the cup. Holy water sprinkling you have enough amongst you: but this sprinkling of blood, whereof S. Chrisost. speaketh, you must needs confess cannot belong to the people amongst you. Christ sitting in heaven is received in the Church, & who seeth not the meaning, that Christ sitting in heaven as touching his bodily presence, is in the sacrament spiritually received? This Doctrine is the Doctrine of our Church: and for this no man amongst us needeth to fear the controlment of any cōmissioner, so his meaning be sound, as Chrysostom's was, to declare a true spiritual presence and communication of Christ in the sacrament, not to •• si •• ate a ca • nal being and receiving of Christ therein, which Saint Chrysostom in many places moste plainly confuteth, and which he never thought any man once so fond to imagine.

That Chrysostom compareth this sacrifice, with the Levitical sacrifices, and that of Elias, proveth not yet a Real sacrifice of Christ in the sacrament. Let your reason thus be framed according to your mind. Chrysostom compareth and preferreth the sacrament of Christ's supper, wherein the sacrament of Christ's death is represented and re • orded, to the sacrifices of the L • uiticall Priests, and of Elias: therefore as they offered some Real sacrifice of a beast, so the Priest now offereth a Real sacrifice of Christ. This conclusion holdeth not, Master Rainolds, it is too weak. Were you not at Reims, you might see the force of Saint Chrysostom's comparison to lie herein, that the old Priests were appointed to sacrifice only a lamb, or goat, or kowe, or some other brute beast: but now the son of God himself is moste lively, yet spiritually, not really, sacrificed in the Church, when the sacrament of this sacrifice according to his institution is received. Your eloquence in the end is nothing else but childish railing, necessary for such a cause as you have taken in hand to maintain, which cannot otherwise be upholden, or continue in any reasonable account.

CHAP. 10.

BEfore you come to the matter, it pleaseth you a little to whet your eloquence in railing at Beza, a man though much hated of Papists, who love none that loveth not their Pope, be he never so learned or godly, yet known to all men, even his enemies, to be endued with excellent graces of God's spirit, which have shined in him notably to the glory of God, and profit of the Church. Your spiteful reproaches cast against him & others are now of all esteemed, as they are in truth, feigned & slanderous, unworthy of any regard or credit. His skill in the bible hath sufficiently appeared, to your grief: and if you, Master Rainolds, would herein compare yourself with him, it were a token of your singular boldness and arrogancy. His skill in murthering men, you say, was better, which argueth you have no conscience to devise to speak, to write, moste untruly. But say your pleasure, your reward with God and men is certain. Many I know have written against him much: & you may know that he hath fully answered them all. But of your Remish or Romish college of English students, I know not any that hath written ought against him in that tongue, which he could read and understand.

The words are in Luke. 22. v. 20. which in the Greek that Beza translated, by construction indeed require, tha the cup, which is called the New Testament, should be shed for us. In which respect Beza translateth them otherwise. For further knowledge hereof, you refer your reader to M. Martin: and so do I for answer, to M.D. Fulke. And here you might as well have cut of this long tail of your treatise which hath not in it one drop of learning or profit: you rail at me, you rail at Beza, you rail at the holy communion, which you cal profane & bakerlie: but reason, scripture, or proof, you bring not any for your sayings. I see you are a resolute man: continue thus a while, and I nothing doubt, but he whose ordinance and sacrament you have thus boldelie and wickedly blasphemed, will be avenged upon that profane heart and tongue of yours. But let us hear what you say.

First, whereas I said if they understand by the cup, the blood in the cup, as they do, then is there mention made of double blood; you tell me, I lie groslie and intollerablie: such courteous speeches I have no cause to thank you for: but let all men of wisdom be judges, whether I have not said the truth. Thus you make S. Luke to speak, this cup, that is, this blood, is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Is not here by your construction mentioned first one blood, then another? your reply is pitiful M. R. For to say, This Christ is Christ the son of God, this God is God of heaven and earth, as it signifieth not a double Christ or God: so is it nothing like this saying of yours concerning the blood in the sacrament. For you cannot make the construction, as you pretend, this blood is the blood of the New Testament: the wordsstand otherwise: unless you will commit a greater fault, then that wherewith you charge Beza so heinously. S. Luke speaketh not, as you make him, this blood is the blood of the new testament: but, this cup is the new testament in my blood. If by cup, he meant blood, as you affirm, then our savior Christ his blood was the New Testament in his blood. And is it all one to say, This blood is the blood of the new testament, and, this blood is the new testament in my blood? If it may be lawful for you, to alter and expound the words at your pleasure, then can you help yourselves well enough: but your exposition must be squared according to the words, not the words framed to your exposition.

Again, you say, where Beza correcteth Saint Luke in the latter part of the sentence, I rail at the first, so that between Beza, and me S. Luke hath never a word right: wisely considered doubties. The words are right, your exposition is fond and wicked. The cup you make to be the blood of Christ, who as yet was not crucified, nor his blood shed. If your doctrine be true, Christ's blood was shed already, and that really: else it could not be in the cup really. But if Christ's blood was shed sitting at the table, who was he, M.R. that shed it? who made the wound? who opened his side? who thrust his weapon in his heart? who pierced his hands and feet? This must you tell, if you maintain that his blood was then really shed, and poured forth into the cup. But by the cup M.R. is meant the wine in the cup, which is the new testament, that is a sacrament of the new testament in Christ's blood shed for us on the cross. This is a true and plain sense, agreeable to all analogy of faith, standing with the words themselves, followed of the ancient fathers.

When at length will you make an end of this railing? it is to vnseemelie, to loathsome, to odious: Indeed M.R. it must needs appear a great absurdity to all learned & godly Christians, who know & rightly esteem the price of our redemption, that to be shed for our sins, which was in the cup. [ 2] Christ's blood was shed for our sins; which never came in the cup, but remained in his body, until the time of his death. And if Christ's blood was in the cup, when he gave the cup to his Apostles, then must it follow necessarily, that his body then was without blood, it being shed already, and contained in the cup. In the cup was only wine, a sacrament of his blood, which he gave in the same to his Apostles to drink, & whereof he drancke him self: and so the scriptures expressly call it wine. [ 3] If this were the thing that was shed for your sins, then was true and natural wine the price of your redemption: then are you saved by wine: then have you no part in Christ's blood. But the true Church believeth her sins to be washed away, not by that which was really contained in the cup, but by the true blood of Christ, which issued out of his body nailed on the cross, and wounded with a spear. Your absurdity therefore needeth not to be further discovered: it is so openly blasphemous against the blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed once, not in the cup, but on the cross, for our redemption.

If you urge S. Luke's words, as they stand in gramatical construction, I answer that as the cup is called Christ's blood, & Christ's testament, that is by a figure, the sacrament of his blood and testament, so is it also said to be shed for us, by a figure, sacramentallie. But all men of skill and judgment may soon see, that in these words there is some change of gramatical disposition, usual in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists. Your discourse about Tautologies in the scriptures, is altogether vain and frivolous.

To S. Basils testimony you answer much in words, and nothing in matter. For what cause have you thus to reproach Beza for his translation of these words, seeing you cannot deny but S. Basil hath reported that text of S. Luke, even as Beza hath translated the same: and you confess that Saint Basil hath truly delivered the sense thereof? so all that you have said or can say spitefullie against Beza, must appertain to Saint Basil no less, whom yet you will not seem to touch. But the thing truly and indifferently considered, Beza is no more to be accused, then S. Basil. you tell us of heretics a long tale, which is no better then waste paper. Use it yourself, or bestow it at your pleasure. Of such bad stuff base account is to be made.

Whereas I spake a few words concerning figurative speeches, which the adversaries cannot abide to hear of in the sacrament, I have (as it were) opened at unawares a flood-gate to M. Rainolds flowing utterance, Quâ data porta ruit. The stream is so strong, and runneth so violentlie, carrying all manner of baggage with it, that vain it were to resist it. Let it therefore pass down, and do what mischief it can: great harm, I trust, it shall not do. Thus much you must confess that in the sacrament figures are found: and yet when we oppose against your monster of real presence a most true and evident answer that the words were figuratiuelie spoken, and must figuratiuelie be expounded, you rage above all measure. But quiet yourself Master Rainolds, and somewhat stay your intemperate affection; never shall you prove while papistry hath a man living to speak in defense of it, either by scripture or ancient writer, that these words must figuratiuelie be understood, This is my blood, this cup is the New Testament in my blood, more then these, This cup is shed for you. Leave your babbling: and speak to purpose: prove this if you can. Wherefore finding in the Evangelists words such manifest figures, what reason have you to condemn us for using the same being a moste common and familiar kind of speech? Because it standeth not with your real presence. Let your real presence hardly shift for it self, we are not bound for cause and respect thereof to wrest the scriptures, to forge monstrous interpretations, to change the sacrament into a real sacrifice of Christ: which heathenish kind of doctrine never any but Antichrist and his ministers maintained. The scriptures, the old fathers, the ancient Church of Christ taught and believed otherwise, as hath been shown and proved invincibly to your faces. Your pages following filled with roving testimonies I pretermitt: your contumelies being no lawful arguments require no answer.

CHAP. 11.

MAster Martins boke of Discouerie is answered long since from head to foot in every part: you have the answer amongst you, say to it what you can with truth and learning. To brag of your fellows book, which being thoroughly and soundly disproved, you cannot with all your skill maintain, is a childish vanity: to acknowledge no Reply, which you cannot but know, or to make light account of it, whereunto you cannot truly reioine, is willfulness and partiality. Our translations and translators have been sufficiently cleared, for the most parte, of such faults as were objected: and though it is not denied, but in every ont of them some fault or other may be found, worthy reproof and correction, yet may it moste truly be affirmed, that of all our translations none can be noted so full of imperfections and errors, as your latin vulgar translation is, which you not only follow but commend for the best of all, yea prefer before the original text it self, against knowledge, reason, and conscience. This whole chapter you might have spared, handling such things as have been so well handled in your judgment by Master Martin: but the occasion serving you to utter some part of your humor, which so boileth in your stomach, that it would burst the vessel, if it breathed not forth, you could not pr • termit. Brieflie let us peruse this little, or nothing rather, that you bring.

You shall do me mischief enough M. R. and be sufficiently avenged on me, if you can prove all that you have here propounded against me. Bigge words, bold brags, terrible threats: a man would think my case were very miserable, that have to deal with so cruel and mighty an adversary. I may indeed be sorry for my chance, to be thus cumbered with an unlearned and ridiculous trifler, that seeketh only by show and multitude of words to dazzle the eyes of simple men, and somewhat disgrace the truth of god. A man that hath but a drop of learning cannot be deceived by such painted & pelting stuff: the unlearned that cannot judge, may think M. R. hath said some what to purpose.

[ 1] First you say no wit nor learning will alowe me to translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Image, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a carcase. And what came in your head to charge me with translating psuche a carcase? where have I so translated it? or where is it so found in any of our translations? For my part I never so translated it, I never saw it so translated, I never thought it lawful so to translate it. Beza I grant translated it so in his latin translation once, but afterwards upon better consideration, he changed his translation, as you may see in the latter editions. As for eidolon, it is truly & properly translated an Image, as any man will confess, that knoweth the nature of the word, & as it hath been largely proved in sundry discourses. It was then far from wit or learning in you Master Rainolds, to say that as well might minister be translated a slave, or homo a dog, as eidolon an Image. For among the words, wherewith the learned Grecians commonly express the same thing that we cal an Image, is eidolon, as fit and natural as any other. Your sacred Images are eidola: & if eidolon signify an Idole, then are they Idols, as in truth they are. By use and custom of speech, an Idole and Image somewhat differ, as every man knoweth. All Idols are Images, not all Images Idols. But the Lord hath forbidden all graven Images no less then graven Idols to be made for worship sake Wherefore your Images, which you make, which you garnish, which you erecte, which you worship in your unholy Synagogues, are Idols. The picture maketh not an Idole, but the worship. The pictures of Jupiter or Mars, were no Idols, according to the received sense of this word, unless they were worshiped: so likewise the Images of Saints, if they be abused to sacred worship, in which respect you cal them sacred Images, are no better then profane, wicked, abominable Idols. Then your argument to prove us Idolaters for honoring the Queen in her Image, &c. is childish. This honor to the Prince is civil, not religious or divine, such as the honor is, wherewith you worship your Images of all sortes: so this honor is far from Idolatry, your honor is mere Idolatry, and you are Idolatrous worshippers of Idole Images. That Ecclesia signifieth an assembly, or congregation, who can deny? & so may it rightly be translated: although we in our translations do willingly use the common word Church, as you cannot be ignorant. So Episcopus we translate most commonly a Bishop, & Euangelium the gospel, and to conclude, we refuse not the usual phrase & manner of speech, but only when the superstitious abuse of words was to be avoided. Therefore that form of preaching which you have here devised of yourself is fittest for such a preacher, as yourself: we use not so to preach, or so to speak, or so to write: it was no doubt a wise conceit to occupy yourself withal.

[ 2] Thus appeareth secondly what shame or modesty was in you, to object want of both to me. For show us M. R. if you can, any word in our Bibles absurdly or falsely translated, by me maintained. The same word may well be translated in diverse places diuerslie: & so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Io. 3.8. is rightly translated the wind, which in other places is not so to be translated. And are not you a modest man, that because in this one place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is so translated, as the word well beareth and the sense requireth, would make men believe that it is everywhere else so translated, and that the holy ghost, we call the holy wind? you have good cause to be ashamed of this so shameless and impudent dealing. Eucharistia you will not have translated thanksgiving, but Eucharist: & by Eucharist you mean the sacrament of Christ's supper. Now where is Eucharistia taken thus for the sacrament in the scriptures? why have yourselves translated Eucharistia, thanks giving? 1. Tim. 4.4. Nothing to be rejected, that is received with thanks giving. Will you mende your translation thus, Nothing to be rejected, that is received with the Eucharist? As Eucharistia is used by Godly writers, both Greek and Latin for the sacrament, so we also use the word Eucharist in the same manner, as you might hear in our sermons, & may read in our writings. And so we call, it the sacrament of Baptism, not of washing, as you charge us: notwithstanding that Baptismus in the general signification of the word, is nothing else but washing, and so is used in scripture often times, and so have yourselves translated it. Marc. 7.4. Whether I have truly said of your translation, that it is of all others moste corrupt, I am content to refer it to the judgment of all the wise and Godly readers.

[ 3] Where have I said or allowed anything tending to such Atheism, as you charge us withal? Atheist I will not call you, Master Rainolds, but I may truly say of you, as you have continually given undoubted proof, that you have no fear of God before your eyes. Speak or write of us your pleasure falsely, foolishly, boldelie: your judgment shall be as deep as any Atheist, unless you leave your lying and railing against God's truth. Other confutation or condemnation shall not need, then your own conscience, which can tell you these reproaches are untrue, proceeding only from willfulness and malice. Our translations favor no such Atheism, as you without wit or learning imagine. For doth it follow, if we translate, Thou wilt not leave my soul in grave, that the blessed soul of our savior was mortal, and died in the grave, and that the immortality of the soul is destroyed? doth not the scripture oftentimes use this kind of speech? Our soul, saith David, is humbled in the dust. Again, The waters have entered even unto my soul. Again, My soul cleaneth to the ground. Again he saith, deliver my soul from the sword. And in another Psalm he saith, O Lord thou hast brought up my soul out of the grave. And such phrases in the scriptures are usual, of which I trust you will not gather that men's souls can be covered with dust, drowned with water, killed with swords, buried in the grave, and to conclude, that they are mortal. If you were not possessed with a spirit of wrangling, there needed no words in this behalf.

[ 4] What Castalion or Illyricus have written against Beza or Master Carlisle, with some others, against some places translated in our Bibles, maketh nothing to purpose. I have not said otherwise, but that some things may be amended: whether yet so as these men have avouched, I leave to be considered of the learned. Howbeit you may not reason thus, because some men have found a fault with the translations in someone place or other, whether with judgment and reason, or fancy, that therefore the wholl translation is false, corrupt, wicked, no better then Muhammad's Alcoran, as you have here written, after your accustomed manner, blasphemouslie.

The rest you leave to Master Martin, whose reasons stand as yet, you say, unanswered. Belike the answer you have not seen, or not perused in differentlie. But M. Martin. and all his reasons have been answered largelie and pithely long ago, and nothing hath been replied on your part. What conscience and Religion is to be used in translating the scriptures, I know, and am far of from allowing such liberty, as a man may take in translating profane authors: neither did I ever like the daintines and curiousnes of some, that refuse the usual words of scripture, because they are not Ciceronian. As for the names of priest, Altar, penance, I would it were as you say, that not only the words were changed, but the things utterly removed from the harts of all Christians. For your priests are no lawful priests, your altar is erected to an Idol, your penance is contrary to true repentance. The words Church, Christ, Apostle, are as common in our translations, sermons, and all treatises, as any other. That which followeth of Atheist, Saducee, Libertines, Academikes, Sacramentaries, containing only matter of reproach, I am content to let it pass.

CHAP. 12.

A Man would think that common reason, and some regard of learned judgments might more prevail which our adversaries, then that they should openly defend so foul an assertion, as in this Chapter Master Rainolds taketh upon him to maintain by warrant of the Tridentine assembly, that the vulgar latin translation is more sincere then the Hebrew and Greek text of scripture. For though he add this exception, in sundry places, yet their meaning is, that not only in certain places, but generally their latin Bibles are more pure and incorrupt then the Hebrew and Greek text, because universally in their translation they pretend to follow the latin, & not the Hebrew of the old Testament, nor Greek of the new: and so was it in their assembly of Trente decreede. Admit this were true, that you intend here to prove, doth it follow therefore that the Latin Bible is wholly to be preferred before the Hebrew & Greek? to be only followed in translations? to be used only in all divinity excercises? If the latin were in some places purer then the Hebrew, might not yet the Hebrew be in many moe purer and sincerer then the Latin? Then this is but a slender shift, to pretend more pureness in the Latin in diverse places, then in the original text, and hereupon to thrust the text behind the translation: which is more foolish & unreasonable, then to make the Lady walk one foot like a servant, and set her handmaid one horseback, because perhaps the servant is thought in some things to be more excellent then her mistress.

Lucas Brugensis, a man of your own household, and one that hath taken much pains. to correct your Latin translation, confesseth, that many faults have crept into the same by diverse occasions: which, he saith, is no marvel, seeing the like hath fallen out in the very fountain itself, as it is plain in the New Testament in Greek. For (saith he) of the old in Hebrew, I will speak nothing: not daring to affirm, that such faults have taken place in the hebrew text of the old Testament. But you are bold blindelie and bluntlie to avouch that both these fountains are not only corrupted, but more corrupted also then your translation, which Lucas was afraid and ashamed once to insinuate. Your reasons, if you bring any, shall in their several places following be examined but good reason for your defense in this behalf, am I assured can none be brought.

Three things the Reader must carry in mind at your request. First, [ 1] that we pretending to translate after the Greek and Hebrew, in sundry places swerve from the Greek and Hebrew, as you prove by diverse examples out of Master Martin. Secondly, [ 2] that our departing from the Greek, is always in matter of controversy. Thirdly, [ 3] that you decline not from the Greek, or Hebrew, because it more harmeth your cause then the Latin, but for other causes. Whatsoever Gregory Martin, to whom you refer yourself, hath written of these points, it hath been already confuted, and yet standeth confuted; and therefore no more needeth to be answered. What causes moved you to prefer the latin before the Hebrew or Greek, it shall appear in place: reasons I know are rendered in the preface of your translation by your Remish translators, but such as any man of skil and knowledge may easily espy to be simple shifts and pretences only to rid yourselves from the original text of scripture, which is far more express and pregnant against your doctrines then the latin translation. Which though M. Rainolds here closelie denieth, yet in examples everywhere may be seen, and some I will set down, partly for M. Rainolds sake, and partly to show I have no need of his excuse from a lie.

In the 14. Chapter of S. John's gospel ver. 26. where our savior Christ telleth his Apostles, The holy ghost shall bring into your remembrance, whatsoever I have said to you, the Remish translators have made him thus to speak, shall suggest unto you all things, whatsoever I shall say to you, according to the latin vulgare, that it might be more easily supposed, whatsoever the Church should afterwards determine, is from inspiration of the holy ghost.

Ephesians Chapter. 2. verse. 10. the Apostle in the Greek writeth that we are created in Christ unto good works: you translate after your latin, in good works. This corruption is advantage to your doctrine of good works.

In the same epistle Chapter. 5. verse. 32. you translate this is a great sacrament, to make men think that the scriptures affirm marriage to be a sacrament of the Church: whereas if you had truly translated it according to the Greek, This is a great mystery, the occasion of that surmise had been removed. In the epist. to the Pihl. Chap. 1. v. 27. the Greek word, which signifieth a sign, or token, or proof, is in your latin vulgare translated a cause: and this translation do you keep, the rather thereby to induce your readers to believe, that as the malicious dealing of wicked adversaries against the godly may truly be said to be the cause of their perdition, so likewise the patience of the godly is a cause of their salvation: whereas the Apostle only saith in this place, that the raging of the enemies against the Church is a manifest argument of their condemnation, and the constant suffering of the godly is a certain sign and testimony of their salvation, who seeth not herein what cause you had to like better of the latin translation, then of the original text?

Luke Chap. 10. v. 35. the words are in the Greek, whatsoever thou spendest more: which you translate, whatsoever thou shalt supererogate. This corruption maketh some show for your works of supererogation.

Luke Chap. 1. v. 48. the blessed virgins saith, God hath looked on the low estate of his handmaid: you translate, the humility of his handmaid. This corruption helpeth your doctrine of merits. So another corruption in the same Chapter, v. 28. tending to the same purpose, where you have translated, Hail full of grace: the Greek and original text hath only, Hail thou freely beloved. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 13. v. 16. you translate, with such hosts god is promerited: which is both a fond and false translation, the Greek words being, with such sacrifices God is delighted, meaning alms and distribution.

In the second Ep. of S. Peter Chap. 1. v. 15. you have strangely translated the Apostles words, I will do my diligence, you to have often after my decease also, that you may keep a memory of these things, and upon this disordered translation you have made a long note of Peters care and protection of the Church after his death: whereas the Apostle in his own words saith no more, but that he would endeavor daily, that they also might have remembrance of those things after his departure. A pretty sleight in translating for advantage, where the Apostle saith, he would endeavor that they might remember those things after his decease, to make him say, that he would have them in remembrance after his decease; and then of this false translation to note what a pastoral care S. Peter hath for the Church after he was deceased. In the epistle of S. Paul to the Romans chap. 11. v. 6. the common translator hath left out this whole sentence together, But if it be of works, it is no more grace: or else were work no more work: and these words have you also in your English translation clean omitted, as though they were no parte of scripture, being the Apostles undoubted words no less, then the other that went before. What cause was there of this dealing, but only to smother that clear opposition between merit and grace, which the Apostle hath in his own words declared, if he might be suffered to speak all.

A number such places could I allege, where the vulgar translation, differing and swerving from the undoubted original text, is by you followed, because it carrieth some sound and show of your opinions and errors. Manie excuses may you make for yourselves, & your translators have in their preface handsomely laid out their excuses, (which I doubt not shall be weied and examined thoroughly) but soon may any man perceive, what cause indeed moved you to be so friendly to the translation, and soe hard to the text: because the text doth plainly discover your nakedness, the translation bringeth some small rags to hide it.

Before you answer my arguments alleged for defense of the Hebrew and Greek text, you set down certain words of mine, wherein I seem (you say) to avouch, that only to be the word of God, which is written in the language, wherein first the holy ghost by the Prophets and Apostles uttered it. My words are plain, Master Rainolds, my meaning cannot seem ambiguous: you seek not for truth, but for a cavil. The word of God I know may be uttered in other languages, then wherein first it was by writing delivered to the Church: and translations agreeing with the original text are the word of God. For God's word is not the language, but the doctrine. Howbeit translations set forth by sundry persons are so far forth only the word of God, as they faithfully express the meaning of the Authentical text, the which being written by the Prophets and Apostles, chosen instruments for that purpose, is wholly and undoubtedly the word of God. Then it may worthily be wondered at in you, who taking upon you to translate the new testament into englishe, have not translated the text of the Apostles and Evangelists, but the translation of S. Jerome or some other, you know not whom: which translation in very many places is corrupt, and therefore in those places cannot be the word of God. Religion and reason would have required that in translating the scriptures you should have followed the original fountains, yea although the latin translation had been much perfecter and purer then it is: how much more ought you to have soe done, seeing it be wrayeth soe manifest and manifold corruptions as it doeth?

But your reasons, whereby you labor to justify your doing in this behalf, must be examined. Our Savior, the Euangilists, & Apostles (you say) cited places of the old testament, not according to the Hebrew, but according to the Septuagint's. First, Master Rainolds, your comparison is not equal. What are ye to Christ, to his Evangelists, and Apostles? will you be bold to take as much upon you, as they might? herein doubtless you have not so wisely be thought yourself. Then, show if you can a place alleged by our savior Christ, or any Evangelist, or Apostle, swerving in sense from the Hebrew. They cite not always the words, but they keep most truly the sense and meaning ever more. Lastly it is one thing to translate the scripture, and another to cite a place of scripture. In citing a place, it is sufficient to observe the true meaning, in translating it is necessary to keep the words, as near as may be. Our savior, his Evangelists and Apostles were no translators of scripture: but they truly delivered the sense of such places, as they alleged out of scripture.

The Apostle (you say) alleging a place out of the psalm, Their sound is gone into all the earth, followed not the Hebrew. First I answer, the sense is all one, whether you translate, their sound or their line is gone forth: secondly John Isaac can tell you, that the hebrew word Kau must signify not only a line, but also as much as Kol, a sound: which if it be so, then hath the Apostle kept the very word. The place in the Acts which S. Paul citeth out of the Prophet Habacuc, hath no difference in substance. The Prophet saith, Behold among the Gentiles, &c. The Apostle citeth the place thus, Behold ye scorners. Howsoever some diversity may appear in the words, the purpose of the Prophet and Apostle is all one: and this was the thing which the Apostles regarded in alleging authorities out of the Old Testament.

Your third example in Saint James showeth, that the Apostle cited the words of the Greek, & not of the hebrew: which is granted to be oftentimes in the New Testament used. But to allege the sense of a place, & therein to follow some translation, is another thing, then to translate the text it self. The Hebrew text is to this sense, He mocketh the mockers, and giveth grace to the meek: Saint James rehearseth the words thus, God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. The sense is not altered, seeing these mockers are the proud men of this world, and God mocketh them, when he resisteth them.

But tell me now, whether you think the Hebrew in these places to be corrupt, or no. I think you dare not so affirm, seeing your latin vulgar, which you account authentical, agreeth with the Hebrew, for the two last places. Then what is your argument out of these examples? gladly would I understand, if you could tell. That Christ and the Apostles cited places out of the old testament according to the Greek, was it because the Hebrew was contaminated, as you speak? If it were, then must you confess your latin translation, which you so much esteem to be full of corruption. Would you translate these places according to the Greek, because you find them cited by the Apostles according to the Greek? Expound your dream, Master Rainolds your, self, and tell us what you saw. Calvin you charge for cutting the place of James clean away. Lay not the Printers fault upon Calvin. If he had meant, as you surmise, he would have cut the same sentence out in Saint Peter also. But there you have it set down in the text, and expounded in the commentary.

Your spposes have small weight to ground an argument upon: you may devise and imagine anything what you list. Every canonical book of the old testament is extant in the same language wherein it was written. As for your books of Toby, Judith, Maccabees, it is no matter in what tongue, or by whom they were set forth. That S. Matthew writ his Gospel in Hebrew, is affirmed, I grant, by ancient fathers, but affirmed only, not proved: and arguments there be many to the contrary. But admit that so it were: the Greek was set forth in the Apostles days, as the same authors confess, and by them commended to the Church, as the true and authentical history written by S. Matthew, and of us is so to be accounted. As for the Hebrew of that Gospel now extant, yourself believe not, I think, it is the same, that, Saint Matthew writ, if he writ any at all in Hebrew. Look now to the force of this supposition a little better yourself, & if you have grace to consider it aright, which you say is wanting in me, you will confess it proveth nothing.

My words by you translated I acknowledge: out of which three things you note. [ 1] First that I confess you refuse not the fountains, but because you think them to be corrupt: which yet is not by me anywhere confessed. The fountains indeed you refuse, and of this refusal the reason you pretend to be, that they are corrupt. Yet think I not, that so you are in truth persuaded, it being contrary to all reason, that the translation generally should be more pure and incorrupt, then the fountain it self, from whence it is derived.

Secondly, [ 2] that I affirm you thus to say because the fountains be not so commodious for you, as the translation. This to be the true cause in deed any man may soon perceive, that thoroughly & indifferently considereth your dealing: & this in some examples I have already shown, and can more at large declare, when occasion shall require. [ 3] Thirdly that I tell you the fountains are more pure and wholesome, then the latin edition. Verilie this I believe, and this can I prove, and this shall in the discourse following appear, whatsoever you have alleged, or can allege to the contrary.

In your entry to the question you think to gain credit to your vulgare translation by S. Jerome's authority, who was requested by Damasus Bishop of Rome to correct the latin translation of the New Testament. S. Jerome I reverence, Damasus I commend, the work I confess to be godly & profitable to the Church. But if Jerome or Damasus may bring any weight of commendation to your latin translation, how much more ought we to have in high and holy reverence the Hebrew and Greek text, which was written, not by Jerome, or any such father of mean credit, but by the Prophets, by the Apostles and Evangelists, not at the request of Damasus, or other like Bishop, but by commandment from God, and direction of the holy Ghost? S. Jerome took pains at Damasus request in the four Evangelists: of his own accord in many books of the old Testament: but this maketh nothing for your assertion, but much rather against it. For of this it plainly appeareth at the first to everyone, that in S. Jerome's days, the vulgar translations were greatly corrupted, and that S. Jerome reformed the same by the Hebrew and Greek text, which argueth that the text was in those days generally without contradiction acknowledged to be purer then all translations whatsoever. Then if such corruption crept into the Hebrew and Greek text, as you affirm, it was after S. Jerome's days: but when & in what manner, you cannot tell. Again that you say this edition of S. Jerome was by Damasus supreme authority commended to the Church, may easily be disproved: or if he labored to have it in the Latin Churches received, yet could he not bring it to pass. For both other Churches used it not, and in the Church of Rome it was not in any singular estimation for the space of two hundred years after S. Jerome, and Damasus, as we may understand by S. Gregory, who writeth, that in his days the Roman Church used two translations, an old and a new. This new is the same, which now is called the old. The name of High Priest, if you think it maketh anything for the Popes supreme authority, you are abused through your own ignorance. It was a name belonging as well to every Bishop, especially of the chief Churches, as to Damasus. But of such speeches you can be content to take advantage to the abusing of the simple.

Four things do you propound to yourself to prove, concerning your vulgar translation: First, [ 1] that I have said nothing to purpose against it. Second, [ 2] that it is purer then the fountains. Third, [ 3] that although it hath some small faults, yet absolutely it hath no error touching either doctrine or manners. Last, that to refuse it, and appeal to the Greek and Hebrew, is the high way to denial of all faith, to Apostasy and Atheism. These things Master Rainolds hath thus divided not amiss: now let us examine his proofs of these points for performance of his promise.

[ 1] First you say that in commending the fountains so much, I have spoken nothing against you, but rather much and all against myself. If you can make your saying good herein, we shall have cause much to commend your wit and learning. The reason that you have brought, is by you uttered in these words following. For if the fountains were so pure in the times of S. Jerome and S. Ambrose, and the Church then troubled with great diversity of their Latin Bibles, reformed one to the purity of the fountains and originals, and we now find those fountains and originals differing from that reformed bible, why shall we not conclude, that the fountains have in the mean season been corrupted? And what cause have you thus to conclude? where have you learned to make such conclusions? think you that this conclusion is ought worth? Let us way it a little together, Master Rainolds, and then shall we better esteem the value of it. First you grant the fountains were pure in S. Jerome and S. Ambrose days: the translations corrupt. Doubtless it grieveth you to confess thus much, but the necessity of confessing the same enforced you. Then four hundred years after Christ by M. Rainolds confession the fountains of the Hebrew and Greek text were pure, and all translations were reformed by them. Now let us know some certainty of the great alteration that followed. What cause was there that the fountains and originals remained pure so long, and then after began to be so shamefullie and universally corrupted? Again, what was the cause that the latin translations were so greatly corrupted for so long a space, and never since could be corrupted? Tell us some truth, show some reason, allege your authorities, speak to purpose, and leave these untoward presumptions. The same means that kept the text pure all that while, why might it not continue in times following? if you lay the fault of corrupting the fountains upon the Jews, as you do, were there no Jews in the world, for the space of four hundred years after Christ, or were they either unwilling or unable to attempt such a matter? it cannot be denied, but that within the compass of those years the Jews had as great opportunities and greater, to have performed so wicked an enterprise, then since that time can be devised. Their malice against Christian religion was no less then, the number of their learned Rabbin's was as great then, the troubles of the Church of Christ by reason of the great and general persecutions, gave better occasion to them then: therefore if this corruption hath thus mightily prevailed in the text, may it please you to inform us how and when it began: which request ought not in any wise seem unreasonable unto you. For if you may demand of us the time wherein corruption began to enter into the Church, and otherwise will not believe us that there is any in the Church, may not we likewise require of you by as good reason, what time this foul corruption, whereof you speak, first began to cease upon the text of scripture? and if you cannot tell, how may you look to be herein believed? The Jews must be charged for all, and the hatred which the Jews bear to our religion, must be an argument that now all is corrupted in the Hebrew.

Saint Jerome said he was ashamed to see the Christians thus unworthily and untruly charge the Hebrew verity with corruption: And so may we also truly say, that it is a shame for these men to slander the Hebrew text, and to accuse the Jews of that fault, whereof they are not guilty, for ought that can be proved in this behalf against them. And S. Augustine entreating at large of a place, read otherwise in the Greek and Latin translations, then in the Hebrew text, not only dischargeth the Jews from all suspicion of corrupting their books, but giveth this rule, that whensoever there is found any variety or difference in the texts, we should give greatest credit to that tongue, out of which the interpreters have made their translation. Upon which place Louis Viues writeth thus, This same doth Jerome avouch, and this reason it self teacheth: there is none of sound judgment that thinketh otherwise. But in vain doth the consent of good wits thus think. For stout senselessness, as it were an hill, is opposed against it: not because these men are ignorant of those tongues, (for Augustine knew not the Hebrew & the Greek, but meanlie) but there is not in these men that modesty of mind, that was in Augustine. He was ready to be taught of all: they will never learn but always teach that they know not. Thus hath Viues wtitten of you Master R. and such absurd and senseless fellows as you, that against reason and truth will defend your translations, although differing never so much from the original tongues, because you are too stout, and want modesty.

And for the Jews thus much may be answered, that howsoever they mislike and hate our religion, yet the text of holy scripture they have evermore, and yet still do keep most religiouslie and carefully. Which may appear, for that there be, as Johannes Isaac, a learned Jew, writeth, above two hundred arguments against the Jewish opinions more evident and express in the Hebrew text of the old testament, then they be in the latin translation. And so likewise saith Andradius, that they, which holylie and religiouslie handle the Hebrew text, find therein far more not able testimonies of Christ, then in the Latin and Greek copies. which also Saint Jerome long since hath witnessed, saying, that when he of purpose compared the Hebrew text with a Greek translation, to see whether the Jews had not changed something in the Hebrew books through envy that they bare to Christ, he found therein much more for confirmation of Christian faith: which could not have been so, if the Jews had of malice to Christ corrupted their Bibles, as now is by our adversaries untruly surmised.

What madness then should drive them to corrupt the text, to no hindrance of our religion, to no furtherance of theirs? who doubteth, but if they had meant such a thing, they would have practiced their skill in those places especially, that do moste directly concern the Gospel of Christ, which being otherwise, your conjecture of the Jews dealing about the Hebrew text is foolish, and false.

You declaim against the ignorance and reprobate mind of the Jews: you set forth the promises made to the Church, of having always the truth. And think you that this maketh anything for you? Do these promises of gods spirit and truth made to the Church belong only to the latin Church? are they included only in the latin translation? What shall become then in your judgment of so many Churches in Greece, in Armenie, in Arabie, in all places of the world, that have no skill of your latin Bibles? Have they no spirit, no scripture, no truth? doth your Tridentine decree appertain unto them also of using only the latin text in sermons, in lectures, in expositions, in disputations? what mean you to talk in this manner?

You say, God hath promised the Church, that she shall be a faithful and perpetual observer of his word and testament, that is, according to your new commentary, that the Church shall lose the pure fountains of the Hebrew text, but shall keep a pure translation forever. And see you not the vanity of this devise? Confessed you not even now, that in Damasus days all the latin translations were corrupt, whereupon S. Jerome was entreated to take upon him a labor of correcting them all? Was not the promise, whereof you speak, made to the Church, before S. Jerome set forth his correction? and yet the Churches latin translations were, as yourself confess, in his time full of diversities and corruptions. Then if the Bibles in latin were so much corrupted, before S. Jerome, by your own confession, notwithstanding the promise that God made the Church of keeping his word and testament, can you by this argument prove, that by force of this promise the latin Bibles have not been corrupted since Saint Jerome's time, and the Hebrew have? S. Augustine saith it came to pass by God's special providence that the Jews being so continually tossed to and fro, and still continuing their hatred against our savior Christ, yet kept the holy scriptures, that the truth of Christ's Gospel might so much the more be approved amongst all men, because it received so sure & weighty testimonies of the most malicious enemies. And to this purpose he applieth the verse of the Psalm, Lord kill them not, lest they forget thy law, but scatter them.

Furthermore, all that you can say against the malice, falsehood, and ignorance of the Jews, nothing toucheth the new testament: for corruption whereof in the original Greek, I marvel what you can devise, seeing it was kept not in the custody of Jews, or paganes, but of moste Godly and learned Christians. Yet do you reprove it also, as well as the Hebrew, of the old testament. what reason have you M. Rainolds so to do? was it also corrupted since S. Jerome's time, as you said of the other? The commentaries and writings of the Greek fathers will easily convince you if so you say. For the text that we have, is the same which they followed, expounded, and set down in their writings, except there be in some few places some small difference of reading. If the latin Church had any promise to keep God's truth and testament in a latin translation, will you deny that the Greek Church had not the same promise to keep it in the original text? while you seem to avouch the truth of gods promise toward the latin Church, as though you cared nothing how the Lord dealt with others, so he kept touch and covenant with yourselves, you make him by your argument to be unfaithful toward the Church of Greece, and all other Churches else in the world. Thus are you driven into absurdities and contradictions, as needs you must, when you maintain willfullie such false assertions, as these.

That Calvin affirmeth the Roman Church to have been more constant, and less given to novelties then the East Churches, whereby she obtained greater fame and credit, then the rest, nothing concerneth this matter. For though it be granted the Grecians were more factious for the most part and wavering, then the Romans, yet might they retain the original text of scripture, as faithfully as they. No people so froward, so malicious, so presumptuous, so contentious, so hard to be brought under the obedience of gods laws, as the Jews, and yet for all this perverse disposition in them, it is moste certain, that they had evermore, and have still the books of scripture in highest reverence, and keep them with greatest diligence, so as they would not alter one letter in them for all the world. And notwithstanding the Romans greater constancy and staiednes then the Grecians, yet were the latin Bibles in S. Jerome's time, more corrupt for the new testament, then the Greek fountains were. Which may be understood undoubtedly thereof, for that in any controversy about the latin translation, they always had recourse to the Greek copies, and have prescribed the same rule to be followed continually: and Saint Jerome himself reformed the latin translations according to the Greek then extant, & read in the Greek Churches. Thus then you may perceive, that to be constant in the profession of God's truth, and to be careful to keep the text of scripture from corruption, are two diverse things: which you might have soon considered, if you had but looked back to that yourself have written before. For these are even the same Grecians, whose exemplars Saint Jerome followed in correcting the Evangelists, and which he calleth waters of the moste pure fountain, and sundry wise commendeth.

[ 2] For proof that the Hebrew fountains are by the Jews corrupted, you bring us forth a place out of the prophet Isaiah, Chap. 9. First in that I say the Jews have not corrupted the hebrew text, I say no other thing, then that which the moste learned Papists of all times have affirmed: and that by the same argument, which myself used, that then this corruption moste certainly would have appeared in those places that directly concern our Savior Christ: amongst the which this that you mention here is notable: And although I will not deny but that the Jews might have some purpose to wrest it from the sense, that it might be aplied to any rather, then to Christ, yet the corruption is not so great as you would have it seem, consisting not in change of any letter, but only of the pointes. The letters remaining without alteration, whatsoever is amiss in the pointes, may easily be corrected. Furthermore if we read the word with the same pointes, which now it commonly hath in the Hebrew Bibles, whereby the verbópassiue is turned into an active, yet the place notwithstanding proveth invincibly the Divinity of our Savior Christ. For as well doth it confirm this doctrine, if we read, & vocabit, that is, God the father shall call his name wonderful, &c, as if we read, vocabitur, his name shall be called wonderful. Although, you that take upon you such profound knowledge and cunning in the Hebrew language, should not have been ignorant that this is the phrase of that tongue. That the Jews refer the last name only, which is the Prince of peace, to the Child borne, all the rest going before to God him self, this I grant to be a malicious construction of the words, but no corruption of the text. One thing is it to expound the words in a wrong sense, another to falsify the words. You hoped no doubt to have gained much more by this place, then will any ways be yielded unto you: for that you add of the Churches authority, which you call the supreme ground and stay, is nothing worth, being an old worn and wasted sentence, brought in rashelie without credit or countenance. The words are plain of them-selves and have in them authority and stay sufficient to prove the truth of Christ's divinity, and to confute the enemies thereof.

An other such place you object out of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chap. 23. v. 6. wherein that some corruption hath been committed either in letter or point, may be imagined, but cannot by evident demonstration be proved. What moved S. Jerome to translate thus, vocabunt eum, They shall call him, I will not dispute. The reason might be in the variety, and incertentie of points, or in the ambiguous acception of the word. But because M. Rainolds chargeth the Jews with so foul a corruption of this place, only to discredit the divinity of our Savior Christ, he must remember, that the Seuentie interpreters translated it in the singular number, according to the Hebrew now extant, as S. Jerome also maketh mention, yet were they never challenged for partial interpretation of the scriptures, being (as many write) wonderfullie assisted & governed in that work, and not smallie had of ancient time in regard. And this was long before our savior Christ was come in the flesh, and therefore undoubtedly the place was not corrupted by the Jews for such a cause as you imagine, unless you will say the Jews in hatred of Christ corrupted the Bible diverse hundred years before Christ was borne, and before they had cause to conceive any malice or displeasure against our savior Christ. And so your Lyranes surmise is plainly disproved, in which you rest yourself, as in a certain verity, and upon his word are boulde to pronounce sentence against the poor Jews for committing a crime, which by clear evidence of greater authority they are not guilty of. Neither maketh it less for Christ's divinity, to read it, vocabit, He shall cal him, that is, God the father, or, every faithful man shall call him, The Lord our righteousness: then if we read, vocabunt, They shall call him the Lord our righteousness. And Saint Jerome (as you might have seen, had you looked on the place yourself) translateth the text after this manner, Et hoc est nomen, quo vocabunt eum (sine vocabit eum) Dominus iustus noster, wherein he showeth plainly there is no substance of matter more in the one, then the other. If this be so shameful & so notable a corruption, as you in countenance and show pretend, S. Jerome was greatly overseen, that not only gave no warning thereof in his Commentary, but used the same also in the text it self. But what will you say to those learned men, who having more skill in the Hebrew tongue then you, Master Rainolds, or else your Lyra, though a Jew borne, have translated the word as it is now read in the hebrew Bibles, no otherwise then yourselves would have it to be translated. I mean Arias Montanus and Vatablus, as in their translations you may find: who if they have rightelie and well translated the word, then may you see, that no such wickedness hath been practiced in this place, as you have fathered vpō the Jews. And furthermore compare another like place in the same Prophet, Chap. 33. v. 15. Where this word is used in the singular number without controversy, the Prophet speaking again of the same matter, and almost wholly in the same words. Thus you may understand that the integrity of this place may be avouched, and the Jews delivered from your unjust accusation many ways.

One example more you give mean another kind, wherein no kind of corruption appeareth at all. In the Prophet Isaiah chap. 53. verse. 8. the old latin translation standeth thus, propter scelus populi mei percussi eum, For the sin of my people have I smitten him. The Hebrew text is something otherwise, propter defectionem populi mei plaga ipsi, that is, For the transgression of my people was he plagued. Your self confess there is agreement in the sense, as indeed everyone may see: yet by and by, as a man without memory or reason, you say the sense is inverted, & greatly altered. Something would you gladly say, but nothing to purpose can you say. The sense in the Hebrew now extant, agreeing so fully with the translation of S. Jerome, which you hold as authentical, and consonant to the verity of the ancient Hebrew Bibles, how can you probablie charge the Jews with corruption of this place, there being no difference, and therefore no corruption in the sense, by your own confession? If they corrupted the text, it was because they would corrupt the sense: but here the sense runneth as pure and clear in the Hebrew, as in the Latin: therefore this text is not corrupted by the Jews.

What Luther hath written of the Jews and Rabbin's endeavor in this behalf, maketh nothing for your advantage. Yet as though it had been by plain demonstration declared, that the bibles are corrupted by them, M.R. taketh upon him now to show the sorts and manners of their corruption.

And two he noteth: [ 1] the first is, by plain alteration of points, letters, and syllables: [ 2] the second, by deviding words, which by the Prophets were joined together. And that you may know he hath plentiful store and variety of examples, Sernetus is alleged, neither Jew nor Rabbi, who by dividing a text of the Apostle in the Greek, corrupted the sense. Thus trimlie can M. R. prove the matter he goeth about, although he speak never a word to the question. The controversy is whether the Jews have thus corrupted the Hebrew Bibles: M.R. alledgeth an example, wherein Seruetus of late thus corrupteth the Greek Testament. No man now can say, but he hath well performed his parte, & proved invincibly both manifest corruption in the Bibles, and shown also the manners thereof. More perhaps anon will come to his hands: for as yet nothing hath he found.

* M.R. saith he could note sundry other particular errors in the Hebrew, but that he wanteth a piece of that insolent vain, which many of his adversaries have. If he wanted nothing else, he need not greatly to complain: but doubtless much greater want hath he of truth and learning, then insolency. One thing here he confesseth which the Reader may remember, that howsoever some gross errors have crept into the fountains and originals, yet commonly, and for the most parte the text is true and sincere. Thus M.R. hath voluntarily protested for the Hebrew and Greek text. And are there no gross errors in your latin translation, or not so many as in the fountains? it shall be proved there are not only grosser faults in yo •• translation, but also moe manifest corruptions, then you can imagine in the text.

In that you demand, what reason I have to think the Hebrew text so pure, I answer, the care which God hath for the truth of his word, and the diligence of them, to whose custody the same was committed. Against this reason you argue, but without a good argument. That diverse books of scripture have perished, is not denied. But the Canon of scripture being after the captivity gathered by Ezra, and other Prophets, and delivered to the Church, that since that time any parcel hath been lost, you cannot prove. And those that are lost of which you reckon some, in some you are deceived, they are wanting without any loss or decaie of necessary doctrine for the Church in those times, wherein they were not extant. And that the Jews have been more diligent to keep their Bibles from corruption, then Christians have been to keep their translations sincere, who can doubt, considering that in S. Jerome's days the common translations were moste faulty, as himself is a witness, but the Hebrew text remained true, sincere, incorrupt, and was a rule to follow in reforming the translations used in the Church? And yourself even now confessed of your own good accord, that the Hebrew text was for the moste parte and commonly void of all corruption: which being true, showeth a wonderful providence of the Lord watching over the books of his heavenly word, to defend them from such infections, as otherwise through negligence and malice of men they were subject unto.

Now if the Jews were either so negligent, or so malicious, as you imagine, and the Christians so careful for preservation of the Bible, how then came it to pass, that in the Hebrew copies was found so great truth & sincerity, in the common translations such notorious errors & corruptions, and that for so many hundred years after Christ? Andradius a doctor of your own schools, & a great master in your Roman synagogue, hath told you already, that you have herein vnaduisedlie & foolishly deemed, that therefore more credit is to be given to the latin edition, then to the Hebrew books, for that these were corrupted through the treachery of the Jews: & saith, you cannot either note the time, or describe the authors of that heinous fact, or assign the place, or show such other circumstances, which might convict the Jews of this sacrilege, & that therefore the whole matter hangeth upon bare suspiciō, for which we ought not to charge in this manner the holy books of the hebrewes, so ancient, so commended by our elders, so renowned by testimonies of all ages.

[ 2] The likeness of some Hebrew letters between themselves hath been a cause, I grant, of some corruption in the Bible, but that not great, and such as hath happened of negligence, rather then purpose, and may easily both be espied, and amended, and nothing so gross or common, as in your latin Bibles may be seen. Is it reason, think you, that for as much as some letters have been mistaken in the Hebrew, therefore the wholl text should be condemned? Is there not such mistaking of letter for letter, & word for word in the latin vulgare translation? who knoweth not there is? shall we then use your argument against the translation, which you have devised against the fountain? There is no reason to the contrary. For if diligence hath been bestowed in purging and reforming such errors of the translation, why may not the same be done in restoring the original text to the natural truth and sincerity? The errors rising upon the similitude of letters and words, may in the Hebrew, as well as any other language be corrected. That in these examples by you alleged out of the Psalms. 100. v. 3. & 59. v. 10. any such error of mistaking hath been committed in the text, would have been by you more substantially proved. For my part I think not, and so do the best Hebricians that I have read both protestants & papists. The text in the hebrew is easy enough, and yealdeth a true and godly sense. Your last example Gen. 3. v. 15. proveth no error in the Hebrew, but only in your latin translation. The Hebrew in all the copies old and new (unless one willfully corrupted by Guido Fabricius ) hath one reading, whereby a comfortable promise is set forth, that the woman's seed shall bruise the serpents head: your translation containeth gross impiety & blasphemy, referring that moste excellent work to the woman, which only appertaineth to the seed of the woman. About this, you say, the Protestants keep a stir. And cause, I think, wherefore some stir should be kept: unless it be no matter, if whatsoever belongeth unto our savior Christ, were applied to the blessed virgins his mother, as in this place moste horriblie, and in the Psalms already hath been notoriouslie performed by you, in token of your great love to our Lady, but small regard of our Lord.

[ 3] That we have charged the Apostle with any error, is a bold & manifest untruth. Between the Apostles citation. 1. Cor. 2. v. 9. & the Prophet Isaiah’s authority Chap. 64. v. 4. there is some diversity in one word. The Prophet hath, expectanti ipsum, to him that waiteth for him; the Apostle, diligentib. ipsum, to them that love him. Which diversity came not through oversight or error in the Apostle, but either that the Apostle, followed the common reading of the Greek, or, as his manner for the moste part is, did take the sense, not tying himself to the words. For they that love God, are such & only such as wait for him: and this waiting for god ariseth of the love of God. You think the Apostle & Prophet in these words declared the unspeakable joys of heaven, which are prepared for the children of God, and therefore you frame an argument against justification by faith, which you in your accustomed spirit of blasphemy call our mathematical solifidian fancy, because the Apostle writeth, that God hath prepared so great things for those that love him. By the things which the eye hath not seen, the ear not heard, the heart not conceived, is meant the doctrine and mysteries of the gospel, which the Lord hath revealed to such as wait for him, or love him. And to let you expound the words according to your own sense, doth this make anything against the doctrine of justification by faith only, that God prepareth everlasting & inexplicable joys for those that love him? For whom should they be prepared, but for such as indeed love him? But is our love worthy that reward? Is it given to such as love him, in respect, and for the merit of their love? This must you prove, if you will refell our doctrine in this behalf. But this was no matter to be handled in this place. It was a poor glance, and did no harm.

[ 4] Here M.R. bringeth in a troupe of authorities together, to prove that false which I have said, and all true that he saith; long sentences are translated out of Castalion, D. Humfraie, Pelicane, and Munster, whereby howsoever it fareth with his cause, the volume of his book is well increased. For whereto serve these testimonies alleged? That through negligence or ignorance of the writers & printers some faults may be found in the Hebrew Bibles, I think there be none that will deny: but what makeh all this to purpose, seeing there be a thousand times moe such faults in your translations then can be found in the fountains? your long speeches and discourses either in other men's words, or in your own, when they come to scanning, are short enough, and therefore may in a short answer be discharged. Your comparison of Jews and Protestants in railing at the Pope and Roman Church, I pass over.

[ 5] Two examples Master Rainolds willeth me to consider: One, the great diversity of reading. That in the text is such diversity, I deny. The Jews may perhaps in their Commentaries be of diverse opinions, touching the reading, but in the text little or no diversity shall you find: in so much that Johannes Isaac affirmeth, there is soe great consent and agreement in the Bibles, that no book of the bible can be shown written with the hand of a Jew, which either hath anything that others want, or wanteth anything that others have. This may plainly argue an exceading care to keep their Bibles from all manner of corruption: although this that he writeth may almost seem incredible.

An other experiment is, that the Hebrew printes want something now, which certainly was in the first originals. Example hereof you bring the psalm. 144. Which being made according to the Hebrew Alphabete, as diverse other are, one verse is wanting wholly therein, the 14. in number, which should begin with Nun. What cause there was of omitting this Acrostiche I will not take upon me to understand. It is not of later times corrupted, seeing the Chaldee hath not that verse. And as it is now in the Hebrew, so was it in Saint Jerome's time, and before, when the Hebrew Bibles were accounted most pure: and yet then in the Latin psalter a verse was supplied. So that howsoever the matter stand, this proveth not the translation to be of greater purity and credit, then the fountain. Cause there was doubtless, why the Prophet left out the order of the letter, but whether such as the Rabbin's and Talmud • sts have devised, I cannot affirm. The like example have you in the. 36. Psalm of your edition, which being made after the same manner of the Hebrew Alphabet, you have not in it the letter Am. Reasons thereof are alleged both by Jews, and learned Papists; but the place for all that they think not to be corrupted, as you peradventure will rashlie pronounce. As for that in the Greek and Latin of this Psalm there is a verse answerable, the first word whereof in Hebrew beginneth with Nun, Fidelis, Dominus, &c. this proveth not the fountain to be corrupt or imperfect: but the Septuagintes finding no verse for the letter Nun, and thinking perhaps there was some want, repeated the. 17. verse following, the first only being changed. For this verse supplied by them, and the other following, is all one, excepting only the first word. It seemeth not that the Prophet was altogether so curious to keep the order of letters, that if any be wanting in a Psalm of that kind, we ought therefore to suspecte corruption in the Hebrew. In the Psalm. 25. no verse beginneth with Vau: and two begin with Resh: and two with Pe. Wherefore you see how little proof of corruption this reason maketh, whatsoever you in your ignorance esteem of it.

That which Master Rainolds hitherto hath said, as though it were greatly to purpose, and worthy to be remembered, he gathereth now into certain conclusions, and as the smith, he beateth still upon the same anuill. I have already answered enough to the wholl: If anything further be offered in this repetition, it shall be hand led. First it is neither Iudaical, nor injurious to the Church, to think more reuerentlie of the Hebrew fountains, then the latin translation, as hath been shown. Yea absurd and unlearned is it to prefer the translation before the text, upon certain (I know not what) blind surmises. Secondly, if the heresy of the Arians corrupted the Latin Bibles, as you imagine, whereupon they needed such correction and reformation by Saint Jerome, how came it to pass, that the Greek translation of the seventy, and the Greek of the new testament, was not by that means much more corrupted, for so much as that heresy prevailed much more in the Greek then in the latin Churches? why notwithstanding this heresy, do the fathers appeal to the Greek fountains of the new testament, & by them amend their translations? The Arians would have corrupted the spring rather, then a stream: and Saint Jerome had more cause in respect of them to suspecte the Greek, then the latin. Whereby it is plain that your geasse of the latin translations, being troubled and corrupted by the Arians, is vain, and nothing but a geasse at all adventure. That you say the Canon of the scripture in those days, was not by general authority confirmed and received, though it be great untruth, yet for as much as it pertaineth not directly to the matter, I will not stand upon it.

Two authorities M. R. allegeth out of the commentaries of S. Jerome upon the epistle to the Galatians. The Apostle in the 3. Chap. citeth two testimonies out of Deuteronomy, not altogether according to every word in the Hebrew text. Saint Jerome among other reasons hereof useth that for one, that the Jews perhaps have changed something in their originals. If the Apostle had always bound him-self to the words, in rehearsing authorities out of the old testament, this reason had been of weight: but seeing the Apostle Saint Paul and other Apostles use not precisely to recite the words of the text, but the sense, Saint Jerome had no cause to suspecte such a matter in these places. For compare the 〈…〉 Prophets and Apostles words together, and no difference in, sense shall ye find. Deuteronomy Chap. 27. v. 26. the words stand thus in the Hebrew; Accursed is whosoever performeth not the words of this law to do them. The Apostle to the Galat. chap. 3. v. 10. alledgeth them thus, Accursed is everyone that abideth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. Here you have moe words, I grant, but what diversity is there in the sense? again Deuter. Chap. 21. v. 23. the words are these, Accursed of God is he that is hanged. Saint Paul Galat. Chap. 3. v. 13. alledgeth the words thus, Accursed is everyone that is hanged on a tree: in words a little alteration, in matter & meaning none at all.

[ 3] That the Hebrew was corrupted either before S. Jerome, or since, in such manner as you pretend, when will you prove unto us M.R? hitherto nothing have you done, as plainly appeareth, & now are you spent almost, so that little more may be looked for at your hands. Concerning points, pricks, distinctions, resemblance of letters, malice of the Rabbin's, and such like conjectures, I have before answered. And lastly touching the confession of some Protestants, hath been declared it maketh little to your purpose.

Here M.R. answereth a question, which reasonablie is demanded, namely, when these corruptions came into the Hebrew Bibles? that is, whether before Christ's time, or between that and S. Jerome's time, or since? [ 1] He answereth as one nothing afraid, that the Hebrew was corrupted before Christ, [ 2] more after Christ until S. Jerome's age, [ 3] and moste from S. Jerome since. These parts are handled by Master R. severally.

[ 1] First that the Bible was corrupted before the time of our savior Christ, what cause have we to think, especially seeing our savior Christ never once chargeth the Jews with any such corruption? M. Rainolds saith, it might be that Christ objected the same unto them, although not recorded in the Testament. Remember then that this be put among the traditions unwritten of your Church: and so you need not to seek for other answer, as you do. Yet our savior Christ when he saith, ye have heard it said, thou shalt love thy neighboure, and hate thine enemy, accuseth not the Scribes and Pharisees, for corrupting the letter of the text, by adding thereunto the second member, but for gathering out of the text wicked doctrine, that for so much as we are commanded to love our neighbor, (that is, as they expounded it, our friend) therefore we are licensed to hate our enemy. This false exposition of the scripture, not corruption of the text, doth Christ correct. For that in wicked Manasseh days diverse books were lost, I have before answered: If Christ reprove not the Jews therefore, no marvel, seeing that loss was not through their negligence, but many hundred years before: yet maintenance of open corruption in the text had deserved in them sharp reproof, although them selves had not been the first authors of that corruption.

S. Augustine in many places by occasion, speaketh of difference between the Hebrew text, and the translation of the 70. interpreters, which he much esteemed, even as you do now your latin translation. Yet in this diversity doth he not at anytime accuse the Hebrew of corruption, but rather imagineth some mystery in the Septuagint's translation. Which plainly proveth, that the Church believed not the Hebrew to be corrupted then. Yea, S. Augustine maketh it a matter, not only of great absurdity, but also notable impiety to say, that the Jews could conspire together in such sort, as that they might, though never so peeuishlie and malitiouslie bent, corrupt the books of Scripture, being so many, and so generally spread abroad.

[ 2] That more corruption crept into the Bibles after Christ, you prove by testimony of Justinus Martyr, in his disputation with Tryphon, wherein he alledgeth three examples of notable corruption committed by the Jews. A short answer may serve. Justinus spake of suspicion, more then knowledge, as being not very skillful in the Hebrew brewe tongue: & if we diligently examine the places, it will sone appear, that no such matter can be proved. The first is out of Esdras Ch. 6: The words are these: Esdras spake unto the people, this pascha is our savior and refuge, &c. Now in the hebrew no such words are found: no truly, nor never were, which I prove, because they are not in your latin translation. And this against you is an argument strong enough, that maintain your latin text to be the authentical word of God. If anything want, it wanteth as much in your latin Bibles, as in the Hebrew: and so no more corruption here in the Hebrew text, then in the latin. Again, the Greek now extant hath them not: & whatsoever can be said, no more shall be proved against the verity, and sincerity of the hebrew fountains, then of the latin translation in this behalf, & so no advantage shall redownde to your opinion and defense.

The second place out of Jeremiah the 11. Chap. v. 19. is by your own confession void of corruption in the hebrew bibles now extant. Your argument for real presence out of this place is singular. The Prophet you say calleth Christ's natural body upon the Cross by the name of bread. That is untrue: he speaketh not of Christ's body, nor of the Cross, nor of real presence in the sacrament. And was Christ's natural body hanging on the Cross nothing but bread? was bread crucified for you? Els how maketh this for your real presence? A strange presence, a goodly religion, a wonderful argument.

The last place in the 95. psalm. v. 10. is no otherwise in the hebrew now, then not only in the Greek, but in the vulgar latin, and Saint Jerome's translation also, The words a ligno, From the wood, your own fellows have confessed not to be of the hebrew verity, but of Christian devotion. Then is it plain enough, that whatsoever Justinus supposed, the hebrew text was not corrupted: And so your argument from Justinus authority is sufficiently cleared; and it is shown that these three examples prove nothing against the Hebrew original text now extant.

[ 3] That from S. Jerome's age errors & corruptions have still increased & multiplied, you affirm to be very probable. This was something faintlie and doubtfullie spoken. That it may seem unto you probable, is not sufficient to cause you cast away the Hebrew text, and take instead thereof a latin translation, which to be since S. Jerome's time shamefullie corrupted, is not only probable, but very certain and evident, as shall appear. So although it could be proved not only by probable conjectures, but by clear and substantial demonstrations, that the Hebrew Bibles were somewhere corrupted; yet for all that, no reason have our adversaries to make greater account of their latin translation, then of the Hebrew fountain, seeing it may and shall effectual • be declared, that the same vulgare latin translation, which by them is preferred to the rome of the authentical written word of God, before the Hebrew and Greek originals, is full of gross faults, errors, & corruptions. Where I demand how the Church can say she hath kept faithfully the word of god, if she have lost the original text thereof, Master Rainolds answereth she hath conserved the scriptures faithfully, although not in this, or that language. But why in the Latin language more, then in the Hebrew, Greek, or any other, hath she conserved the scriptures? what think you of the Greek Church? Did she lose the word of God in her own tongue, and kept it in the latin? And must she now, & all other Churces in the world, fetch their text of scripture out of the latin translation? must only latin among them be used in sermons, lectures, disputations, and all other such exercises, as your fathers of Trent in their late meeting have appointed? Or grant you them rather no use of the scriptures at all, nor judge them Christians, because they will not be obedient to your Pope? whatsoever you say, no reason can you show, why the Church should keep the word of God and Testament of Christ her spouse in another tongue rather, then that wherein it was written and delivered unto her: why in the latin more, then in some other language, and specially the Greek, seeing that Church ever was larger in number and circuit then the latin, and now not any latin Church at all in the world remaining? That which followeth in certain pages, is nothing else but roving talk, not worthy the reading: where no argument is framed, nor reason used, no answer can be required.

Gregory Martin hath his answer long ago: his Discouerie is disproved, and his objections refelled thoroughly orderly, and learnedly. It will be too great and troublesome a work for you to maintain that quarrel: better it is to leave it to some other, that can do more therein then yourself, if any such be amongst you. As for that notable corruption of great moment and importance by him objected out of the 22. Psal. v. 17. read the answer. Very like a letter was mistaken in the writing and printing, as may fall out in books set forth with greatest diligence and conscience soe Genebrard your Hebrew professor at Paris imputeth not the corruption of this place to willful malice in the Jews, but to chance, by reason the two letters were soe like: and proveth by testimony of learned Jews, that the best and truest copies had Caaru, they digged, not Caari as a Lion, and that when Caari is written, it must be red Caaru. Who ever denied but some fault by this means might come into the Bibles, such as in your translation are plentifully found? is this a reason then of moment & importance to prove the Hebrew Bibles soe full of corruption & errors, that they must be cast away, & the latin translation Canonized for authentical scripture, and received in their place? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and much worse.

Consider now & peruse the sum of your wholl discourse. Let us grant that these by you hitherto rehearsed are indeed corruptions, which yet is plainly false, and not anywaies to be granted: but let us for your cause suppose such a thing. Tell us I pray you, how many corruptions have you found? score them up, and let us know the number. with all your skil, labor & conference, yet were you not able to object ten places out of the Hebrew Bibles, which you might probablie charge with corruption. A manifest proof and certain argument of rare and notable purity in them, far above not only the diverse translations of old time, but also your vulgare latin edition, which you notwithstanding boldly, but moste untruly, maintain to be sounder and purer then the Greek text in the new testament, and the Hebrew in the old. Let us therefore somewhat examine your latin Bibles, whether in them such corruptions may not be found, as you have charged the original text withal: whereby it shall appear, that there are in your Bibles of the vulgare translation corruptions of all sorts great plenty, yea almost innumerable, & therefore that your argument against the fountains is absurd, and moste unreasonable, to condemn them, because of some faults imagined, whereas you approve a latin edition ten times worse then you can once with show of truth suspect them to be.

In the first Chapter of Genesis, v. 30. certain words are wanting in your vulgar Edition, which are not only in all Hebrew books, but in the Greek translation aso, which is by many hundred years far more ancient then the latin: and therefore if your latin will be tried by the verdit of these two witnesses, it shall be convicted of manifest corruption. For where the Prophet Moses plainly writeth, that as the Lord had given to man for his meat every herb and tree that yieldeth fruit, so he had also provided • uer • e green herb to be meat for the beasts & birds, & creeping things, these words so material and necessary are in your latin books nowhere to be found. How can you think to excuse this from corruption.

In the second Chap. v. 8. the scripture saith both in the hebrew and Greek text, that God had planted a garden in the East, and so is it understood of the learned writers, that the garden, wherein Adam for a time remained, was sited in the east: but your translator maketh the Prophet to speak otherwise, that the Lord God had planted a garden of pleasure from the beginning. Is this kind of translating to be allowed in the word of God? I think none of sound judgment & good conscience will so esteem.

In the third of Genes. v. 15. a Capitall and intolerable corruption hath been committed and still is continued and maintained by you in the words, wherein the Lord made unto man the first promise of that redemption, which should be wrought by our Savior Christ, and in which the sum of the Gospel, and all hope of our salvation is contained, that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the Serpent. For thus speaketh the Lord to the Serpent. I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Thus hath the Prophet Moses reported the words of almighty God and so have the seventy interpreters translated them according to the Hebrew original verity. Which notwithstanding, in steed of He shall bruise thine head, your latin translation hath, She shall bruise thine head, and this, She, is meant the blessed virgins. A foul, a dangerous, a damnable corruption, thus defended and expounded. Yea the very enemies them selves, that have never so little conscience and fear of God, do confess that it ought to be red otherwise, then it is in your latin translation, seeing it disagreeth from the Hebrew, and some ancient copies also of the vulgar latin edition have ipse, and not ipsa. Yet howsoever not only the Hebrew and Greek texts lead us to the true meaning of God's promise made to mankind in Jesus Christ, yea and further some copies of the vulgar translation agree therewith, nevertheless the Church of Rome (that you may the better perceive whose Church it is) not regarding all this, embraceth, alloweth, maintaineth the evident corruption, as as you may find not only in the Latin books of the vulgare edition reformed according to the Tridentine Councils appointment, but also in the Catechism set forth by authority of the same Council: and in the books of sundry Papists, that have willingly soulde them selves to love and defend all Antichrists doctrine. In the margent of your Bibles is printed for a fashion the true reading: howbeit this not only excuseth nothing your willful maintenance of detestable corruption, but may rather make the same appear more odious to all the faithful. For if you can set the true word in the margent, why might you not receive it also into the text, but only for that you are determined already to be ashamed of nothing that may any ways bring advantage to your corruptions, though it be to the certain & everlasting damnation of your souls. And what go • lie man shall patiently endure this blasphemy in your English transalation of the old testament, when it cometh forth? where our comfort and hope hath been, that he (who is the woman's seed, our blessed Lord and savior Christ) should bruise the serpents head, now we must turn it another way, and say thus, she shall bruise the serpents head. If still you will speak in defense of this corruption, you shall but bark against heaven: it is too manifest, too heinous, too impudent.

In the fourth of Genes. v. 8. your latin translation hath these words, Let us go forth, which are not in the Hebrew text, nor yet in the Chaldee paraphrast: & S. Jerome hath given a note upon them, that they are superfluous, and ought to be removed. And in the 15. verse of this Chapter one Hebrew word, that signifieth wherefore, or doubtless, is untruly rendered by your translator thus, it shall not be so. For the Lord said not, that none should kill Kain, but that whosoever killed him, he should be punished seven fold. It may not be granted to any translator of scripture thus to thrust in words at his pleasure, whereby the sense is manifestly changed.

In the sixth Chapter and 5. verse, where the Lord complaineth of man's corrupt nature, and saith, that the very frame of the thoughts of his heart is only evil always, your translator hath left out two words of great moment, frame, and only: and so like wise in the eight Chapter following, verse 21. where again the Lord setteth forth the wickedness of man's corrupt nature and saith that the imagination of man's heart is evil, your translator of his own head hath put into the text a pretty word, and soe maketh God to speak otherwise then he spake, that it is prone to evil. Who seeth not that by this word is diminished that corruption and sinfulness whereof almighty God accuseth mankind, and wherewith he declareth man's heart to be replenished from his infancy? This translation liketh you well, because it doth not so fully bewraie the infection of original sin, as the true text of scripture doth, & therefore not so plainly confuteth your heresy of freewill in man to please God before he be regenerate. In the 9. Chap. 6. verse where God ordaineth an everlasting law against murderers, that he who sheddeth the blood of man, his blood shall be shed by man, these last words by man, establishing the Magistrates authority, are not expressed in your traslation. This to be a fault of great importance any man may easily understand.

To proceed a little further in this first book of holy scripture, and to discover some moe gross corruptions of your latin translation therein committed, (for I may not stand to note every petty fault) in the 36. Chap. v. 24. the Prophet writeth that Ana the son of Zibeon found mules in the wilderness: but your translator telleth us he found warm waters, and so by his great cunning hath turned mules into water. It may be said there is great likeness between the words in Hebrew: which I grant to be so. But this dischargeth not the translation from a fault. And howsoever those words are like, yet from whence did your translator fetch his other word, Warme. For though we suppose the word may signify water, yet to cal it warm water, is more then can be warranted. In the 41. Chap. v. 54. there passed in the former editions of your translation a notablefault, which yet of late for very shame hath been amended by Hentenius of Louaine. For where the Prophet speaking of the general famine that was over all countries, saith that in all the land of Egypt was bread, your books clean contrary to the text and story read, that the famine also was in all Egypt. And thus hath it gone main hundred years in your Latin Bibles. Now at length you have been content to acknowledge a fault in this place: and why not as well also in others, wherein as evident faults may be found as this? And seeing you can be brought to acknowledgement of some corruptions in your latin Bibles, by like reason you may be induced also to confess moe faults where moe faults may be found, as there may full many throughout your whole translation.

In the 49. of Genes. v. 22. Jacob compareth Joseph his son to a fruitful bough by the well side: which words in your latin translation are otherwise set down thus, and he is comely to behold. If you say that in the sense is no difference, yet you make no sufficient answer: forasmuch as translating the text of scripture we must retain the very words as well as we may, and not take liberty of leaving the words, because we think we swerve not from the sense. For the words may have some other, or farther meaning, then we suppose, even in such places as seem to be most easy. And if you impute this as a fault to us in translating, why may not we likewise blame your translator for the same, who hath so much offended therein? But let us go on. In the 24. verse of this Chap. Jacob saith of Joseph that his arms were strengthened: & in your translation it is as contrary, as may be, that they were weakened or loosed. Again in the end of this Chapter a wholl verse together is omitted by your tranflators. The purchase of the field, and the cave that is therein of the children of Heth: of which words not one is found in your translation, and so where the Chapter contained 33. verses, your translation hath 32. Tell us by what reason it was lawful for the author of your translation to put so much our of the text, or for you to allow him in so doing.

It were a work of great labor and length to go through every book of scripture in this order: and therefore it shall be for our purpose sufficient, of infinite faults that might be noted book by book, Chapter by Chapter, verse by verse, to discover only certain, as they come to my hand, such as by reading and conference everyone may observe.

In Exodus the. 15 Chapter. 19. verse your translator hath committed a double fault, first in translating a word, second in pointing amiss. The Prophet saith that Pharoes Horse went with his Charet and Horsemen into the Sea: And so is it in the Septuagintes translation truly according to the Hebrew verity. But thus it standeth in your translation, The Horseman went in, Pharoe with his Charets and Horsemen, agreeing neither with Greek, nor Hebrew, nor the right sense.

In the 21. of Exodus 3. verse, a law is set down for hebrew servants, that they should be released of their service at the end of six years, and then is further added in what sort they should be sent away, namely that if the servant bring with him nothing but his own body, that is, if he come alone, as the 70. have interpreted the text, having no wife, then he should go out himself alone, and not his wife with him, as is in the verse following expressed. Your translator hath misconstrued the law, and marred the sense, in turning the hebrew thus, with what manner of garment he entered, with such let him go out. And so also in the 10. verse following, where God commandeth that if one hath betrothed his maid to his son, and after take him another wife, he shall not diminish the food of the former; your translator hath made aother law for this, that he shall provide a marriage for the maideseruant, which is utterly from the meaning of the law.

And in the seventh verse of this Chapter before, he hath also mistaken a plain law concerning maid servants, wherein God forbiddeth to send them away, after their years were out, as the menservants are sent away: but your translator saith she shall not go out, as the maid servants are accustomed to go out, then which nothing almost can be devised more contrary to the Law. in the. 24. Chapter. 11. verse. the Prophet speaking of the chosen men of Israel that went up into the mount, and saw the Lord, saith that God laid not his hand upon them: which thing he noteth for a special rememberaunce, that althouh they saw God, yet because they presumed not, but obeyed the commandment of God, therefore • o harm befell unto them. This in your translation is otherwise reported in these words; Neither laid he his hand upon them of the children of Isaell that had gone back a far of. Who seeth not a manifest difference between the true text, and this translation?

In Leviticus Chap. 4. v. 8. Where is commanded that the Priest shall take away all the fat of the bullock that is offered for sin, your translator hath thus mistranslated the words, and the fat of the calf he shall offer for sin: and so partelie by untrue translation, and partelie by misplasing of the words, hath wholly corrupted the text. In the 7. Chapter. v. 19. the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing is forbidden to be eaten, and must be burnt with fire. Then immediately it followeth thus in your translation, the unclean shall eat thereof: & of late for the unclean in your reformed editions is put clean: So your translations affirm that either the unclean or clean shall eat of the flesh, which god commanded to be burnt, and none to eat thereof: an evident corruption, by r • ason of a word omitted in all your vulgare translations both old and new.

In the book of Numbers Chapter. 4. verse 46. your translation hath, whom Moses and Aaron made by name, instead of this, whom Moses and Aaron numbered. In the margent indeed of your latter corrected editions there standeth the word to be reckoned, for no other purpose I think, but to be a witness of corruption against your translations. For if that word must be supplied, and if you see and confess yourselves so much, as apprereth, in that you print it in the margent, why might you not well receive it into the text it self? If it have any right to stand in the margent, more right hath it to be admitted into the text.

In Deuteronomy Chapter 4. verse 33. is a like fault to this, but something worse in your latin translations. Moses saith, did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the middes of a fire, as thou hast heard, and lived? your translations all have thus, As thou hast heard and seen. In some copies you have given us a marginal correction, but that is not much truer then the corruption of the text, save that this speaketh of living, and the other of seeing. So in the. 15. Chap. 10. v. instead of these words, God shall bless thee in all thy works, your translation hath, God shall bless thee at all times: first taking time for works, & then leuing out the affix, thine. In the. 33. Chap. 10. v. a word of weighty and necessary force is omitted by your translator in declaring the office of the Levites, which especially consisted in teaching the people the law of God: and so saith the true text. They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, & Israel thy Law. But in your latin books, the word that signifieth to teach, which was moste to be respected, and whereupon dependeth that which followeth, is both in the text and margent of your translations wanting, and thus stand the words; They have kept thy word, and observed thy covenant, thy judgments O Jacob, and thy law O Israel. Now I appeal to the conscience of all the learned, whether this be not a notorious depraving of God's word, where it is prescribed that the Levites should teach Jacob and Israel the judgments and law of God, to leave out the word whereby they were charged to teach: and whereas the duty of teaching Jacob God's judgments, and Israel his law was laid upon them, to make thereof another sense so much repugnant, that they have observed the judgments of Jacob, and the law of Israel. Harde it were for any man in translating so few words to make so many faults.

In the book of Joshua. Chap. 11. v. 19. the holy ghost hath noted, that not one City of all the land of Canaan made peace with the children of Israel, excepting those Hiuites that dwelt in Gibeon. But your translation telleth another tale; as contrary to this as can be told, that there was not a City, which did not yield it self to the children of Israel. An other reading in your margent of late hath been devised, and that neither agreeing in truth with the text, as by comparing the same together any man may perceive.

In the book of Judges Chap. 15. v. 14. When the Philistines met Samson being bound, the scripture recordeth, that the spirit of the Lord coming upon him, the cords that were upon his arms becam as flax that is burnt with fire. Your translator in stead of flax hath put wood, and for the heat of the fire, or some such like word he putteth the smell of the fire. And yet that wood is so easily consumed with the only smell of fire, I think you will not say for maintenance of your translation against the original text. What then remaineth but to confess as needs you must, that here hath been, and is a foul corruption?

In the 1. of Samuel Chap. 9. v. 25. these words are added to the text, And Saul spread upon the top of the house, and slept, there being nothing in the text either of spredding or sleeping, or any such matter. If therefore you wl be tried by either hebrew, or Chaldee, or sundry exemplares of your latin translation, you shall confess a corruption in this place, & so in deed you do, but will not yet amend it. How be it better were it not to acknowledge a fault, then acknowledging one, still to retain the same. And in the 19. Chap. 24. v. the scripture telleth that Saull put of his clothes, & prophesied before Samuel, and fell down naked all that day and night. So hath the Hebrew, so the Greek, and so your own Masters confess it should be. Which notwithstanding as it were in open and presumptuous maintenance of your corruptions against the sincerity of the text, in your books you read thus, and he song naked. This came to pass by negligence in the writer, mistaking one letter for another. But why will ye not be brought in this clear light of knowledge, whereby such gross faults are easily espied, to amend your books, to remove the fault, to restore the right word to his place? you see belike what danger might ensue of mending anything: if once you should begin, you wist not how to make an end, and therefore you are determined to stir nothing, for fear you bring down all upon your heads.

In the second of Samuel Chap. 6. v. 12. a number of words are added together in your translation, more then can be found in the true text, that David hearing how Obed edom had been wonderfullie blessed by keeping the ark in his house, said, I will go and bring back the ark with a blessing into my house. These words may seem to be fit for the place, & it may be supposed that so David either spake or thought. But what of that? may we therefore conuaie thus cunninglie into the text of scripture whatsoever we imagine fitly to agree therewith? The Hebrew hath no such saying, nor the Chaldee, nor yet the Greek: it is therefore a manifest corruption of your translator.

In the first of Kings, the 2. Chap. & 28. verse. your translator hath notably falsified the text, in putting Solomon once for Joab, and again by and by for Absalom, & telling the story thus: And a messenger came to Solomon, that Joab had declined after Adonia, and had not declined after Solomon. Which is an absurd translation, having no coherence with the story, and plainly striving against the text. For thus the words should have been translated, There came tidings to Joab, (for Joab had declined after Adonia, but had not declined after Absalom.) He that looketh on the place, shall straight espy a foul fault in your translation. In the 22. Chap. 26. verse, of this book, Joash is called by your translator, the son of Amelech, for the Kings son, by taking the word that signifieth in Hebrew a King, for the proper name of a man.

The book of Job is a precious parte of holy scripture, as it hath been always esteemed in the Church of God: and therefore great pity is it to see the same so miserably mangled by your translator, as any of skill may perceive it to be, if he list to take a little pains in conferring the true fountain & your translation together. In the 1. Chap. v. 21. these words are added to the text, As it pleased the Lord, so is it come to pass. A godly saying, who can deny? but that may not excuse your books from corruption, unless it can be shown to be a part of the text, which, I am sure, it cannot. In the 3. Chapter and last verse, the holy man saith, I had no peace, I had no quietness, I had no rest, yet trouble is come, meaning that he lived in continual awe of God & looked narroulie to all his ways, fearing lest at any time he should provoke the Lord to bring upon him some grievous judgment, and that now notwithstanding this endeavor & care, trouble & misery was fallen upon him. But your translator hath made him speak otherwise, Have I not dissembled? have I not kept silence? have I not been quiet? This translation accordeth not with the words, and much less with the sense.

In the fifth Chap. 5. verse Eliphaz saith, that the hungry shall eat up the harvest of the ungodly, and take it from among the thorns: but in your translation he saith, the armed man shall take him away: which is another thing, though it be a true thing.

And in the verse that followeth, [v. 6] whereas Eliphaz saith, that affliction and misery cometh not out of the dust, your translator hath put another speech in his mouth, Nothing is done upon the earth without a cause. Again in the. 7. verse he saith, [v. 7] Man is borne to travail, even as the sparks fly upward: your translator saith, Man is borne to labor, and the birde to fly, turning the sparks (which the Hebrew termeth the sons of the coles ) into a birde. In the. 6. Chap. 1. v. Job wisheth, that his grief were perfectly weighed: your translator hath added hereto words of his own applying a speech to Job, which whether he would acknowledge may well be douted, I would my sins were weighed, whereby I have deserved wrath. [v. 16] In the. 16. verse of this Chapter. Job compareth his friends who had forsaken him, to brooks that pass swiftlie away, which brooks he saith, are blackishe with ice, and wherein the snow is hid. Of these words your translator hath framed a proper sentence or proverb, They that fear the ice, the snow shall fall upon them.

In the 9. Chapter he showing at large the wonderful and omnipotent power of God, saith in the 12. verse, If he take anything by violence away, who shall make him restore it again? The author of your translation, not marking well the words, hath turned them thus, If he ask suddenlie, who shall answer him? And in the. 13. Chap. 4. verse, where Job calleth his friends Physicians of no value, your translator nameth them, embracers of perverse doctrines. In the 4. verse of the. 14. Chap. Job saith, who can bring a clean thing out of filthiness? not one: your translation hath these words, who can make a clean thing that is conceived of unclean seed? is it not thou, who art alone?

In the 31. Chap. of this book. 19. v. he saith, If I have seen any perish for want of clothing, &c. which to be the true reading, is confessed by your own Masters, and proved by the Hebrew text. But your translation maketh Job thus to speak, If I have despised him that passed by for because he had no garment. Which, words carry with them another sense, then the former will admit. And though in your last editions some of your reformers have instead of him that passed by, placed in the text, him that perished, yet this salve hath not made the wound wholl. For first you keep still the word despising in stead of seeing, and further that your vulgare translation ought not to be corrected in that other word, as of late it hath been, by whose authority and judgment soever, may be known by Aquinas and Saint Gregory, and many moe, who in their commentaries upon this book have set down the words in such sort, as I have rehearsed out of your translation. If this be a fault, as you have granted, in correcting it in some parte, then have your latin Bibles been faulty this thousand years together: and if you may now by comparing your vulgare latin with the Hebrew reform this corruption though it be of so long continuance, why may you not as well in all other places, where your translation doth plainly disagree from the Hebrew, as it doth in a thousand, fyle it and make it as even as you can with the Authentical text?

In the 33. v. 6. Elihu saith to Job, for that he had wished to have God answer him, behold I will be according to thy word for God. This to be the true meaning, the words do show themselves: and therefore it was a marvel that your translator would turn them thus, Behold, even me hath God made as thee. And in the 25. v. where Elihu declaring how God dealeth with his children in punishing them for a season, and afterwards restoring them to health, saith thus, his flesh is made fresh, as in his childhood, your translator hath altered the words and the sense in this sort, his flesh is consumed with punishments. Such faults as these, which are indeed gross and great faults in translating the scriptures, is your translation of this book replenished withal. I have not labored to note every particular fault: for that had been a business too tedious. But of many I have picked out certain, whereby the reader may conceive what to judge aright of your wholl translation.

Now let us come to the book of Psalms, which of all books of scripture is in your translation most corrupted, so as I may truly affirm that in some one short Psalm in latin moe may be found, then you shall ever find in the Hebrew text of all the books of the Bible. Which came to pass by this means, for that in S. Jerome's days the other books in the latin translation were corrected according to the Hebrew, but this book only although it needde as much correction as any other, yet because it was in the corruptions thereof so generally used, as it could not be changed without much trouble and offense in the Church, was not dealt withal by S. Jerome, but suffered to remain as it was, and to carry still about with it those manifold & grievous sores, which should with diligence in time have been cured. This being by the best of your own side confessed, it is a wonder, that Genebrard your Hebrew Doctor of Paris would labor so much with all his wit and cunning to make some agreement between your translation & the text: wherein as he hath taken very great pains, so hath he shown himself in many places altogether ridiculous in devising such seelie shifts, as he is enforced for some show of consent in the meaning, howsoever the words sound most diuerslie. And when he hath searched all the corners of his head for reasonable expositions, yet is he fain oftentimes to give over, and let the words quietlie pass without his construction. If I should gather and set down in particular discovery the corruptions of this book, this only work would be a volume of greater quantity, then is the Psalter it self. Therefore as hitherto I have done, so will I proceed, to take a little of much, and in certain evident examples of sundry places, set before the readers eyes how unworthy your translation of this book is to be called by the name of so worthy a scripture.

In the second Psalm a text that concerneth our savior Christ as notably as any almost in the old Testament, is shamefullie perverted in your translation. For where the Prophet David exhorteth all to kiss the son, that is, to submit themselves to Jesus Christ, and his gospel, setting forth in these words a plain testimony of his Godhead and distinct person, your translation saith no more in this place but only thus, Apprehend discipline: which though it be a good admonition, yet is it far short of the true sense, and excellent doctrine therein contained. And this may be an argument of great weight to prove, that the Jews are not honestly dealt withal by you, in that you accuse them to have corrupted the Hebrew text for malice against our Savior Christ. For if they had been moved indeed with such a devilish intention, would they have suffered this text to have stood in such sincerity, especially having so great opportunity to change the words, as was offered unto them by the Greek and latin translations?

In the 3. Psalm, the Prophet saith, Thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek bone • your translation hath thus, thou haste smitten all those that are mine enemies without a cause. Howbeit Genebrarde stoutlie defendeth your translation in this place, and objecteth ignorance to those that reprove it. Let all your Hebricians be judges, and let John Isaac a Jew, and a learned Jew in that tongue, answer Genebrarde. If this had been so clear a case as Genebrarde maketh it, could Isaac with a number more, as Vatablus, Pagnine, Tremellius, all as good Hebricians as Genebrarde (no disgrace to him) have been ignorant thereof?

In the fourth Psalm, being but a very short one, your translation hath three evident faults, which cannot by any shift be excused reasonablie. First there is, how long will ye be of a heavy heart, instead of these words, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? for this to be the true reading, even your Genebrard was compelled to acknowledge: and therefore he deviseth and imagineth what the Septuagint's perhaps followed. And about this place Lind •• e hath kept a stir, if he might by any means save the credit of your translation. But Isaac his master in the hebrew tongue hath sufficiently taken him up for his dealing herein. [v. 8] Again there is a word in your translation added to the text in the 8. verse, as Genebrard confesseth, saying it was done by the 70. interpreters propheticallie: which yet he cannot prove, and we will not grant. And before in the 5. verse is one word put for another to some change of the sense.

In the 12. Psalm, being according to your editions the 11. (which difference in numbering continueth to the end almost, and this may fuffice to have been once remembered) where the Prophet bringeth in the Lord speaking, I will up, and set him at liberty, though he lay a snare for him, these words are thus translated in your latin Psalter, I will deal boldly in him: of which words Genebrard himself cannot devise a convenient interpretation, and therefore he wandreth up and down, and vanisheth away in the mist of his own conceit.

In the fourteenth Psalm your latin translation hath three wholl verses together moe, then are to be found either in the Hebrew or Greek: and are taken out of Saint Paul in the third to the Romans, being gathered by him out of several places of the scriptures, as Saint Jerome hath noted. But some in former times more hasty then well advised, seeing the Apostle allege so long a sentence together, thought the same was written in some place of the old Testament, as it was by the Apostle recited: and finding it nowhere, supplied it in this place because of some words, which the Apostle there hath rehearsed out of this Psalm. And thus much do your own men confess, even Genebrard him self, testifying that in the Hebrew now extant nothing is wanting. If then nothing wanteth, as he confesseth, is it not a plain case that these three verses ought not to have any room in that Psalm, and therefore that your Psalter hath in this place more then it should have? which I think we may truly and properly call a corruption.

In the 34. Psalm the Prophet saith, that the Angel of the Lord doth pitch his tents about them that fear him: in your translation thus we read, The Angel of the Lord shall send round about those that fear him, that is, saith Genebrard, his help and defense. Well holpen doubtless. Where the text is so plain, to make such a simple translation as this, which without supplying some necessary word, can have no show of good sense, I know not how it may be excused from a fault. So in the 37. Psalm where the Prophet teacheth that we ought not to be vnmeasurablie grieved or disquieted at the prosperity of the wicked, and exhorteth us to trust in the Lord, and to feed, that is, to live by faith, your translation saith thus, Trust in the Lord, &c. and thou shalt be fed with his riches.

In the 51. Psalm thus speaketh the prophet in his own tongue, behold thou louesl truth in the rains, (that is inwardly in the affections) and hast made me to understand wisdom in secrete: but your translator hath given us another sense, Behold, thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and secret things of thy wisdom hast thou made manifest unto me. If the first be a true sense, as it is: the second must be reputed, as it deserveth. In the 62. Psalm the Prophet speaking of his enemies devising to overthrow him if they might, saith, They take counsel only how to cast him down from his dignity, their delight is in lies. This construction agreeth well, this sense is plain. Now compare here with your translation, and you shall see that it is most fond and disorderlie. thus it standeth, Notwithstanding they have thought to put back my price, I have run in thirst. Is not this a proper kind of translation? yet something of late hath it been corrected in one word, but nothing at all amended in the sense. I have runned, they say, should be changed into they have runned: wherein they grant their latin translator was greatly deceived in translating the Greek word I have runned for they have runned: and yet the hebrew word signifieth neither of both. But as they acknowledge a fault in this word, so when it is thus mended by them, how much nearer are they to the right sense? verelie nothing, or but little: and Genebrard though he make a poor sense of the words, yet how his sense agreeth with the hebrew text he cannot declare. Again in the 9. verse of this Psalm the Prophet saith, Trust in him evermore, O people: your translation hath another reading thus, Trust in him all the congregation of the people: wherein is a manifest diversity. The hebrew no man dare say to be corrupt: then it followeth that the Greek translator deceived the latin, and was deceived himself.

In the 65. Psalm, the last verse, instead of these words, The pastures are clad with sheep, The vulgare translation hath thus, The Rammes of the sheep are clad. And because this is something obscure and imperfect, therefore Genebrarde expoundeth the matter, and telleth wherewith these Rammes are clade, forsooth with store of fine and white wool. Yet in the text is no mention either of Rammes, or wool.

In the 68. Psalm, the 7. verse, the Prophet reckoneth this among the praises of the Lord, that he maketh such as are alone and solitary to have a family, wherein to dwell. Your translation speaketh after another sort, that he maketh those that be of one behavior to dwell together in a house. This verelie was not the Prophets meaning. And then it followeth in the Prophets own words, But the rebels (he causeth to dwell) in a dry or thirsty place: which words in your vulgare Psalters are unto wardlie translated thus, Likewise those which exasperate, which dwell in graves. And yet hath Genebrade taken some pains here to frame a sense in some reasonable construction in this wise: Those that exasperate and provoke God by their sins, and dwell in the graves of death, God bringeth them forth by his merciful and mighty hand. Here we have a sense indeed, such as it is, but a sense contrary to the true & manifest words of the Prophet. For David declareth how god will punnish his rebels, by setting them in a dry place: Genebrarde by his exposition hath made the Prophet to promise deliverance unto them from destruction. Again in this Psalm, v. 14. David saith, though ye have lien among the pots, &c. Your translation hath, in the midst of the clergy, or of the lots. And what should this mean? forsooth Genebrarde saith, by Lots is understood extreme distress and danger, as when the lots are cast upon a man's life. He hath deserved doubtless great thanks for his pains, especially seeing him-self confesseth that this place hath tormented all interpreters, and that upon the same, as upon a gibbet have the wits of all hanged. Now hath Genebrarde taken away the gibbet, and released his friends from cruel vexation, and that by changing without any great trouble, pots into lots.

In the 73. Psalm David declaring the great prosperity of the wicked, saith in the 4. v. that there are no bands in their death, or until their death: and that their strenghth is lusty. Look now upon this translation of yours, There is no respect to their death: and there is strength in their sore, and tell us how it accordeth with the text. The words are diverse, the sense is changed, and therefore the corruption cannot be excused.

In the 74. Psalm the Prophet complaining of the wicked, saith, they have burnt all the synagogues of God: which text in your translation is straungelie altered and corrupted in this manner, Let us make all the festival days of God to cease. Them-selves confess the place is not faithfully translated, by reason that the Greek word was utterly mistaken of their translator. For where in the Greek it was translated thus, Let us burn, the latin translator not looking so narrowly to his copy as he ought, took one letter for another, & so hath given us another word & another sense. And notwithstanding they acknowledge both the corruption & the cause thereof, yet keep they still the same so certain & clear a corruption in their Bibles, & use it in their Offices, & Breuiaries even those that were corrected and printed last by the Popes commandment.

In like manner and by like occasion hath been committed a fault in the 84. Psalm, wherein your translation hath these words in all your books old and new without any correction: Because God loveth mercy and truth: And are not these good words? who can say otherwise? the words in deed are good and godly: but the translation is naught. For this should the translation of that text have been, The Lord God is our sun and shield, as Genebrarde and your own men cannot deny. In the 88. Psalm David saith, shall the dead arise and praise thee? But your translation is ridiculous, shall the Physicians raise up? turning dead into Physicians, and rising into raising. Here Genebrarde to mend all that is amiss, hath invented a new sense thus, shall the Phisicianes raise up, that is, the dead, that they may praise thee. Physicians are appointed to save alive, if they can, not to raise the dead: for if one be dead, it is to late to call the Physician. I marvel he was not ashamed to make so lewd a gloss.

In the 92. Psalm your translation hath plentiful mercy, for fresh oil: which error did grow by mistaking a Greek word that signifieth mercy, for another that signifieth oil, because they are something like in certain cases.

In the 132. Psalm the Lord saith, I will plentfullie bless hir vitailes: in your translation, vitailes is turned into widow. and thus is it read, I will bless her widow. This Genebrarde cannot deny to be a fault, and showeth how it came, by mistaking a word, and not looking to the original verity. Yet for all this your books are not corrected, but still you keep and use such witles, and palpable faults in your Bibles: you read, you sing, you preach these and many moe the like corruptions for the true word of God, and text of scrpiture: you see these things, and will not for all that be brought to reform them.

What can we say or think of you, but that you are set and resolute to do amiss?

It is a weariness to wade any further: & therefore I will for this book content myself with these examples and proofs of notable corruption therein committed by your translator, whosoever he was.

And because I have been already something long, I will be shorter in that which followeth, and as it were but glaine one by one, where I might take up wholl handfulls together.

The book of Proverbs hath not escaped the foul hands of such corruptors rather then translators, as by many places of the same may too plainly be perceived. In the latter end of the fourth Chap. a great many of words together are added to the text, as is acknowledged by the adversaries them-selves. In the sixth Chapter the vulgar translation hath, Thou hast fixed down thy soul with the stranger: Whereas it should be thus, thou hast shaken hands with the stranger. And after the 11. verse. a wholl sentence is thrust into the text, which ought to have no place therein. Again in the 26. verse of his Chapter, where Solomon saith that by reason of a harlot a man is brought to a morsel of bread, the words of your translation are these, the price of an harlot is scarcelie the worth of one loaf: no doubt wisely and cunninglie translated. In the 7. Chapter after the end of the first verse is another addition of a wholl sentence: and so also is there in the end of the 9. Chap. And in other places sundry moe, not only of words, but of whole verses and sentences: which cannot any ways be otherwise accounted then a thing unlawful in God's word, and by no means to be defended.

In the 12. Chap. your translation hath, he that neglecteth a loss for a friend, is a just man. A wise saying perhaps. But Solomon's sentence in this place is far otherwise, The just man is more excellent then his neighbor. In the 16. Chap. a true weight and balance (saith the wise man) are of the Lord: and then immediately it followeth, And all the stones or weightes of the bag are his works. these last words are thus translated in your books, And all the stones of the world are his works, by a small change of the bag into the world. This you will say was the writers fault, and not the translators. Verelie so I think: for no t • anslator of any skill could be so much deceived in the Hebrew word. But why then keep you this corruption still in the text of scripture? why will you not amend a fault so foul, and so sensible, that it may be felt with the finger? And thus hath it gone in your books of many hundred years, as may appear by Beda & other latin writers in their commentaries. [v. 3] And in the same Chapter before, where Solomon exhorteth us to cast or commit our works unto the Lord, in your translation we are bid to reveal our works unto the Lord. In the 20. Chapter your vulgare translations have corrupted and falsified a text diversely. Some copies read thus, It is ruin to a man to call down the saints: others, to note the saints: others, to vow the saints: others to devour the saints. And this last cometh nearest to the truth, for Solomon saith, indeed, It is a man's ruin, to devour a holy or sanctified thing. In the latter end of the 30. Chapter, whereas Solomon saith, (he that presseth or churneth milk, bringeth forth butter, so to press and force wrath, causeth strife,) your translator hath told us a pretty tale in this sort, He that presseth strongly the paps to draw forth milk, he bringeth forth butter, which thing yet I believe was never seen. But such absurdities in your translation must be borne withal. In the last Chap. among the other praises of a worthy and excellent woman that is one, that she putteth hir hand to the wherle: for which your translation saith, she putteth hir hand to valiant things. Such as these, be there many faults in your translation of this book, which might in all translations deserve reproof, and require correction, but moste of all in the holy scriptures of almighty God.

In the book of the Preacher Solomon saith in the very conclusion, God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it be good or evil: your translation goeth something wide from this true sense, and telleth us that God will bring into judgment all things that are done, for every error, be it good or evil. In the book of Canticles by mistaking an hebrew word, your translator hath put thy p • ppes for thy Love diverse times. In the 2. Chapter for Bether is put Bethel, and so still is it standing in your text, and of long hath stood, as appeareth by Gregory & S. Bernard: & yet is it a plain corruption in the judgment of all, that can judge anything, insomuch as Genebrard hath not feared to make a change of the words even in the text it self, which he hath printed with his annotations. In the 4. Chapter in steed of these words between thy looks, your translation hath far otherwise, besides that which lieth hid inwardly: and afterward for one chain of thy neck, it hath one hear of thy neck. All this perhaps in your judgment seemeth little, who have learned more highly to esteem the word of your Pope, then of God, and therefore so your Pope may gain something, or loose nothing, you care not how corruptlie or sincerely God's word be red and set forth amongst you. But they that consider how holy and precious a thing the word of God is, and what charge the Lord hath given to keep it faithfully, must needs confess that these are indeed gross corruptions, and ought with all diligence to be searched, and removed out of the Scriptures.

The books of the holy Prophets although they are not so generally and foulie defaced, as some other Scriptures, by this corrupt kind of translating, and by such faults as have since the translation grown by sundry means, yet are they not in your vulgar edition so incorrupt and sincere, as they ought to be, seeing they may by the authentical text easily be amended. I might set down sundry proofs and testimonies of such imperfections, as I have now done in other books. And it were a thing greatly to be wished, that some man of learning and judgment would thoroughly and perfectly discover the corruptions of this wholl translation: whereby it would fully appear what shame or truth there is in the Church of Rome to prefer it before the faithful original books of holy scripture, as it doth now in parte appear by this that hath been before alleged. I verelie am afraid lest I have already wearied the reader with multitude of examples: and the thing, which I took in hand to prove, I have not only in this treatise sufficiently, but also moste plentifully performed.

The translation of the new testament is something more tolerable in respect, then of the old. Yet he that will look narrowly into the same, shall find cause and matter enough of complaint against either the ignorance, or negligence, or malice of some, by whose fault it hath been no better preserved in that holy pureness and integrity, which the word of God doth require, and especially this so singular a parte of his word. Wherein already both Valla, and Faber, and Erasmus, and Beza, and Camerarius, and many mo have labored to show the errors of that translation, for which their pains as they have deserved great thanks of all the godly, soe have they received much hatred and discurtesie at the adversaries hands.

For avoiding tedious length, more then were in this answer convenient, I refer the readers for the new testament to those learned writers, by perusing of whom, and of that which I have gathered here together, and thus particularly noted, he shall manifestly perceive that in the Romish vulgar translation are manifold and almost infinite faults of all sortes, by adding, by omitting, by mistaking of letters, pointes, syllables, and words, by wrong interpreting the original text. Which faults they shall never be hable to approve or justify, though they weary themselves never so much with traueling and toiling, and seeking some defense. When they have said, what they can say for maintenance of these corruptions, it shall for all that still appear by all learning and true evidence of reason that they have neither the old nor new Testament in the entire and original truth thereof.

CHAp. 13.

NOw M. R. beginneth to declaim against. the new Testament in Greek, as he hath in the former Chapter done against the Old Testament in Hebrew. Wherein how vnlearnedlie and unworthily he hath behaved him-self, the wise reader may perceive by that which hath been answered to his particular reprehensions. And as no cause can be alleged to prefer the latin translation of the Old Testament before the Hebrew fountain, so no less absurd and unreasonable is it to leave the Greek, and follow the vulgare translation in the new testament.

Their chiefest reason of greatest show and likelihood against the Hebrew text is the malice and impiety of the Jews, who being enemies of Christian religion may therefore be thought to have in many places corrupted their bibles of purpose to disgrace and discredit the Gospel of Christ. But as this is proved moste untrue, so being granted for true, it can be no reason against the Greek testament, which ever since the writing and first publishing thereof remained in the custody and handling of most godly fathers, Churches and Countries, who had as great skill and care to preserve it from corruption, as had the latins to keep their translations pure and sincere. Then what reason can you bring, or what color of reason can you pretend in the new testament to cleave only to the latin, and to reject the Greek? The latin, you say, is purer, then the Greek. So have your fellows of Reims indeed told us, and this they make their principal ground, whereupon they have been bold to follow the latin, and not the Greek, in translating the new testament. But what advantage soever you think to make of this, or any other such reason, true it is, and by trial so shall be found, and hath heretofore by diverse sufficiently been proved, that the latin translation of the new testament is more generally & notoriously corrupted, then you shall ever be hable to avouch of the Greek original text. That Beza writeth against Erasmus in commendation & defense of the latin translation, it is evident, he meaneth not wholly to excuse it from corruption in all places, but only in certain, which Erasmus found fault withal. For otherwise Beza showeth the vulgare translation to be full of corruptions, as if you read his annotations, you may perceive. Wherefore this testimony of Beza served your Remists to little purpose, but that they have a sleight to make such things as are spoken, in some respect, seem to be uttered without exception, as in this place and many others may be seen.

Your assertions are now to be examined by which you labor to strengthen the Remish slander of corruption against the Greek testament. Three in number have you brought, of no importance, as shall appear, so that we may easily think they are indeed your own. The first is, [ 1] the difference of our Greek copies now, from the old. It may perhaps (I grant) be proved, that in the Greek copies of the new testament some diversity may be found. So was there much greater difference in the latin translations, as yourself cannot deny. Then what maketh this for the latin translation, against the Greek fountain? if you say the latin was corrected, I answer, it was indeed corrected, but according to the Greek, and the Greek now remaineth still, which may be proved to be not only as pure, as the latin, but purer by many degrees. For what reason have you to say, that the latin translation ever since the correction hath been preserved faithfully without corruption: but the Greek text it self, after which it was corrected, became forthwith distayned and replenished with gross corruptions? Our Greek testament for the moste parte, and in a manner everywhere, agreeth fully with that copy, which the ancient Greek Church used, and which therefore undoubtedly was the true original Greek text of the new testament. And as the old latin Church reformed her translations according to the copies used in the Greek Churches, so shall it never be proved, but that the same Greek copies have continued still as free from corruption, as the latin translations have: wherefore the difference of our Greek copies now from some old, maketh nothing against the purity and authority of our Greek Testament, unless you can show by evident proof, that the Greek Testament now extant differeth from that, which the Greek Churches in times past generally used. Some difference there might be (I deny not) in such infinite multitude of copies. But what then? is no copy now therefore to be allowed? Maie we not also show the like difference between these latter editions of your latin translation, and some other of elder time? you know we can, and it is by your own writers confessed, & acknowledged. Is this then a learned observation? is this a good conclusion? is this a sound reason against the greek testament? such arguments run for currant at Reims, where popish blindness reigneth: but being a little opened and laid forth in the light, are by and by espied to be naught. Of this difference twoe examples you allege: the former, is the story of the adulterous woman in the eight of S. John: which although some Greek copies have wanted, as apeereth by the Syriac interpreter, by Chrysostom, by Nonnus, by Jerome, yet others of as great authority had it. So this difference is not through later corruption, nor proveth no more that the Greek testament now is to be rejected, then it was in S. Chrysostom's days. And furthermore this story being in your vulgare translation, what can you devise against the Greek, more then the latin? The Greek and latin agreeing, how is the Greek more corrupt then the Latin? The other is in the Epistle to the Ephesians, Chap. 3. verse 14. Wherein Saint Jerome saith certain words were added in the latin, Domini nostri Jesus Christi, not being in the Greek. But that herein Saint Jerome was deceived, appeareth by S. Chrystome, who readeth the words in the Greek as you may see in his Greek commentaries. And by this one example we may further note, what diligence Saint Jerome used some time in correcting the latin according to the Greek, that denieth words to be in the Greek, which yet are found in Saint Chrysostom's copies, and many moe.

[ 2] Your second observation is of rash additions, which have been made in the Greek text. If this be an argument of any force against the testament in Greek, it must have much more weight against your common translation, which is so full of additions both in the old testament, as I have shown, and also in the new, as hath been faithfully declared by others. Your examples are but twoe: the one in Saint John's Gospel Chap. 8. verse. 59. It may indeed appear that those last words of the verse, passing through the midst of them, and so departed, have been added. But this corruption may be espied, and corrected by ancient copies, and so in this respect no cause to reject or disallowe the wholl text in Greek. The other is the conclusion of the Lord's prayer, For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever. Amen. This piece, as you call it, your latin hath not, our Greek copies have. That some had it not in times past, I confess: that others had it, is plain by the Syriac translator: if you suspecte our copy of corruption, why may not weas probably suspecte the same of yours? and we have as just cause to be offended with you for omitting this, as you with us for so glorious singing and saying of it.

[ 3] The third observation is, that the Greek testaments oftentimes omit that, which they should not. Examples in Luc. Chap. 1. v. 35. and Chapter. 17. v. 36. For the first, you might have found, that in many Greek copies now extant and used, the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of thee, are not omitted, and that hath Beza noted, and therefore supplied those words in the Greek of the last Geneuian edition. Your reproach of Anabaptism is ridiculous. The same may be answered of the second. For that 3 6. verse of Luc. 17. is extant in sundry Greek editions, as well as in your latin translation. But what maketh all this to purpose? Conclude hereof an argument, if you can, that therefore the Greek testament is more corrupted, then the latin. What a pitiful syllogism will this be, that must severally of these places be concluded, that therefore the Greek testament is more corrupt, then the latin vulgar edition, because the latin is in some places not so faulty, as some Greek copies either are, or have been supposed to be.

[ 4] Your last and principal reason, why your Latin translator ought to be preferred before all other, toucheth not the cause in hand, as your own words do witness. The controuesie is not, which translation is best, and moste to be preferred, but whether this latin edition of your translator, whosoever he were, be worthily of your Church preferred before the original fountain. Admit he was endued with such qualities as are moste requisite in faithful translators of scripture, & in respect thereof deserveth greater creditte, then the rest: doth it therefore follow, Master Rainolds, that we must prefer him before the writers of holy scripture themselves? was he of sounder religion towards God, endued with greater grace and spirit, more void of partiality and affection, then they? Otherwise if you compare him with other translators, although I know herein your judgment is altogether partial, yet as this reason may advance him to higher estimation then other translators: so must it cast him down as much and more beneath the writers them selves, in that they being chosen instruments of God for that purpose, were moste plentifully endued and assisted with all graces of the holy Ghost, which cannot be avouched of that translator, how excellent otherwise soever he were. Other surmises and geasses of corruptions in the original text more then in the translation, as they are by you oft repeated, & by sundry impertinent testimonies of our writers idlelie enlarged, so shall they never be truly and substantiallie proved, whereby it might appear that the latin translation is more to be allowed and esteemed generally then the Greek text.

To oppose some of our new translators against your old, were verelie an easy matter: but thus should we slip away from the question, and fall to other discourses, wherein the controversy lieth not. If we should attribute as much learning and diligence to your translator, as such a man could have and use, yet would you confess (I trust) he were still far inferior to the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, whose writings remain, and are the holy canonical scriptures of God. These writings do we oppose against your translation, and these do you wickedly and shamfullie dishonor, in preferring the translation of such a man before them. This you are not hable either reasonably to defend, or colourablie to excuse, and therefore you run another way, as though you chased your enemy, whereas fear causeth yourself to fly. All this talk of Erasmus, Luther, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Castalion, Calvin, Beza, and their translations, is from the purpose. We make no such account of any of them, as you do of yours, to allow and receive whatsoever they have translated, without examining their translations by the text. we prefer whom we know to have dealt in that work moste faithfully, and if we find by skill and trial some oversight in the translation (as in the best some may be found) we cleave to the original text of scripture, and not after your preposterous manner, to the corrupt translation. Now of all translations set forth by Protestants of all countries, sure I am you cannot show any so repugnant to the verity of the Hebrew and Greek fountains, as I can show, and as it hath been shown that yours is. That Luther's and Beza's, and the other several translations have been by some in certain places reproved, is true. But what kind of argument call you this, because some errors have been noted in this or that translation, therefore to conclude the wholl translation is naught, or worse then yours? Emserus a papist (you say) hath gathered out of Luther's translation fourteen hundred foul lies. If I said, that this in him were a foul lie, I should say truly: Luther's translation hath been sufficiently commended and maintained by men of greater wisdom and learning then Emserus. That Zwingli also misliked Luther's translation in some parts, and Beza the Basel translation, and that of Castalion, and Molinaeus Calaines, and Beza's translations, which matters are by you at large rehearsed, as thouge they made somewhat to purpose, I grant and give you leave to make thereof what you can. But if this seem in your judgment a thing so odious and slanderous to our translatious, that thus they have been severally charged by some, what may we think and say of you, that not content to accuse our translations (though far better then any you have) of such impiety, dare affirm the original books them selves now extant to be so full of gross and notorious corruptions (which you shall never prove) that your vulgar translation known to be moste corrupt, is purer then they? whatsoever hath been said by any against our translations, is in no respect of like heinousness to this, seeing that not only the books of scripture were written and set forth at the first moste purelie, but the means also have evermore been as great to keep and continue them in the same purity, as any translation whatsoever.

Your judgment of our English Bibles is answerable to that spirit, where with you are poffessed, and of the abundance whereof you write. Nothing else they are (you say) but corrupt gutters flowing from corrupt and stinking lakes, the best containing wicked, horrible, and ethnicall errors, A slander most wicked, horrible, ethnicall, of all men to be detested: never shall you prove any word hereof true. Gregory Martin hath labored herein, and performed nothing: your skill is only in open railing: other deed of moment can you do none against us. If you find fault with us for correcting our Bibles, show us, if you can, that either it is unlawful to translate the Bible into our own tongue, or else after is hath been translated, to reform the translation in such places wherein some errors have escaped, or to translate it over again. No translation of the scripture can at the first be so perfect and sincere, but it may be afterwards amended, as God shall reuele to his Church the faults thereof. Otherwise if it were any fault to amend a fault, why hath your Council of Trident taken order for the correction of your latin translation, and for a better edition thereof to be published, then heretofore hath been? yea why hath Pope Pius reformed your Psalters, Breuiaries, Offices, and such other books, as are with you in greatest use and estimation? If this seemed requisite, why may not we look to our translations like wise, amend the imperfefections, set forth better? But your grief is, that we have translated the scriptures at all: although (I trust) you will not now condemn the thing plainly, seeing yourselves at length have given us an English translation of the new testament, which if you think to be so absolute, as it shall never need any reformation, your judgment is to be pitied rather, then confuted.

Twoe reasons are alleged, why you may not translate the new testament after the Greek: first, because you think your latin Testament to be truer, then the common Greek copies now extant. Thus you tell us what you think, but reason or proof of this so absurd a thought have you none. Let me answer you, as Saint Jerome answereth Heluidius the heretic in this point, tibi stultissime persuasisti Graecos codices esse falsatos: Thou hast persuaded thyself most foolishly that the Greek books (of the new testament) are falsified: and why may you not as well think, that the latin testament is corrupt, as the Greek? what argument have you more for the one, then the other? But your seconde reason is more absurd, wherein you profess that although you had the true originals, yet could you not make in these days a better translation. Wherefore could you not? the thing is not hard if you had simple and willing minds. But now may we see by this your protestation, that whatsoever you speak against the corruption of the original books, in respect where of you will seem to prefer your common translation before them, yet although you had as true originals as ever were or could be wished, notwithstanding you would still make more account of your translation, then of them.

That wherefoeuer we find fault with your translation, someone of our own brethren standeth with you in defense of your translation, is untrue. I have shown examples enowe of gross and manifest corruptions in the translation of the old testament, which none our brethren as you call them, ever went about to excuse. Valla, Erasmus, Beza, have noted many in your translation of the new, althoug I grant that both Erasmus doth instlie reprove Valla, and Beza hath worthily reproved Erasmus in some places of their reprehensions. And so may it fall out to those that take pains in correcting a book full of corruptions, as your latin translation is, sometime to find a fault, where none is & the latter corrector to dissent from the former. Your Tridentine decree which you commend, being set forth by so many excellent godly learned men, as you say were impiety to compare all the scattered synagogues of Lutherans with them, hath been tried and examined by more godly and learned men, then ever were in that synagogue assembled, wherein neither godliness nor learning, but Antichristian tyranny prevailed.

One example I alleged of corruption in your latin Testament: and that I might have gathered many moe, is evident by that which hath been declared before. In the 1. Cor. 15. v. 54. these words are wanting in your translation, when this corruptible hath put on incorruption, which yet are found in all Greek copies now extant, and were not only in the old Greek testaments, as appeareth by S. Chrysostom, but also even in the ancient latin translations thereof, and that by your own co •• ession. Hereunto you make long and frivolous answers by distinctions of points.

First you say, [ 1] there is no loss of any parte of doctrine: for the same thing is set down in the next lines before. A proper reason, which giveth liberty to scrape out of the scriptures, whatsoever is in other places repeated. Secondly you add, [ 2] that some reason you have to think that percel repeated not to be of the text. As good have you to think that these words when this mortal shall put on immortality, are not of the text, seeing they are set down in the lines immediately going before. Thirdly, [ 3] that it was in some Greek copies, as you read. Perhaps so: but what then, seeing doubtless the moste and best read it other wise? Fourthly, [ 4] you think more reason to correct Chrysostom by Jerome, then Jerome by Chrysostom. Yet may it seem otherwise to indifferent men, that Chrysostom and the Church of Constantinople had as true copies, and as great varictie of books, as Jerome could have any. For where should Jerome seek for true and faithful copies of the New Testament, but in the Greek Church? and in which more then in that? and who liker to have the truest, then Chrysostom? I think therefore no man of discretion can otherwise judge, but that it is much more likely S. Chrysostom's reading to be true, then S. Jerome's, if they diffent, especially other latin translations agreing wiht that text, which S. Chrysostom followed. And Saint Jerome many times in his Epistles and treatisies reprehendeth the common latin reading, even the same that is now currant in your latin testaments. Whereby may appear that the same was not in his iugdement everywhere so entire, as you affirm. That Saint Chrysostom maketh against us, and approveth your reading, I wonder with what face you could avouch. Let any man read S. Chrysostom in Greek, and if he find not the text in him set down as our Greek testaments read it, both in the first and second place, I am content to yield the wholl to Master Rainolds. And so likewise readeth Oecumenius this place. I grant S. Ambrose hath it only in the first place, yet other latin fathers read it according to the verity of the Greek, as yourself confess, which as much as I maintain. Fiftlie, [ 5] you think it enough for defense of your translation, that the same words are added in the margent, which is but a poor shift, when you have thrust the text of scripture out of his due and proper seat, to give it some room in a corner. And yet your English translation hath discharged it of that place also, and wipte it clean away both out of text and margent.

That not here only, but in other manifold places also you keep the errors of the latin translation contrary to the truth of the Greek copies, is a thing that hath been plentifully proved by many, and therefore to say so, was no brag. Aria Montanus how good a priest soever he be, doubtless is not of your judgment concerning the Hebrew and Greek originals of scripture, and therefore cannot alowe that wicked decree of the Tridentine Council, wherein the corrupt translation is confirmed and established for the Canonical word of God, by general consent & commandment, the true & original Canon of scriptures being there rejected and disgraced. Now then whether in this and such other respects I had not just cause to call you 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , injurious to the Bible, I refer to the judgment of all godly and wise readers. For what greater injury or contumely can be offered to the holy Bible, then not only to approve a translation, that is full of corruptions in all partes thereof, for the authentical Bible and word of god; but also to cast away the original Bible it self, as corrupt, and to give no further credit unto it, then it agreeth with your translation? And therefore that you malitiouslie avouch of us, that we have no Bibles, may moste truly be said of you, that you have willingly refused the fountains of God's moste pure and blessed word, and have not amongst you in public regard and authority the true Bibles indeed, which you have wickedly both contemned and condemned. Your repetitions to the end of this Chapter, full of outrageous untruths and slanders, require no answer in this place: you have been fully answered before, and the wholl world can testify to God's glory, and your confusion, that not one tittle of God's word and scriptures is by us denied.

CHAP. 14.

THis absurd Chapter M. R. beginneth with Castalion, translating long sentences out of the preface of his Bible to King Edward the Sixt: wherein how untruly it is objected unto him, that he thinketh the Messias promised in the law, not to be come as yet, and that he would have every man left to his own private judgment, I will not loose time to declare. Let Castalion say and write what he list, and let M. R. allege at his pleasure store of testimonies out of such authors, who can deny him liberty so to do, or who can think him worthy answer therein, when he hath so done? As Saint Jerome being urged with Tertullian's opinion, answered, De Tertulliano nihilamplius dico, quàm Ecclesia hominem non fuisse: That he was not a man of the Church, so will answer no more about Castalion, but that he was a man not sound in some points of the Catholic faith and religion of Christ, as by his dealings and writings hath appeared: and therefore we make no great account of him, nor have regard what assertions he held, what counsel he gave, what can be rehearsed out of his works. Al this was vainly brought in and no less vain is it, that you talk of neglecting all antiquity, & suspending our religion upon the only testament translated after the new guise, where (you say) is found more variety, then there are conlours in the rainebowe. Do we neglect antiquity, or you rather? For which is more ancient (Master Rainolds) the Hebrew and Greek, or the Latin? and do not you suspend your religion upon the testament translated, that have no scripture in your Church, but only a translation, of which I may truly say, that greater imperfections, and moe corruptions are found therein, then in all our English translations together can be espied? we depend not upon any translation, English, or Latin, or of other language, no otherwise then the same agreeth with the original text: but your wholl Church indeed is hanged upon the latin translation only, which how bad it is, hath partly been shown already, and if need require, shall much more be discovered. That you ask which Hebrew, which Greek I mean, are you so ignorant not to know the Hebrew Bible, and Greek testament? How many Hebrews, how many greeks have you, unless you mean certain editions of the Greek testament, wherein is found small variety of any moment.

To prove that the departing from the latin translation is the very introduction to Apostasy, you propound one example of the heretics in Germany, called Antinomi, who hold, as Sleidan writeth, that how wickedly soever a man liveth, yet if he believe the gospel, he shall be justified: and this you say is the very conclusion of the Protestants common doctrine of justification by faith. What need you, M. Rainolds, in this place thus falselie, and malitiouslie to slander us? Do we teach any such doctrine as this in our Church? do we give liberty of licentious life to the professors of the gospel? doth justification by faith infer this wicked and detestable conclusion: your conscience can tell you, that you speak untruly. If hope of repentance be left for such slanderers and blaspehmers, God give you repentance: otherwise I doubt not the Lord will avenge in time such reproaches against his holy religion. Let us now consider your proceeding against these men.

[ 1] First fathers and councils are by them (you say) not regarded: which I grant may well be, that such wicked men will regard neither fathers nor Councils: but this cannot be understood of us, who have the fathers and the Councils in such reverence and regard, as meet is we should. Then Saint James is also by them rejected, as contrary to Saint Paul. [ 2] They that reject Saint James, be they Antinomi, or whoesoeuer, let them answer for it them selves, this appertaineth not unto us: but hereof hath been said enough before. Thirdelie, the epistle to the Hebrews is denied by Beza and Calvin to be Saint Paul. What then? [ 3] is it denied therefore to be holy scripture? And for Illyricus, he is fo far from denying this Epistle to be Canonical scripture, that he thinketh the same to be written by Saint Paul himself, and to be amongst excellent and necessary part of the Scripture, as you may read in his preface upon that epistle. Fourthly, [ 4] Saint Peters place is brought in, which helpeth little, whether we read the words (by good works) according to the latin translation, or leave them out, according to the Greek verity. That our calling & election is confirmed by good works, maketh nothing against justification by faith. Will you say we are elected and called by our works? that is gross herefie, worse then Pelagianism. But Saint Peter biddeth us to make our vocation and election sure by good works, and yet you know yourselves and grant, that our vocation and election is wrought without any means of good works, because we are elected before the world, and before our vocation our works were only wicked, what maketh all this then for merit of good works, that they are testimonies and arguments of our election and effectual vocation? [ 5] Fiftlie, another pregnant place is brought out of the first of Saint Peter, against which no exception can be made, whereby you say is proved first, that we have free will: which I grant we have, after we are regenerate, Secondly, that we purify our selves from sin, as though we denied that after grace received we ought, and in some measure might labor against the sins and corruptions of our soul. Thirdly, that good works are necessarily required of Christian men: this indeed confuteth those heretics of whom you speak, but maketh nothing against us, who think, teach, and continually preach, that good works are necessary for all Christians, otherwise they shall never see the kingdom of god: so that we are as far from that damnable heresy of the Anabaptists and Antinomies, as heaven is from earth. Further you proceed to a place of Saint Paul. Phil. 1. v. 28 where any man of knowledge may soon perceive that your translator was deceived foully, when he translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , cause, the word signifying not a cause, but a plain declaration, or proof. And this is the manifest meaning of Saint Paul in that place, that as the malice and rage of the wicked enemies of the Church is an argument of their condemnation, so the patience of the godly in suffering such afflictions is an evident proof that they are the children of god, and therefore shall inherit eternal life. Not Beza therefore, but you, and your translator have altered the text, and perverted the sense of this scripture. As for your other argument our of Luke. 7. v. 47. of the woman to whom many sins were remitted, it hath been answered so fully and truly by sundry learned writers, that I might wholly pass it over. Onelie this in brief I say to stop your railing mouth, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because, is often times used for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , therefore: & that so in this place it must be of necessity expounded, may appear by an invincible reason, which yourselves cannot deny. For that woman being so deeply drowned in deadly sin, how could her love deserve the grace of God, and remission of her sins? doth your scholastical Theology maintain, that a sinful creature, lying in state of condemnation can by love merit pardon of his sins? Tel us plainly, if this be your doctrine, your religion, your divinity. If then this be moste false and impossible, confess that the love of that sinnfull and miserable woman, was not because of forgiveness of her sins, but the effect following, and not going before the same. This doctrine is true and Catholic, the contrary wicked and heretical, and therefore no cause had you to rail so mightily at Beza and us for translating & expounding this word as we do, & as the proportion of faith, & circumstance of the place moste undoubtedly and necessarily requireth. For our savior Christ showeth the cause of hir so great love to be the forgiveness of the great and many sins. They to whom little is forgiven, love a little: they to whom much is forgiven, love much. She had much forgiven, therefore she loved much. And this the Fathers also acknowledge to be the true and natural seuse of the place, although you abuse their names to the contrary. S. Gregory as he is also by Thomas alleged, writeth thus, The debt being forgiven to both, the Pharisee is demanded who should more love him that forgave the debt. You see that Gregory expoundeth this of the love that followed the forgiveness of the d • bt. And so likewise Saint Ambrose upon this place, Because (saith he) there is nothing which we can worthily render unto God, woe be unto me, if I love not. I dare say Peter rendered not, and therefore he loved more, &c. Let us therefore render love for debt, charity for reward, thanks for the prize of his blood. Thus Saint Ambrose planlie she weth, that this love in that woman did spring from remission of her sins, as it must in us also proceed from the same fountain. I could also put you in mind what Cano a schooleman of yours hath written of this place clean overthrowing your opinion, as if he had of purpose devised a shift for you. Notwithstanding that the fathers sometime write, our sins are washed a way by tears of repentance, I grant: wherebie they mean no other thing, but that by our earnest sorrow and repentance we receive a sure testimony to our souls of the remission of our sins. Your discourse about Musculus exposition I pretermit, with all your monstrous reproaches, & blasphemies of Lucianical only faith, &c. except the devil him self stood by them, and suggested to them such construction, &c. fitter for you to utter, then me to rehearse or answer.

This wholl matter again M.R. layeth out in particular distinctions, whereunto hath been answered enough alreadle, and more then nedd, but only in respect of that intolerable and outrageous Importunity, which this caviller hath used. If this be an unlawful shift in expounding of scripture, to try and correct the translation according to the Hebrew and Greek fountains, then have all the ancient fathers of the Church exercized continually wicked shifts, who both appeall them selves to the authentical fountains, and counsel all others to do the same: far otherwise then your fathers of Tre • have done, or will suffer others to do. whotie their faith wholly to a bare translation, and give no creditt to the Canonical fountains: wherein they have not only use de damnable and miserable shift, but at once have rased out the wholl scriptures from beginning toending. S. Augustine saith, the books of the old Testament must be examined by the Hebrew, and the new by the Greek verity. Saint Ambrose saith, The authority of the Greek books of the New Testament is greater. S. Jerome is everywhere of the same mind: In the New Testament (saith he) if there arise any question among the Latins, and there be difference in the copies, we repair to the fountains of the Greek tongue, wherein the New Testament was written: and so likewise in the old. In his preface upon the five books of Moses: he esteemeth it an absurd and impossible thing, that the latin copies should be purer then the Greek, and the Greek then the Hebrew. Again in a nother place he saith, if truth is to be sought, why reiurne we not to the Greek orignal? speaking of the New Testament. And such sayings hath he many, always preferring the Hebrew & Greek before all translations in the world. But all this by M.R. simple verdict was but a shift in him, and all the ancient learned godly fathers. For it is the high way to Atheism in his opinion to do as they did, and as they have also taught us to do.

Zwingli exposition of love for faith, I will not maintain. It may seem more curious, then necessary. In the text is no difficulty, if the simplicity of truth may be received. As for Tertullian's complaint of certain heretics, that either refused, or mangled, or corrupted the scriptures, it toucheth us no whit at all, who acknoweledge the wholl body of scriptures, and are so far of from willful corruption thereof, that of purpose we would not alter one letter in the Bible, to win the wholl world. Therefore we little regard your furious and senseless railing against us, where with you have stuffed all partes of your book, that never was scorpion fuller of poison, then it is of venomous and stinging reproaches.

Leauing the Greek, you return again to the Hebrew, against which you have devised pretty reasons, to prove there is no hold in it against contentious heretics. The blasphemy of which assertion, I dout not every reasonable man at the first will espy and abhor. For seeing it pleased the Lord, of all tongues of men under heaven to choose that tongue, wherein to write his word & oracles, that his Church might have a most perfect and certain rule of religion, shall this Papist come and control the wisdom of God for so doing, and say that of the Hebrew little hold can be taken to bind a contentious heretic? Thus it appeareth, that although we had the very same Autographall and authentical copies, which Moses and the other Prophets did write with their own hands, yet would this Seminary papist and his fellows make less account of them then of their translation, as being less hable to bind heretics then it.

The reason is, [ 1] first the diverse significations of every word almost, which may seem perhapes to some simple body to make for their translation against the Hebrew. Whereunto I answer, first that although the Hebrew were so uncertain in respect of the manifold and diverse significations of words, as they would have it, yet were there no cause why the latin translation should more be allowed for the undoubted word of God, then the Greek or any other in the world. They are all no better then translations; and what warrrant is there for one more then an oother, but only in commendation of greater sincerity, and that in respect of faithfully expressing the Hebrew? Secondly this variety of significations is not latelie begun, but was always from the beginning: which notwithstanding the Hebrews could speak, and write their minds as plainly and certainly, as any other people: and the scriptures were read and expounded in that language many hundred years before any parte of them was translated into Latin. So that this reason maketh them now no less hable to bind heretics, then they have evermore been from the beginning. And what tongue (I pray you) were the scriptures written in, which the Apostle exhorteth Timothy to read, that he might stop the mouths of heretics, and which he saith are profitable to convince the Adversaries, but in the Hebrew and Greek? your latin translator was then unborn, when yet the scriptures in their original tongues were able to bind and confute all heretics. Your example out of the Psalm 55. ver. 21. showeth a plain corruption in your translation. For that Hebrew word with these letters and pricks cannot signify to reward, as your translation hath, but upon those that have peace with him, as our translations for the moste have according to the Hebrew.

The second reason is, [ 2] that many substantives may have diverse deriuations from diverse verbs: and one example is brought out of the 60. Psalm, v. 6. To this may be answered as to the former, that if this diversity of derivation cause a diversity of expositions, it maketh no more against the Hebrew text now, then ever since the hebrew was first written.

Thirdly, touching the literal sense of the hebrew words, you demand what masters we shall follow. If a controversy be about the signification of a word, whom should we follow rather then the moste learned masters of that tongue? they can best resolve us that know the tongue best: and as this for words in all other languages is the only way, so likewise if we doubt of some word in hebrewe, what means may we use to be instructed and satisfied, but to learn of those that are moste skillful in the tongue, and best know the natural force of the words. Who can deny that this is much better, then as your translator oftentimes doth, to call black white, and to give a signification of a word, which all Hebricians can tell, is clean amiss. Examples hereof are in your translation plentiful, as if before you knew not, now by that which I have already alleged, you may understand. That which followeth of Calvin, Beza, and the rest, hath nothing, but a poor brag not worth the mentioning.

To your question, whether I think it flat Atheism and Turkery, to deny that Christ was borne of a virgins, I answer, no Christian can think otherwise but that it is indeed plain Atheism, to deny this so principal an article of our faith. Then you require what scripture I have to prove this verity. I answer, I prove this verity by a plain text of scripture, in Matt. 1. v. 23. Behold a virgins shall conceive. &c. But this, you say, proveth nothing by mine own rule, by Beza's common kind of scanning such citations, and by the protestants interpretation of this place. What rule, what scanning, what interpretation of ours can you allege against this moste sufficient and evident proof? Did ever Beza, or I, or any other protestant speak anything against this truth? If you can charge any of us, we desire no favor at your hands. But what cause or reason have you thus to say? Because this text is not according to the Hebrew, but the seventy as you affirm. Which to be a foul untruth and tending to Atheism and Turkism, who seeth not? For if the Angels words rehearsed in Saint Matthew be not agreeable to the verity of the Prophets words, then may Turks, Jews, Atheists, and wicked heretics indeed at their pleasure not only dispute against this article of our faith, but also condemn it, and we shall not be hable to convince them. This advantage giveth M. Rainolds unto them, when he saith, Saint Matthews text is not framed according to the Hebrwe, but the Greek translation. Thus while you labor to prove that we in cleaving to the Hebrew text, do open a gap to Atheism, yourself in denying S. Matthews text to be fully agreeable to the Hebrew, have opened a broad gate to all Atheists and Turks in the world. God forbid that we should ever utter word so much serving for defense of Atheism as you have here done: or else set down in word or writing that S. Matthews place is not according to the Hebrew. If you take part with the Jews, and openly maintain, that the Hebrew word signifieth not a virgins, but a young wench, then will I answer you as the godly fathers have answered those wicked enemies of Christ, that 〈◊〉 signifieth a young wench indeed, but one that is a virgins, being derived of the root that signifieth to 〈◊〉 . So Saint Ie •••• writeth, that this word not only signifieth a young maid or virgins, but more also, a virgins kept hid • and secret, by great diligence of he parents: and further also, a young virginus of tender age, not an old virgins, as some be. And although the word in Hebrew had signified only a wench, yet the Angel and Evangelists expounding it of such a wench as was a virgins also, this may suffice all Christians to believe and hold, that our savior Christ was borne of a true virgins, let Jews, Turks, Atheists, and heretics, say what they can to the contrary.

Master R. is afraid lest men should think he studied to disgrace the Greek & Hebrew tongues, which he confesseth to be great helps to the attaining of the true sense in sundry places of scripture, and showeth what pains the Catholics have taken in setting forth the Bible in Hebrew and other languages. I grant you have not disgraced the tongues, but the scriptures written in those tongues you have indeauoured as much as in you lay to disgrace, although do what you can, you shall never be able to disgrace them truly. And herein may you firlie be compared to the Jews; for as they keep the Hebrew text moste carefully, but yet have lost the true meaning thereof: soe you have indeed printed the old and new testament in Hebrew and Greek with diligence and great cost, but in the mean time you deny them to be the authentical word of God.

This treatise you conclude full discreetly, that first we must be sure of our faith. That is a very good thing, but how this should be wrought, you tell us not. The latin translation is for this purpose no fitter, then the Hebrew and Greek fountains, but rather many ways more unfit, being only a translation, and that an imperfect, a corrupt, an obscure translation: & though it were as excellent as ever any translation could be, which God knoweth is far otherwise, yet might it not attain to the divine perfection of the original text that was written, and published by the wisdom of God's holy spirit, and ministry of the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists. But (say you) let us hold the Church, then our Greek and Hebrew may do us some good: let us depart from her, our Greek and Hebrew will turn to our perdition. And I grant M. R. that to talk of the Greek and Hebrew, unless we hold the right faith in the true Church, helpeth us nothing, but rather increaseth our condemnation. But this is true no less, I am sure, of your latin, then of the Greek and Hebrew, unless there be some secrete virtue in that, which is not in the other, that to talk of it, though a man hold not either faith or Church, may be a profitable thing. If this be not your meaning, then have your words no sense nor force of reason in them: a meet conclusion for such a discourse.

CHAP. 15.

AS Master Rainolds hath he • herto defended with great endeavor, and small success their latin vulgare translation so now is he come to maintain in like manner their Rhemish late English translation of the New Testament, whereof himself may seem to have been a principal author, or at least some special dealer in the work. First he rehearseth my words at large written in my preface concerning that translation, and setteth upon them six marks, whereof he intendeth in order and severally to speak. But before he come to the particular scannig of my words, he breaketh out into immoderate and immodest railing, wherein is nothing worthy answer: and therefore suffering him to play his parte with Aiax or Hercules, of whom he speaketh, let us procead to the several points, and so shall it appear whether I have uttered anything but a certain truth, or whether he had cause thus strangelie to behave himself.

[ 1] First I said, that since the world was made, never was there set forth such a translation: whereupon this man taketh occasion to talk of new Testaments and translations hereof set forth 5000. years ago. And have we not just cause to admire his wisdom and granitie, that could devise and handle in this sort such a simple fantasie of his own brain? since the world was created, never was found such a translation as the Rhemish is; therefore (saith Master Rainolds ) there have been translations of the new Testament ever from the creation of the world. If any man else can so understand it, I am content to let it be so taken. To me it seemeth strange, that any man of reason should think and write thus absurdlie, thus peeuishlie, thus falsely, unless it were to make him self ridiculous, and odious to all the world. But of this so foolish a conceit of his, we need not to speak moe words. Now will Master Rainolds prove indeed that worse translations of the new Testament have been by us set forth of late, then theirs is, and therefore that I have said untruly, that theirs is worst of all.

His argument is thus framed: a translation that transformeth God into a devil, must needs be worse then theirs: But seven of our translations, (whereof some have been set forth within these five years, transform God into a devil. Therefore these are worse then theirs. His assumption he proveth by a place translated in the first of S. Peter, Chap. 2. ver. 8. And here is made a great stir with long sentences out of Illyricus, Beza, Castalion. The indifferent reader will be content with a short reply, when a longer is not requisite. Now then what is this heinous fault of our translations? Because they have translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unto the which thing they were ordained. A grievous accusation, but a faint proose: the translation is right, and no more transformeth God into a devil, then do S. Peters words themselves, which were written by direction of God's moste holy spirit. Here is no place to make discourse of this question, whether God be author of sin: which as it is a most impious assertion, so have you moste falselie objected it unto us sundry times, and never could prove it once. This place of S. Peter we cannot otherwise translate, unless we would willingly translate amiss: & S. Peters own text being sound, our translation agreeing fully therewith, cannot lead men into any such damnable opinion, as that is, whereof you speak. Yet saith M. R. very confidently, find you any so willful and horrible an Atheism in ours, and hardly set a fire on them all. Take heed what you speak. Is this willful and horrible Atheism? are all your books worthy to be burnt, if any such can be found in them? will you stand to this? How then have you translated the place yourselves? Let us look now on your translation: thus it is, wherein also they are put. This cannot be true, following your latin, which hath quo, for quod: and therefore in your margent you mend it thus, whereto also they are orderned. And how differeth this from ours? what Atheism is in ours more then in this? or why deserveth ours to be burnt rather then this? Burn your own if you list, Master Rainolds: and if you speak as you think, you have pronounced them in your judgment worthy to be cast into a fire: and so perhaps you could be content, so that ours might burn withal for company.

The three points following, are huddled up, and answered together, concerning unaccustomed and monstrous novelties of words, whereof their translation hath such examples, as the like in no other can be found, so as a man may justly call it a new fangled and ridiculous translation, devised rather to amaze the readers, and make the word of God a laughing stock, then to edify the Church of Christ. For who hath ever heard or read such words and phrases, as they have used and affected in their translation, whereas they might have retained as well the common and known manner of speaking, that their translation set forth in English might have been understood of English men? But they of purpose have so framed the same that the English is in many places as obscure in words, as the latin: which thing is in all translations a foul fault, but in translating of scripture moste intolerable? And what reason should be hereof, but that men either should contemn, or not understand the scripture, which yet they will seem to translate for the benefit of the Church? if you require examples, take but the book, and read a little, and soon shall you see strange affectation of novelties in words and speeches throughout their whole translation. There shall you find. The transmigration of Babylon: The enemy man: unless you have penance: Give us today our supersubstantiall bread: whatsoever thou shalt supererogat: Not in chamberings, and impudicities: an emulator of the traditions of my fathers: I expugned the faith: They emulate you not well, that you might emulate them: Be ye also yourselves superedified: Once at length you have reflorished to care for me: Denying the only dominator and our Lord: to the redemption of acquisition: against the spirituals of wickedness in the celestials: the Archisynagogue: Ebrieties, commessations: the dominicall day: But they are written to our correption: That in the name of Jesus euerr kneebowe of the celestials, terrestrials, and infernals: But he exinanited himself: For with such hosts God is promerited: Let the charity of the fraternity abide in you: O Timothy keep the depositum: that he might repropitiate the sins of the people: wrapped it in sindon, and laid it in a monument: All shall be docible of God: Upon probatica a pond: which of you shall argue me of sin? they hated me gratis: beyond the Torrent Cedron: It was the parasceue of pasche. These and such like are the goodly flowers of their translation, besides the obscurity and ambiguity of sentences, by reason of leuing out the verbs and other words in the English translation, which may in latin more easily be understood. Yet have they dealt something reasonablie in adding a Dictionarie to their translation, if it had been somewhat larger. Hereby the reader may judge, but better by reading the translation it self, whether I have not truly said of it, that it is a strange translation indeed, and such a one, as hard it were to find the like. But Master Rainolds answereth, that we rather delight in such novelty, then they, seeing they retain the ancient words, Mass, Priest, &c. and we refuse them: hereof hath been spoken before. And as for certain names of persons and places which some of our interpreters do reduce to the Hebrew sound, they cannot much trouble the reader, and they are rather used in books, then speech. Your accusation Master Rainolds of greater novelty in articles of faith amongst us, is false: and concerning the books of Judith, Maccabees, and the rest of that sort, we have spoken sufficient before: your other railing I omit.

What cause have we to be afraid of your translation? [ 5] If you translate the word of God, that is it which we have translated and printed, and published so often. I wish indeed for my part, that your translation might be printed alone, and all men suffered to have and read it, that so by comparing it with ours, and with the original text, and by considering the wholl shape of it, they might the more abhor your irreligious and profane handling the Testament of Christ. Your Annotations joined with your translation are devilish indeed and dangerous for all Christians to read, and therefore the godly wisdom of magistrates cannot suffer such books openly to be sold. You speak your pleasure of Master Jewels dealing with Hardinges books, but falselie, all men knowing the contrary: and so further you proceed in blasphemous railing against the truth of Christ's gospel, which now in England is professed, calling it an Atheistical gospel. Such new terms of blasphemy have you devised and used many, so as we may perceive that you have profited well in your school of Apostasy, and are now come to the highest form and chair of scorners.

Where the Rhemish translators would seem so precisely to translate the latin translation, as making the same account of it that we do of the Greek, I thought to admonish the reader, that this thing is not by them so truly and exactlie performed everywhere, as it is constanlie pretended: but that these translators sometime leave their translation which they translate, and follow the Greek rather then it. Two examples hereof I noted, of which Master Rainolds speaketh much, and more then enough, amplifying that in ten pages, which might have been comprised in as many lines, such leisure and pleasure hath he to run at large, as a wanton whelp that cannot be kept from ranging abroad, nor brought to follow the mark. I purpose not to run after him, for then should I be as ill occupied as he: but keeping my purpose and manner, I will come to the matter in question. The first example is in the 12. Chapter of Saint Paul's epistle to the Romans, the 19. verse: where the Apostle forbiddeth us to revenge our selves, for so much as vengeance belongeth to the Lord. The common translator hath expressed it otherwise, as though the Apostle would not have us to defend our selves, making defense • f our selves and revengement all one, which yet are two diverse things in them selves. Our Rhemists in this place follow not their old translator, but the Apostles Greek text; and thus they have translated it, not revenging yourselves, my dearest. Whoe seeth not that here they have left the latin word, and followed the Greek, which differeth from the latin? Now Master Rainolds to prove himself a notable Grammarian, telleth us the latin agreeth with the Greek, and the English with the latin, and all is right. For he affirmeth, and by some vnfitt examples would prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to defend, and Defendo signifieth to revenge, alleging also some Dictionaries for his opinion. But, to make a short reply, let M. R. bring us forth any one example out of good author Greek or Latin, wherein the words are so used, as he teacheth, & then shall we easily yield in this case. By implication and consequence I grant the one word may perhaps be used sometime for the other: but I appeal to all learned Grecians and Latinists in the world, whether it be not true that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly signifieth only to revenge, and not to defend: and so likewise Defendo to defend, and not to revenge. Therefore to translate the one for the other, as it is altogether improper, so is it moste dangerous in the scriptures, because thereof may follow errors in judgment, and practice of life. And it appeareth that Thomas of Aquine took the word Defendentes in the proper signification, expounding it by Christ's precept, that if we be stricken on the one cheek, we must be so far of from defending our selves, that we must be willing rather to turn the other also to him that smote us: and by Christ's example, who being buffeted on the face, defended not him self. Yet after he showeth that some defense is lawful by example of Saint Paul, who procured him self to be defended from the Jews that lay in wait for him. Thus we may see that your Saint Thomas used the word simply and properly, and thereby was fain to seek some new exposition, which he nedd not to have done, had he been as good a grammarian, as you Master Rainolds are.

The other example is in S. Matthew, the 4. Chapter. 16. verse: wherein you have also followed the Greek rather then the latin, translating not according to moste of your latin Testaments, which I have seen, the people that walked in darkness, but after the Greek, the people that sat in darkness. A small matter in itself, I grant, yet great enough to show that you have not so precisely followed the latin translation. as you would seem: which also in other places appeareth, by comparing your translation with that. For in the very first Chapter of S. Matthew, the 19. ver. you have omitted these words, Her husband, which your latin books have truly translated according to the Greek. Wherof reason it were, that you should be accountable, for what cause you have removed those words clean out of the text, if they were not rather left out by oversight. For I trust you are not ashamed that Joseph should be called the husband of the blessed virgins Marie. Again in the 13. to the Rom. v. 9. instauratur, you translate, is comprised, by no grammar, I am sure, nor dictionary, I think. The sense, I grant, is true, and well agreeth with the Greek, but the latin word is left. If you listed not to translate, is renewed, or repared, as the word signifieth, you might have kept the word, and according to your new found manner of translating and speaking have translated, instaurated. Such examples are there in your translation many moe, if we should peruse the wholl, which is not necessary. Neither have I much blamed your translation in this respect, Master Rainolds, for not iumping always with your latin, as you have untruly told your reader: but for leaving the Greek, and following the latin, translating only a bare, (I will not speak as you do, a bald) translation, and for translating it after such a fashion, as never scripture was translated, nor any other book I suppose: and for applying the text moste absurdlie and violentlie to some colorable maintenance of your Antichristian Church and religion.

CHAP. 16.

FRom the translation, which how vain and childish it is hath been declared, now let us proceed with you to the Annotations, which are meet handmaids for such a maistres. But before you come to speak of the particular faults, that were found therein, you discourse of many matters according to your common custom idly, and railingly, whereunto it booteth not to make answer: and therefore passing over what you have written of M. Jewel, M. Horne, &c. of Tower and Tiburne disputation, of the Churches stability, of M. Foxes monuments, of Luther's judgment concerning the sacramentaries, I will come to examine your defense of those faults, that were noted, and that as briefly as I can, reserning these causes to the large confutation of those Annotations, which in convenient time through God's goodness will be (I hope) performed to God's glory, defense of the truth, and disproof of popishlies and heresies. Three kinds of faults were observed: the first of errors in matters historical: the second of false conclusions and arguments: the third of certain blasphemies against the holy Apostle.

In the first order were reckoned certain traditions, which having no ground in God's word, nor much differing from mere fables, are in your Rhemish Annotations notwithstanding gloriouslie avouched, as behooveful for all Christians to believe. And first of the wisemen that came from the East to visit our savior Christ, three things are affirmed, first that they were kings, secondly that they were three, and lastly that their names were Gaspar, Melchior, and Baltasar, as now commonly they are called. For the first, Master R. demandeth a reason, why I should think they were no kings, himself not hable to show any, why he should say they were kings. But if reason may rule him, for which he calleth, as though he would yield unto it, if it were given him, three reasons will I propound, wherebie I am moved not to believe that these men were kings.

First, because the Evangelist calleth them by no such names, which yet he would not have omitted, if the truth had been according to your tradition, considering how this would have made for the honor of Christ, that so soon as he was borne, kings should have sought him far, and done unto him homage and worship. And when you maintain your opinion by this argument, for that it is honorable to the person of our savior Christ that so we should think of them, you charge therein the holy Evangelist for omitting somewhat, that might have greatly advanced the honor of Christ, if he had truly and fully reported the same. Secondly, it is not credible, that Herod's would have admitted into his kingdom and chief City three Kings with their troupes, especially there being enemity betwixt him and the kings of Persia: neither could they have so secretly come to our savior Christ, and escaped out of the country again, but that being kings, and therefore no dout accompanied in some princelie sort, they must needs have been discried. Thirdly if they had been, as you imagine, kings, yea and Monarchs, as great as the king of France and Spain, or the great Sophie of Persia, which you suppose might be, then would they not have left our savior Christ and his Mother in that poor estate, that she was able to offer no more, but a pair of doves, according to the oblation of the poorest amongst the people. If you can remove the ground of these reasons, I will confess your opinion hath in it more probability then I thought, although to believe it, as you do, for a certain truth, I cannot, because thereof I know no sure reason can be alleged. The fathers I grant some of them speak of these wise men as of kings, taking that word in a larger sense, for great and honorable personages, such as may be thought that they were: but the ground of their opinion is a place of scripture misunderstoode, in the 72. Psalm, concerning the kings of Tharsis, Arabia, and Sheba, that should bring gifts, which cannot be applied to these, for so much as those countries are not Eastward from Judea, and the scripture plainly saith, that these wise men came out of the East. Therefore whatsoever any father hath written to this purpose, is lightly to be regarded, having no better ground then a manifest wresting of scripture and turning South into East.

Now that they were also three, how may it be proved? forsooth here is a mystery of the blessed Trinity, whereunto Saint Augustine most sweetl • e alludeth. At this most heavenly mystery, Master Rainolds, none will be grieved, save only most wicked and detestable heretics indeed. But how appeareth it, that these wise men did represent and signify that mystery? Saint Augustine and Leo say so: and therefore we must believe it is so. Which argument I will admit if because their oblations were of three things, therefore it follow necessarily, that them-selves, who offered, were three. Yet Master Rainolds hath a better reason then this, if it will be accepted. The Evangelist (saith he) speaketh of them in the dual number, and therefore they were moe then two: but we need not to believe that they were moe then three. Neither need we to believe that they were just three: for the Evangelist speaking of them indefinitlie, as he doth, we may as well think they were moe then three, as well as three, and so also indeed some fathers have thought. So that this hangeth upon a slender threede of man's conjecture, which cannot be warranted by mystical expositions. And if herein were contained so sweet and excellent mysteries, much may we marvel, why the Evangelists would not plainly write, for better understanding of this mystery, that they were neither fewer, nor moe, then just three.

Lastly, touching their names, Master R. asketh, seeing they were not nameless, why their names were not Gaspar, Melchior, Baltasar, rather then William, John, and Thomas. I grant as well may we think the one as the other: but reason is there none to think either. That their names might have been continued in the Church, I deny not as well as those forcerers names were, of whom S. Paul maketh mention. And so standeth your argument, Their names might be such, therefore they were such: they might be three, therefore they were three: they might be Kings, therefore they were Kings. And thus in Popish traditions the argument holdeth well a posse ad esse, contrary to the rules of all Logic in the world. But enough of these three counterfeit Kings, of Colen.

That John the Baptist was an Eremite, and patron of Eremiticall life, is as likely as the other. First, scripture have you none for this Tradition of yours: for then it were not a right tradition, if you could bring something out of scripture for confirmation thereof. The Evangelists say not, that he lived alone from company of men in the wilderness, as your Eremites did, but that he lived in that country of Judea, which in respect of other parts thereof more populous, was called the desert of Judea. Then whatsoever you allege out of fathers, may in a word by another father be disproved, who denieth that Elias and John were Monckes, and saith that Antonius and Paulus were thought to be the first fathers of Eremites.

Concerning the stone that hit S. Stephen on the elbowe, and now is kept at Ancona in Italy, Master Rainolds will not stand greatly in maintenance of this fable, but referreth us to Saint Augustine in a counterfeit sermon. Yet that such a thing might be, he proveth by example of Aaron's rod and the Manna, which were by God's special commandment preserved in the Ark. But was there any like commandment, or cause to keep the stone, that rebounded from Saint Stephens body? show us some, and then we say no more.

For Elias coming before the last judgment are alleged sundry Doctors. So then belike all is safe on their side, if they can approve their opinions and expositions by Testimonies of some Doctors. But this will not serve, unless the Doctors saying be warranted by God's word, as we have a thousand times told them. Now this imagination of Elias coming is by the words of our savior Christ plainly confuted, who teacheth that Elias, according to the prophecy of Melachie, was come already: and the Apostles understood that he meant of John the Baptist, who was Elias, not in person, but in spirit and power. Then the prophecy of Elias coming being fulfilled in John the Baptist, as our savior himself hath taught, vain is it to dream of another coming then that, whereof no word can be found in all the scriptures of God. Wherefore as you compare the fathers with us, to make your cause seem the more probable, so will I compare the scriptures with the fathers, whose authority is much more incomparablie above theirs, then theirs is above ours, by how much God is more above man, then one man is above another.

[ 1] Your faults in framing arguments out of the text of scripture; are most incredible & monstrous, such as I gathered some out of your Annotations upon the new testament, as yourselves had delivered them unto us. You cannot otherwise do, but take upon you some seelie defense of your fellows Collections, whether with greater ignorance, or boldness, I cannot tell. Christ and Peter walked on the waters, therefore it is evident, that Christ's body may be in compass of a little bread. This to be a most false argument, not only in true Divinity, but also in natural reason, is manifest. For had Christ or Peter a body, that both walked on the water, and walked not on the water at one time? Do the scriptures so teach, or is there no such thing to be found in them? If not, then is not this like to you imagined presence of Christ's body in the sacrament: which being granted according to your doctrine of transubstantiation, inferreth moste necessarily, that Christ's body at once is both compassed in a little bread, which is contrary to the nature of a man's true body: and also is not compassed therein, as sitting in heaven, and having the natural properties of a true body, which cannot be brought within so narrow a compass as is your wafer cake. This is repugnant to scripture, to reason, to God's ordinance, and therefore a moste absurd and impossible thing is it, that Christ's body should remain a true natural body, and yet at once be contained in so small a compass, as you teach. In that Christ and Peter walked on the water, no such inconvenience nor absurdity can be found, whether the waters were made by miracle firm as the ground, or the bodies were sustained by God's power, that they suncke not. Christ might bear up him-self and Peter from sincking down, by his divine power, and change no natural property of his or Peters body: but Christ's body cannot be brought into that slender compass of your mathematical cake, without destruction of all properties incident unto a natural body. So then between these two is no likeness at all, as any man not blinded with Popish folly, and not willfully shutting his eyes against the clear light may manifestly perceive. Wherefore distrusting this argument, you protest that your note consisteth not so much thereupon, as in the authority of Epiphanius, who hath not any word at all to this purpose. For tell us, Master Rainolds, doth Epiphanius draw an argument from Christ's walking on the water, to prove his body really present in the sacramental bread? No such matter can you find in Epiphanius, or any ancient father of Christ's Church. That which Christ hath said, he that believeth not to be true, is fallen from grace and salvation, as Epiphanius writeth: but Christ hath never said, that his body should be in the compass of a little bread. Howbeit what talk you of a little bread? when you teach no bread at all remaineth, but only signs and shadows of bread. False is your doctrine, and foolish is your argument: but bad reasons are good enough for such a bad religion.

[ 2] Of Peters walking on the water, is gathered another argument of like quality, to prove the Popes supreme authority: which argument was first invented and devised by Saint Bernard in his second book and eight Chapter to Eugenius a Pope. Manie waters are many people: Peter walked on the waters, therefore Peter and his successors are rulers over many people, saith good Saint Bernard: to whom your Pope is greatly bound for devising such a fine argument, which no ancient Doctor was able to find. But must we now receive Bernard's phantasies, for substantial proofs of the papal supremacy? No Master Rainolds, Saint Bernard hath no warrant to make allegories at his pleasure for confirmation of that Antichristian tyranny, which in those days was established. Your comparison of this argument with that of Christ's about the brazen serpent, and of Paul's concerning Isaac and Ishmael, is no better then blasphemous. Might Saint Bernard with like authority reason thus, Peter walked on the waters, therefore he and his successors are supreme governors of the universal Church, as Christ did show the manner of his death by the lifting up of the brazen serpent in the desert? or as Saint Paul did prove the haued and persecution of false brethren against the true Christians by example of Ishmael, and Isaac? Had Bernard the fullness of wisdom and truth, that was in Christ? was Bernard always directed with that spirit, wherewith Saint Paul expounded the scriptures of God? Here we may see how baselie you think of God's word, to match therewith men's seelie expositions and applications, such as Saint Bernard's often times were, and this moste notably is.

[ 3] An argument is gathered for works of supererogation, out of the Samaritans words, whatsoever thou shalt bestow more, or as it is by them translated, whatsoever thou shalt supererogate. This argument (saith Master Rainolds ) followeth well enough, and is Saint Augustine's conclusion, to prove that Saint Paul did supererogate, when he might have received all duties for preaching the Gospel, but would not. That men may remit some part of their due, and do more towards men outwardly, then they can of necessity be urged to do, no man will deny: and thus may one man be said to supererogate towards another: but what maketh this for works of supererogation towards God, who requireth both inward and outward obedience of us in moste absolute manner?

[ 4] For real presence a like argument to the first is gathered of Christ's transfiguration, whereof yet Master Rainolds being ashamed, saith it is not their argument, but only a deduction, that Christ may give us his body in form of bread and wine. A proper deduction no doubt, of a glorious body to prove nobody.

[ 5] That Saints can hear and help us everywhere, because they are like to Angels is a very bad argument, considering that neither Angels can so do, for then were they of equal power with God: and though Saints are like to Angels, as in other things, so in this, that they marry not, yet it followeth not that therefore they are equal to Angels. You are glad of such arguments, having no other; but if ye had better, ye would not esteem such.

[ 6] Joseph wrapped Christ's body in sindon, Therefore Christ's body on the altar must be laid in pure linen. In this argument Master Rainolds cannot tell what I mislike, whether the real presence, or the linen used at the altar, as it was in the sepulcher, or the relation from one to the other. I answer in a word, I mislike all, there being no truth in any of all.

[ 7] The women came to behold the sepulcher, Ergo we must go to the holy sepulcher in pilgrimage: This argument Master Rainolds confesseth cannot indeed prove that we must, but that we may go in pilgrimage, by example of those godly and zealous women: which yet is a false and fond deduction, seeing there is no such like cause for us to go, as was for them.

[ 8] That Christ appeared to the twoe disciples in another form, cannot prove that he is in the sacrament in form of bread, for so much as in Christ's body no alteration at this time was wrought, but only the disciples eyes were held, that they know him not, as Saint Luke expressly noteth.

[ 9] For your exorcism in baptism, argument you say you made none of Christ's saying to the dumb and dease Ephpheta. If no argument, no proof,if no proof, then no cause to use by example of Christ such exorcism in you baptisms.

[ 10] Saint Luke's preface before his gospel cannot by any means excuse the second book of Maccabees from being Apocryphal, wherein the Author craveth pardon for his so slender writing of that history. There is no likeness of comparison at all between the Evangelists endeavor to learn and write the certain truth, and that authors confession of his infirmity and imperfection in writing his book. One thing it is to inquire the truth with all diligence, and so having found the same to set it forth in writing moste exactlie: another having written a book, to desire the readers favor and forgiveness, in respect of the writers simplicity and vnskillfulnes. The first detracteth nothing from the wisdom & majesty of God's spirit, to search the true • h by all such means, as by which the same may be learned: the other argueth a conscience & acknowledgement of wants in writing, which cannot be applied to the holy Ghost, who whatsoever he taketh in hand, moste wisely and excellently performeth the same. Doth Saint Luke anywhere excuse his want of utterance, his rude, slender, and unlearned manner of writing? Nothing less: nay he protesteth in the same preface that he hath attained to the exacte knowledge of everything, and that he writeth a moste certain and undoubted truth: so far of is he from craving pardon of any man, which the simple writer of that book of Maccabees, in regard of his own weakness and vnhabilitie, thought it expedient for him to do. Your places out of the Apostle are frivolous, bewraying your gross ignorance. S. Paul saith, that in some part he had written boldelie to the Romans. What then? did he therefore crave pardon for his so bold writing unto them? Doth he not show immediately the cause of this boldness to be, for that he was a minister of Jesus Christ among the gentiles? That he faith he was conversant among the Corinthians in weakness, in fear, and trembling, what concerneth this the writings that he published to the Church? The greatness of the Lord's work in hand made him to tremble, but for his writings he feared not the judgment of man, nor ever submitted them to man's discretion. That he desireth them to bear with his folly, &c. he speaketh not to excuse any folly in him self, who had always moste wisely and grauelie behaved himself towards the Corinthians, but to reprove rather the singular arrogancy and folly of the false Apostles, who being in no respect comparable to the Apostle, yet bragged immoderatlie and preferred themselves before him. This is another case, Master Rainolds, unlike to that whereof we spake.

[ 11] Men of good will, to whom the Angel wisheth well, are by our new divines of Reims expounded for men endued with free will. And thus saith Master Rainolds was it taught in the old gospel. But what gospel he meaneth, it were a good thing to understand. For S. Luke's gospel teacheth no such thing, which yet sure I am is the old and true gospel of Christ. E' 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which word S. Luke in that place hath used, never signifieth free will, but favor and good will, which one beareth towards another: S. Augustine was by ignorance of the Greek tongue deceived: and any man may soon perceive that the Angel speaketh of God's love towards mankind, which then moste notably appeared, when the Son of God was borne of a woman. For our papists to gather hereof man's free will, is too childish and absurd abuse of holy scripture.

Christ preached out of Peters ship: and therefore our Rhemists make an argument that the wholl Church is Peters shipp. If such allegories may go for sound proofs, then will it be easy not only for the Pope to prove his primacy, but for all other heretics that ever were, to justify their detestable opinions what-soever. That by Peters ship the fathers have taught the Church of Christ to be resembled, no man denieth: but they conclude not, nor apply their allegory so far as you do, to prove that as Peter was owner of that ship, so he and his successors are governors of the wholl Church. Such allegories as this of yours may please fools in their merry conceits, but wise men will esteem them no better then they deserve.

[ 13] Barnabas laid down the price of his land at the Apostles feet: where upon our Rhemists make a long annotation of reverence due to sacred persons, either Prophets, Apostles, or Popes. Whoe can otherwise think but that hereof they meant to make an argument for kissing of the Popes feet, least anything concerning the Pope should want due confirmation? yet Master Rainolds calleth this and the rest merry conclusions, and complaineth of mockers. Indeed such merry conclusions have you devised many in your Annotations, fitter a great deal to bring your wholl Religion into derision, then to edify in true faith. Thus have you long, and yet still would you mock the world, but your mockeries are well espied, the Lord be praised for it.

[ 14] The Queens Eunuch of Ethiopia came to Jerusalem to worship: ergo pilgremages to holy places are acceptable to God. This reason why it should not be allowed, Master R. saith he cannot guess, and desiereth me if I have any hid imagination, to impart it unto him: which I am very well content to do. The cause that moved this noble man of Ethiopia to travail so far, was for that in Judea only was the visible Church of God, and in Jerusalem stood the Temple, wherein only sacrifices might be offered to God. Which being so, necessary was it for him to repair thither, for the exercise of his religion in the Church of God, and place particularly thereunto appointed by the Lord. This can you not apply to Rome or Jerusalem now, or any other place in the world, and therefore manifest dissimilitude and inequality is there between this Eunuchs journeying to Jerusalem, for so godly and necessary causes, and popish pilgremages to places abroad for no cause, but only for idle and wandering superstition.

[ 15] Concerning putting of our cappes, and making courtesy at the name of Jesus, Master Rainolds is very earnest, and concludeth in the end that I am an Atheist, and make no account of Christ, for denying that, seeing we yield this honor of capp and courtesy to the letters, name, seal, and seat of the Prince. If this be a true argument, Master Rainolds, as you in your vehemency would have it seem, how cometh it to pass, that God's name amongst you is not honored with like reverence of capp and knee whensoever it is heard? will you put of your capp when the Prince is named, and will you make courtesy at the Popes name, at his triple crown, or cross, and will you never once stir your cappes, or bow your knees, when God is named? Is this your Religion, is this your fashion? Then let me conclude against you, as you have done against me, that you are by your own argument very Atheists, such as make no account of God himself. For otherwise this conclusion of yours, that I am such a one for not honoring the name of Jesus in such sort, is falssie, though moste maliciouslie, devised. That Jews and Infidels have abhorred the name of Jesus, I grant, but no more the name of Jesus, then the name of Christ, seeing Jesus is Christ, and Christ hath as much deserved to be hated of them as Jesus. Christ's name may a thousand times be heard amongst you, and no man moveth capp or knee: Jesus is no sooner sounded, but every man by and by putteth of his capp, and scrapeth on the ground with his foot, and yet not always, and in all places, but in the Church, and specially at reading of the Gospel. This may breed a more dangerous opinion, then it can remove any, that Jesus is better then is Christ, and more worthy of reverence, which is wicked to imagine.

Now Master Rainolds having in particular made some seelie defense, as you have heard, for certain of their annotations upon the New Testament, noted as notorious absurd, and ridiculous conclusions, because he knoweth the matter is not yet sufficienly answered, addeth in the and a further proof and confirmation of the arguments by example of the scripture it self, wherein diverse reasons may be found, and namely touching the resurrection, which if they be examined according to philosophy and human wisdom, will follow no better then theirs have done, but may be thought as improbable & weak, as any that they have made. This discourse doth Master Rainolds in many words prosecute, with great superfluity of speech, and many opprobrious terms after his old manner. But when he hath talked his pleasure at full, an answer in one word shall overthrow all, that he hath built, and as it were cut in sunder the thread of all that he hath sewed thus loselie together. Whatsoever is affirmed or denied in scripture, although it be moste contrary to man's reason, yet is it true and certain, and must without contradiction be believed, because the Lord, whose word is truth hath said it. The resurrection of the flesh cannot (I grant) be proved by philosophical reasons and arguments, but God's word hath set down this for a principle of our faith, that our bodies shall rise again, and whatsoever reason judgeth thereof, faith maketh no doubt but so it shall be. But now Master Rainolds, what maketh this for your former collections? because we must believe Christ and his Apostles in all that they teach, though natural reason will not so easily yield, must we therefore allow whatsoever our novices of Reims have fondlie without authority of God's word concluded in their Annotations for maintenance of Popish heresy? This forsooth is your argument, if you meant to make any argument at all: if you thought not to drive your speech to this conclusion, then have you ranged at randon all this while, and spoken never a word to that purpose, to the which you should have directed your talk.

CHAP. 17.

HEtherto hath appeared with what conscience and spirit you have translated and expounded sundry places of the New Testament wresting & writhing moste violently the text of holy scripture to confirmation of your Popish errors and absurdities. Wherein I doubt not, but whosoever shall consider with himself aduisedlie your manner of collection, your argument, your application of scripture, and shall examine a little how your conclusion followeth upon your proofs without all coherence or consequence of reason, must needs greatly mislike your wholl Religion, that is built upon so weak, so tickle, so ruinous a foundation. For unless it be granted that of everything may be concluded anything, and that the word of God may be made appliable to all purposes, opinions, and doctrines, it is impossible that these and such like arguments of yours, as you have in your annotations gathered upon the words of scripture, should have in them such strength and truth, as Divinity and religion requireth. But further when your blasphemous audacity in controlling the word of God shall be perceived, it must of necessity breed in all such as fear God, and reverence his word, a far greater alienation of mind from you, and from all your damnable doctrine. Examples of such blasphemies some I alleged, whereof now Master Rainolds in his last Chapter entreateth, and with his accustomed boldness of defending anything laboreth to justify the same.

The Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews entreating at large of Christ's priesthood, compareth Christ with Melchizedek, and by this argument proveth that Christ is a priest forever, because he is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek: which he confirmeth by testimony of Moses and David. In all which treatise the Apostle although he fully showeth what resemblance was between Melchizedek and Christ, yet he maketh not any mention of the mass, nor of the unbloody sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in bread and wine, nor of any such matter, as by the papists hath been imagined. Which because our Rhemists understood to be greatly prejudicial to their sacrifice of the Mass, they have moste shamefullie and blasphemouslie behaved themselves in handling this scripture, as to any that compareth their annotations with the text it self may easily apperee. For they have plainly written in their annotations, that all that the Apostle hath alleged, concerning the eternity of Christ's person, and his perpetual intercession for us, and everlasting effect of his death, proveth not that in proper signification his priesthood is perpetual. Whereof what other thing can possibly be collected, but that the Apostle hath not by sufficient reasons proved that thing which he took in hand to prove, that Jesus Christ is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek? For these men boldelie affirm that all this proveth not that in proper signification Christ's priesthood is perpetual: then the Apostle in proper signification hath proved nothing less, then that which he went about to prove, concerning Christ's everlasting priesthood, wherein all our salvation consisteth, & hath but used a sleight to make men believe a thing, which either he could not prove, or at lest hath not effectually proved. Our papists will have the principal respect of resemblance between Christ and Melchizedek to stand in offering bread and wine, whereof forsooth must arise a perpetual sacrifice to be continued in the Church. Now hereof the Apostle hath not spoken so much as one word, nor given the least signification of such a matter. What other thing is it then but plain blasphemy for maintenance of an idolatrous sacrifice to charge the Apostle that he hath not proved Christ's priesthood to be perpetual, which yet he hath by moste necessary and substantial arguments proved? For as the Apostle reasoneth, if Christ's person be perpetual, as it is; and if he make for us perpetual intercession, as he doth; and if by his one sacrifice offered once he hath wrought a full and perfect redemption, as he hath; then is it hereof in proper signification proved, that Christ's priesthood also is perpetual, and then have these malapert papists blasphemed in denying the Apostles arguments to be good in proper signification, which is in effect to take from them all credit and authority. Let Master Rainolds devise what cunning shift he can, yet in truth never shall he be hable to wipe out this blot of blasphemy: when the Apostle hath of purpose labored to prove Christ's eternal priesthood, and proved it indeed most invincibly, for these Collegiates of Reims to come in with their censure upon the Apostle, and to set down in plain terms that all this proveth not the matter in proper signification, and that the Apostle hath omitted the chief and proper proof thereof. This is a blasphemy against Christ, and against the holy spirit of God, by which the Apostle in writing was directed.

But what can Master Rainolds say in excuse of this so manifest blasphemy? He asketh first, Where say we that of all those things proposed by the Apostle, it followeth not that Christ's priesthood is eternal? Must you again be put in mind of your own Annotation, which yourself have at large rehearsed? Have you not therein expressly in writing published, All this proveth not that in proper signification his priesthood is perpetual? And what differeth this from that, which I have affirmed of you? Hath the Apostle propounded anything concerning your pretended sacrifice. If he hath, show us where, in what words, after what sort. If anything at all can be shown to this purpose, as nothing indeed can, and without this be shown, in your opinion the eternity of Christ's priesthood is no ways sufficiently proved, do you not plainly declare your judgment to be that it followeth not of all those things, which the Apostle hath said that Christ's priesthood is eternal? yea but M.R. saith, that they have avouched the clean contrary in saying, that all the fathers gather of this deep and divine discourse, the eternity of his Priesthood. The fathers indeed have gathered of this discourse most truly the eternity of Christ's Priesthood, and therein they confute your wicked dannotation, that saith, all this proveth not Christ's Priesthood to be perpetual. They understood the Apostle rightly, and they expounded his meaning faithfully. Shew me now one ancient father if you can M. R. that ever said as you say, that all this alleged by the Apostle proveth not in proper signification, that Christ's priesthood, is perpetual: or else that he taught, as you teach, that Christ must continually be sacrificed in form of bread and wine. This is the point, this show us, if you can. For in your Annotation no such thing is shown, and all the fathers confess with one consent, that the Apostle hath proved soundly the eternity of Christ's Priesthood, and that no other sacrifice remaineth to be offered, but only a remembrance and sacrament of that one everlasting sacrifice to be continued in the Church to the end of the world.

Secondly it is confessed by Master Rainolds that the Apostle maketh not any express mention of that oblation of bread and wine. But what reason was there, why the Apostle entreating of Christ's eternal priesthood, omitted the principal part thereof? Consider good reader, into what miserable straits these men are driven, and what absurd devises they are enforced to forge. For their best excuse is that because the Jews believed not the first, singular, and sovereign sacrifice of the cross, therefore he would not urge them with this secondary and dependente sacrifice of the Church. Which in truth is nothing else, but a seelie shift to salve a desperate sore. For first it is evident the Apostle writ to those that were not ignorant of Christian religion, seeing they had learned already the principles thereof, and are exhorted by the Apostle to proceed to perfection therein. Secondly whereas the Apostle hath discoursed so plentifully of the principal and sovereign sacrifice, what reason was there to keep silence of the secondary sacrifice, as you call it? Might they hear of the greater, and not of the less? Might the Apostle urge so earnestly unto them the sacrifice of the cross, and might he not in a word mention the sacrifice of the Altar? Coulde the one be more offensive unto them then the other? Let all men judge what truth there is in this devise.

Of that which followeth concerning this matter, nothing deserveth answer, save only that Master Rainolds asketh of me, whether Melchizedek did not sacrifice? I say, no doubt Melchizedek did sacrifice: for otherwise he had not been a priest. But Saint Paul (saith he) maketh no express mention thereof. What then, I pray you? Forsooth by Master Whittakers judgment Saint Paul omitteth some principal part of Melchizedek's priesthood. Whoe ever heard a more foolish collection? it was sufficient for the Apostle that Melchizedek was a priest, which is confirmed by plain testimony of scripture: to rehearse any special kind of sacrifice by him offered was nothing necessary to the purpose in hand. And therefore the Apostle hath not omitted any principal part of Melchizedek's priesthood, unless you will say it cannot be proved necessarily, that one hath been a priest, except every particular sacrifice that ever was offered by him, be recorded and avouched. This being moste absurd, see how vain a conceit of yours this was, that the Apostle hath omitted some principal parte of Melchizedek's priesthood, because he hath not declared expresselie what special sacrifice Melchizedek offered.

An other example I noted out of the sixth Chapter to the Romans, in that notable place, where the Apostle writeth that the stipend of sin is death, but life everlasting is the gift of God. Upon these words our Rhemists have noted, that the sequel of speech required, that as he said, death or damnation is the stipend of sin, so life everlasting is the stipend of justice, and so it is. Wherein every man may behold their intolerable saucines and presumption in setting the holy Apostle to school, in controling his speech, in corrupting his meaning. For if the case had stood so clearly and roundlie as these men teach, that even as condemnation is the stipend of sin, so is eternal life the stipend of justice, it had been as easy for the Apostle to have so written, as to alter his words, and having said that death is the wages of sin, to affirm after another manner of speech that life everlasting is, not the wages of justice, but the gift, and free gift of God. And doutles according to the doctrine of S. Paul, and the holy ghost, it is no other, but proud blaspemie to say, as the Rhemists say, that as death is the stipend of sin, so life everlasting is the stipend of justice: seeing the one stipend is of mere due, and desert, the other only of grace and mercy: so that if God would enter into judgment with us according to the rigor of his justice, we could not challenge everlasting life for any justice that we had wrought, as all the scriptures do moste aboundantlie and plainly teach. Their only excuse hangeth upon Saint Augustine who in a certain epistle writeth, that everlasting life is repaid to our merits going before, and yet may it well be called grace, because our merits are wrought in us by grace, not gotten by our own ability: to like effect he writeth in diverse other places of his works and treatises, as everyone knoweth that hath been conversant in reading his books. What then? shall we grant Saint Augustine to be an author of this Popish and Sorbonicall doctrine of justification by merit of works? Nothing less. The answer is easy, and no more easy then true, that by merits Saint Augustine understandeth good works after the manner of speech in latin, and by stipend or reward he meaneth that benefit or gift which God repaieth to good works, & to the workers of justice. What difference then is there between our Sorbonists, and Saint Augustine, with whom we also consent? In words may seem no difference at all: in substance and truth of doctrine as great difference, as is between heaven and earth, life and death, God and man. We know and confess with Saint Augustine according to the doctrine of holy scripture, that life eternal is a reward of justice and good works, but not as death is a stipend of sin, according to the Sorbonists and Rhemists religion. And howsoever Saint Augustine pleaseth them in his exposition of this place, the which notwithstanding being rightly understood maketh nothing for them, yet other fathers have observed of the Apostles words set down in this manner, that eternal life is only a gift, not deserved, but freely bestowed, and that this was the cause why the Apostle applied not the name of stipend to life everlasting, as he had done before to death. Look upon Origen in his commentaries upon the fourth of the Romans, and the latter end of the sixth. And this as it is sound and sincere doctrine, so must it also of all Christians necessarily be confessed. For he that sinneth, hath deserved death worthily, in respect of the sin committed, which is a transgression of God's will and commandment: and for which without remission there is no hope to escape eternal condemnation. But can he that worketh well, for one, or two, or moe good works, claim unto himself as a due debt, the kingdom of heaven for the same? For what if the Lord will examine our works straitlie according to his law in every circumstance, our inward zeal, love, intention, desire of God's glory, continuance and perseverance in well doing, conformity of our will with the rule of God's word, and shall find in the work and in the worker great infirmity, many wants, much imperfection, manifold sins in the mean time, both in thought, in word, and deed, shall the good works notwithstanding being thus tried & found in them-selves insufficient & unanswerable to gods justice, and also having many sins inherent together with them in the same person, stand up before the Lord, and challenge of right the reward of life everlasting in his kingdom? Never durst yet any child of God upon trust and confidence of his own justice, challenge such debt at the hands of God, or yet appear at all in his presence.

The Prophet David although he were a holy man, and had not only repented hartelie for his wicked deeds, but also brought forth manifold fruits of repentance and regeneration, yet desireth moste humbly of the Lord that he would not enter into judgment with him, for so much as if he would so do, neither he nor any man living could escape condemnation. And again: If thou (saith he) wilt mark our iniquities, O Lord who can stand before thee? Wherein he plainly teacheth, that for a man to trust in his works, how good or glorious soever they are or seem to be, and upon this confidence of his merits to look for heaven as a due reward at gods hands, is not only to deceive himself, but to incur that judgment and condemnation, which the Lord for his sins, and unworthiness, that by examination he findeth in him, might justly cast upon him. Therefore he saith in another Psalm that they are happy, not which have good works wherein to trust, but whose sins are forgiven, and whose iniquities are covered. And this have also all the godly fathers of Christ's Church evermore confessed, that their works of due and debt deserved nothing of the Lord but punishment, and therefore disclaiming all their merits, and acknowledging their own manifold transgressions and imperfections they fly to the Lord's mercy only, and trust to be saved by grace and remission of their sins, not by desert or merit of their righteousness that they have wrought.

Yea the Roman Church it self which moste of all magnifieth the merits of works, yet being secretly, and as it were unwittingly carried away with sway of this truth, hath sometimes made open confession thereof, and taught all hir children to sing another song, then that which now so commonly is heard amongst them of justification and salvation through merit of their works. For in the service that is prescribed for the dead this prayer is set forth to be used of all, and is oftentimes repeated, Domine quando veneris iudicare terram, vbi me abscondam á vultu irae tuae? Quia peccaui nimis in vita mea. Commissa mea pauesco, & ante te erubesco: dum veneris iudicare, noli me condemnare. Quia peccaui nimis in vitamea. that is, O Lord when thou shalt come to judge the earth, where shall I hide myself from the presence of thy wrath? Because I have si • ned exceading lie in my life. My misdedes I am afraid of, and I blush before thee: when thou shalt come to judge, condemn me not. For I have sinned exceadingly in my life. Thus is everyone taught to pray, and this you confess to be a good prayer, and necessary for all to use, as at other times, so especially when death approacheth. And verelie howsoever it is now for a fashion with great countenance, and vehement disputation avouched by some, that we merit heaven by our good works, yet I am persuaded that no adversary of conscience can otherwise think, or dare in peril of death otherwise say, but that he hath deserved for his sins punishment and death everlasting, and cannot avoid the same, if God will render to his works the reward that of due belongeth unto them: and therefore casting away all trust in his works, will ask pardon and mercy, not claim any debt or due reward of the Lord. So though in their life time many of them be obstinatlie bent, and have in their mouth nothing so much, as good works, merit, reward, due, debt, recompense for their well doing, yet the time drawing near, when they must hold up their hands at the bar • e of the Lord's judgment seat, and there must make answer for themselves, and their works must be tried by the law of God, they give over their former confidence, they have no joy in them-selves, yea they distrust their own works, they tremble and quake inwardly, they are in fearful heaviness and perplexity of mind, they know not whither to turn them-selves, and if God give such grace unto them, then they see and forsake their error of deserving heaven, then they confess they are sinners, and therefore guilty of death, and then learn that lesson in their end, which afore in their life time they would not understand.

Yet doth every faithful Christian, keeping as much as in him lieth the commandments of God, hope for the kingdom of heaven, ask eternal life, yea and also in some sort promise to his works the crown of glory, not for merit and worthiness of his works, but in respect of God's mere mercy, who hath promised to bestow upon us and our works greater reward, then we can possibly deserve. This is the difference between the doctrine of Christ, of the Prophets, of the Apostles, and of the fathers, which we follow, and the doctrine of the Sorbonistes, and Rhemists, and all Papists, which who so holdeth shall be sure never to be saved. Thus appeareth how vain and childish it is, that you entitle your school of Sorbone with the names of Solomon, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Peter, Paul, Augustine, as though they had ever been entered into that College, and taken degree in your school: whereas whosoever marketh the point of difference between their doctrine and that of Sorbone, shall plainly perceive they were no Sorbonists, nor ever allowed the Sorbonicall and pharisaical justice of merits. How ignorantly you object shameful ignorance to me, may appear by that which now and before hath been answered, it being indeed manifest that yourself either know not the true state of the controversy, or else have replied never a word aptlie to purpose.

Soli Deo sit gloria.