A REFUTATION OF SUNDRY REPREHENSIONS, CAVILS, AND FALSE sleights, by which M. Whitaker laboureth to deface the late English translation, and Catholic annotations of the new Testament, and the book of Discovery of heretical corruptions.  
By WILLIAM RAINOLDS, Student of Divinity in the English College at Rheims.  2 Timoth. 3. v. 8, 9 
As jannes' and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall prosper no further. For their folly shall be manifest to all, as theirs also was.  
Veni & vide. Come and see.  john. 1. v. 46. 
Printed at PARIS, the year 1583.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
BEING appointed by those under whose government I have put myself, and to whose direction I have willingly committed whatsoever faculty or ability is in me, for the benefit of our country and reducing to the fold of Christ's Catholic church the souls of our poor countrymen so miserably seduced: appointed I say by such my Superiors to examine and answer M. W. book of Antichrist, first & principally so far forth as touched this Seminary, that is, the Translation of the new Testament lately published, with the Annotations thereof, and M. Martin's Discovery of their heretical corruptions, next and afterward the other argument concerning Antichrist: I confess myself to have been so loath to take the matter in hand, as either my duty and obedience suffered, or the love and charity of my countrymen and brethren permitted.  
One reason was, because I saw many in this society, for good zeal and forwardness, as willing, and for ripe knowledge in divinity more able, to undertake and dispatch a greater matter than that. another reason was, because I thought I could not without some injury done to Catholics, 
Contra Sand. pa. 5. in fine.  dispute against that savage & barbarous paradox, making sometime the order & succession of Popes to be Antichrist, as M. 
Ib. pa. 6. in principio.  W. doth in one page, sometime the whole Catholic and universal Church whereof the Pope is head, to be Antichrist, 
M.W. knoweth not well what that Antichrist is, against whom he writeth.  as he affirmeth within 5. lines after: either of which in the judgement of any Catholic, is as notorious and palpable a lie, as any of Lucian's True Histories. So that, as if a man would with sage reasons go about to disprove some of those toys which he reporteth, 
Lucian de vera historia. lib. 1.  As that his ship being taken up with a strong wind, & carried in the air seven days & seven nights, them arrived at an Island in the midst of the air, where he saw a terrible battle fought, and many a thousand slain, and yet the field whereon both camps pitched was nothing else but the web or weaving of spiders, which is not to be marveled at, spiders being as big there as pretty Islands are with us here: 
Cyclades.  that afterward he came to a land where men took their eyes out of their heads at night time, or otherwise when they meant not to use them, & put them up in cases, at other convenient seasons they took them out thence & put them on again: & such like stuff, of rivers of wine; & seas of milk, and islands of cheese etc. as if (I say) a man would go about with sober reasons to refute these reports, he should thereby note his auditory of small wit & discretion, who needed help to find out such incredible fables: 
Lucian's historical verities & the Protestants evangelical verities are of like nature and probability.  the very like is to be deemed of this idle invention concerning Antichrist in the judgement of all Catholics: Lucian's fables being no more false, unreasonable, and unprobable against nature and philosophy, than this devise is peevish, lying, absurd, uncredible and unpossible, against Christian faith and divinity.  
A greater reason was, 
Much good time spent in reading or refuting heretical books.  for that I utterly abhorred in the midst of my course of studies and better exercises, to spend any good hours either in reading or refuting heretical books, which never edify to virtue, devotion and salvation, but distract men's minds from the meditation of all such religious spiritual and heavenly exercise, and fill their heads only with contentions, disputes, and brawls of words, 
1. Tim. 6.  Pugnis verborum, as the Apostle calleth them, 
Tertul. de prescript.  the end where of (as Tertullian of old noted) is commonly no other, but to weary ourselves, offend the readers, and exasperate the adversary, whose proud spirit of contempt and contradiction is lightly incorrigible. And of this I make the more sure reckoning, if at this present I write aught against our English adversaries, because by certain experience of things past, I see assuredly what must be looked for in time to come. 
Heretics are generally proud and ignorant. 2. Timoth. 6. v. 4.  For as they pass other common heretics, in pride, arrogancy, and good opinion of themselves, and the same joined with intolerable ignorance, even in the first principles of our religion, so for this reason they bluntly dash into any kind of absurdity, 

W. contra Sand. pag. 250.  
See after chap. 7. pag. 130.131. Whit. contra Camp. pag. 154. Ibi pag. 153.   be it never so foul and blasphemous. As, that the image of Christ is as very an Idol, as the image of Venus or jupiter: that S. Peter was never at Rome: that Christ is not begotten of the substance of his father: that he is, not god of god the father, but god of himself: that he was a Priest and offered sacrifice to his father according to his divinity. 
Fulke con. Mart. pag. 64, 65. in sine. Supra. pa. 4.  whereunto may be added that The succession of pope's is Antichrist, or if that like you not, then that The universal Church is Antichrist. 
A strange proposition to say, the church is Antichrist.  such strange articles in our religion, that Christian men ought rathet to stop their ears and shut up their eyes from hearing them or reading them, then expect any answer or refutation of them. And who would not be grieved to put pen to paper, when he knoweth he shall be troubled with multiplication of such unreasonable assertions? of such old, rotten, & execrable heresies? such propositions, as every Christian man naturally doth abhor, all ancient stories & monuments universally without exception reject and refel, all ancient churches and counsels since the time of Arrius with one uniform consent have accursed & condemned.  
But the chief and main cause why I most of all loathed this manner of writing, was, 
In the Protestants faith there is no cercertaintie.  because I find in our adversaries doctrine no kind of stay or assurance, no manner of certainty or steadfastness, their whole faith being like May flowers, for some few months or years flourishing and in estimation, which within a short space after withereth away, & is of themselves neglected, changed, and forsaken. And then whereas to dispute seriously of any matter, requireth some certain grounds, fountains, or heads of disputation, whereunto every man of learning ought to stand, 
In their writing and disputing there is no ground.  as we see in all other sciences, of Logic, Philosophy, Law, any kind of learning human or divine, these men have quite removed and abolished all such, and have brought the whole course of their divinity, to an idle, lose, vain, & fantastical kind of talking, consisting most in denial of principles of religion, where he is counted best divine, that can maintain talk longest: he is counted to bear the bell away, that most arrogantly can prefer himself before all other, be they few or many, old or new, particular Synods or general Counsels, yea many times & commonly before the universal and Catholic Church, the holy scriptures, and Spirit of God himself. So that as the first of these two, that is, their mutability in faith, withdraweth me from all dealing with them, as men altogether irreligious, unchristian and godless, so the second, that is, the want of all sound arguments of disputation, as much discourageth me from writing unto them, as men altogether ungrounded, unlearned, & contentious, such as love to maintain an endless talk of all things, but have no order or form to conclude & resolve of any thing. 
That the Protestants have no certain faith.  These two parts I will declare and make manifest by a few examples.  
In England, what point of religion is by statute more carefully provided for, by severity of punishment more urged, by preaching or writing more advanced, 
The Prince supreme head of the church.  by all means possible more beaten in to the heads of the subjects, than the Prince's supremacy in causes ecclesiastical? for denial whereof so many true and faithful subjects in our memory have suffered death. Yet on the contrary side, the subjects of Scotland were well allowed to restrain, 
The Prince not supreme head of the church.  or (to speak plainly) to keep in captivity their own Sovereign, for intermeddling in the Church's affairs, as appeareth by their justification not long sithence published in their language, where the author thereof, and the ministers use these words: The discipline of the kirk was openly impugned when as the king by the persuasion of the enemies of the kirk was induced to make himself and his privy council judges in the cognition of matters mere ecclesiastical, 
A declaration of the just etc. Printed by special commandment and licence ●no ●532.  and concerning the doctrine of the preachers, and to take upon him whatsoever jurisdiction the Pope usurped there in of old, yea and more over to discharge the general assembly & all pastors within this realm to proceed to the sentence of excommunication, also to suspend the same. At the last some preachers have been stopped by commandment etc. This is the faith & gospel in Scotland, and in England how freely the Puritans inveigh against that spiritual primacy, let their books commonly printed testify, namely the great volume of M. Cartewright against D. Whitg. wherein at large he discourseth that that part of the English faith 
a pag. 411.  carrieth with it infinite absurdities, 
Cart. in his second reply.  
b 412.  is against the doctrine of the Apostles, 
c 413.  monstrous in divinity, 
d 414.  injurious to Christ, against the primitive and Apostolic Church, and the written word of God, 
Ibi. 419  yea where he pronounceth boldly, that whiles the common protestants of England go about to gratify princes with this spoil of Christ, they leave them no place in the Church of Christ.  
Touching the doctrine of baptism, than which nothing is more necessary, as being the gate of all other sacraments, and the first entrance of christianity, 
Communion book in the form of public baptism.  the Communion books commonly printed commend and allow this faith, That by that sacrament children be regenerate, and graffed in to the body of Christ's congregation, 
Baptism remitteth sins.  and made partakers of the death of our Saviour. And the minister chargeth the people present not to doubt, but earnestly to believe, that Christ will savorably receive those present infants with the arms of his mercy, that he will give unto them the blessing of eternal life, and make them partakers of everlasting joy. 

Baptism remitteth not sins.  
Tower disputation the second day.   Yet contrariwise in the Tower disputation the doctors there teach That all those which are baptized, are not the sons of God, because they have not all the spirit of adoption: and children baptized if they be not gods elect, baptism can not make them his children, and so many dying immediately after baptism are notwithstanding assuredly damned.  
The Communion book turned into latin and printed at London by Thomas Vautrollerius the year 1574 Cum privilegio Regiae Maiestatis, wherein they would seem to notify their faith to the rest of Christendom, touching private baptism ministered in houses by lay men or women in case of necessity, willeth all men to assure themselves that a child after that sort is lawfully and perfectly baptized. And touching the party's ministering that sacrament it saith, 
Private baptism allowed.  Ego vos certiores facio, quod rectè praestitistis officium vestrum in bacre etc. I assure you, you have well performed your duty in this matter, and kept a right order in the baptizing of this infant, who being borne in original sin, and the wrath of God, now by the laver of regeneration in baptism, is ascribed into the number of God's children, 

Private baptism disallowed.  
M. W. contra Saunder. pag. 276.278   and made heir of eternal life. Yet M. Whitaker in this book teacheth the contrary, and saith it is the heresy of the Pepusians and Marcionites, to permit women such authority, even in case of necessity, which he calleth feigned and imaginary, 
Ficta quaedam necessitas.  thereby signifying plainly, that he believeth with the anabaptists that baptism is not necessary for the washing away of original sin. And the Communion book also, imprinted three years after, vz, the year 1577 by Richard jug printer to the queens Majesty Cum privilegio Regiae Maiestatis, 
Great difference and contrariety in the Communion books.  drawing near to the doctrine of the anabaptists and the practice of the church of Geneva, where such private baptism is utterly disliked & quite abolished, altogether leaveth out that whole tract of private baptism.  
The same first book published in latin, touching the sacrament of Confirmation, containeth this good & catholic doctrine, that Confirmatio illis adhibetur qui iam baptizati sunt, 
The sacrament of confirmation admitted.  ut per impositionem manuum et orationem, vires et defensionem accipiant contra omnes insultus peccati, mundi, et diaboli. Confirmation is applied to them which are now baptised, that by imposition of hands and prayer, they may receive strength & defence against the invasions of sin, the world, and the devil. 
Refused.  In the later Communion book, these words, as likewise the whole tract appertaining to Confirmation is clean omitted. The reason whereof can be no other, then that the Church of England in this point hath altered her faith, and joineth more nearly than heretofore, to the order of Geneva where (as witnesseth M. Cart. 
T.C. pa. 174, apud Whitg. pag. 785. ) though it were sometimes allowed, yet afterwards upon better advise, M. Calvin chief superintendant there, thrust it clean out of the church.  
Touching the article of Christ's descending into hell, 
Christ descended into hell.  the Communion book and Creed turned into rhyme and sung commonly in their congregations, beareth the word in hand, that they believe as doth the Church catholic: 
Christ descended not into hell. Carlisle.  yet others by public writing and disputation refelling that article, give us just occasion to suppose, that they believe with Calvin in that point, 
Calvin Instit. aedit. anno. 1553. ca 7 ¶. 28. et in postre. aeditione. l. 2. c 16. ¶. 9  who acknowledgeth no other descent of Christ into hell, but his pain upon the Cross, where yet alive he was damned in soul, or (as he speaketh) sustained the pains of a damned spirit without any difference, but that his torments were not eternal, as theirs are.  
In their Communion they sing and say publicly, 
Christ's divinity granted.  That Christ is the only begotten son of God, begotten of his father before all worlds, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, of one substance with the father. 
Christ's divinity denied M. Whit. contra Campian. pag. 25.2.153.154.  Yet M.W. defending the Autotheisme of Calvin, and affirming Christ to be begotten not of his father's substance but of his person, and to be God of himself▪ not God of God, besides the abominable heresy which in so saying he maintaineth, he also manifestly gainsaith the public confession which in their Communion book they seem to hold.  
In Germany it is lawful for the Lutherans to take arms, 
Sleid. Co●●▪ 17. an. 1546.  and wage battle, and bid defiance, and renounce all obedience to the Emperor: 
Rebellion against princes justified and commended.  likewise for the Gewes in Flanders, & the Hugonots in France against their several princes: and the principal divines, yea Luther himself, that Elias, 
Ibidem lib. 8. an. 1531. fol. 124.  Apostle and Evangelist, after long deliberation well liked that the Protestants should in warlike manner band themselves against the Emperor, 
Ibid. lib. 22. an. 1550. fol. 411.  and those that died in such wars were of the chief preachers accounted for saints and martyrs. And it was resolved by all the states Ecclesiastical and Temporal of the Lutheran religion against Charles the Emperor, 
Sleid. li. 18 anno 1546 fol. 320.  that Quia religioni molitur exitium atque libertati, causam praebet, cur ipsum oppugnemus bona conscientia. Cum enim in eum casum res devenit, licet resistere, sicut & sacris & prophanis historiis demonstrari potest. Becave the Emperor intendeth the overthrow of religion and liberty, he giveth us cause to war against him with safe conscience. For when the matter cometh to that issue, it is lawful to resist, as it may be proved both by sacred and profane stories. 
Beza ad D. Elizabeth. Angl. Regi. in praefat. novi testament. aedit. 1565.  And Beza in his epistle to the queens majesty, holdeth those French Protestants who died in war against their king, for Saints & Martyrs, who by their blood consecrated happily to God the first foundation of Christian religion, which was then to be restored in France. And what preacher was there in England of any name, who in public sermons commended not their cause, as just, agreeable to all laws human and divine, and therefore in all respects allowable. 
Fox Acts and monuments. pa. 250.255.257  Likewise M. Fox doth extol and magnify the most barbarous and Turkish facts committed by the Bohemian heretics, rebelling against their Prince for the gospel and religion of john Husse. For whereas the Emperor Sigismond being then in Germany had said, 
Ibi. pa. 251.252.  That he would shortly come into Bohemia, and rule the kingdom after the same order as his father Charles had done before him: the Hussites or Protestants (I use M. Foxes own words) understanding thereby that their sect and religion should be utterly banished, which was not begun during the reign of the said Charles, they rebelled out of hand, 
a pa. 250. ad 260.  which rebellion in his whole story he much commendeth. So that the Lutherans of Germany m●y lawfully take arms against their Emperor for defence of Lutheranisme, and the calvinists of France may war against their King to bring into that realm the religion of Caluine, and the Hussites of Bohem●a may rebel against their sovereign Prince for the religion of john Husse and Hierom of prague, 
Vbi supra. pag. 250.  far more differing from the protestant then from the Catholic, 
Ibi. pag. 260  and by like right and reason every other sect may do the like for furthering & increasing their several faiths and religions And yet in England, innocent men, who never in fact attempted aught, and never in word approved any such disloyalty against the Prince's estate, being drawn by crafty circumvention to say, that in certain cases, as if the Prince should fall to profession of Arrianisme, turcism or Atheism, the sub●ecte might withdraw his obedience, were thereupon defamed for heinous traitors, and the same imagined supposal published at the time of their death as a matter deserving most extreme punishment.  
In Queen Mary's time, the English Protestants retired to Geneva set out sundry books, 

Gilbie. Goodman etc.  
Women may bear no rule over men in matters temporal.  
The books were p●inted at Geneva, the year 1558.   wherein by manifold texts of scripture both of the old testament & the new, they excluded women from all regiment & Princely jurisdiction even in matters temporal, which they accounted & called monstrous, unnatural, against the law of God and man, and therefore in no wise to be suffered. Yet all this notwithstanding, the next year following, 
year 1559.  the same men found it agreeable to all scripture and all laws, 
Women may bear rule over men, in all matters temporal and spiritual.  that a woman might have supreme authority, not only in matters temporal and civil, but also in spiritual and ecclesiastical, and by terrible punishment even of extreme and exquisite death were content to bind the subjects generally to this point of belief, yet with this distinction, that the Nobility and Barons of the realm should be exempted from the same. as though they might have a faith deuers from others of the same realm, or one and the self same faith, might be necessary and not necessary, true and false, enlarged and restrained, according to the divers degrees of nobility and commonalty.  
Briefly concerning the whole form of their ecclesiastical Service, 
The Communion book in the beginning before morning prayer.  in the first Communion book it is thus appointed, that The minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministration, 
Copes and such like ornaments approved.  shall use such ornaments in the church, as were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the sixth. I appeal now to the knowledge of every man, 
Condemned.  how well that act of Parliament is observed through out the realm, in how many Cathedral or parish churches those ornaments are reserved, whether every private minister by his own authority in the time of his ministration disdain not such ornaments, using only such apparel as is most vulgar & profane.  
I omit other particular differences of feasts, of holy days, 
General changes and contrarieties in faith.  of crossing in baptism, of communicating the sick etc. in which their continual alteration is well known by their daily practice, and their very Communion books printed in divers years. Only I wish the reader of his own wisdom and consideration, to mark the general changes, which from time to time our realm hath fallen into, 
Fo● acts & monuments pag. 586.  since this schism first began there. In the later years of king Henry the eight, we were touching many points Catholics, as the Parliament held the year 1540 doth testify, wherein by authority of Parliament these articles were accorded and agreed upon.  

Real presence.  That there is the real presence of Christ's natural body and blood in the most blessed sacrament, under the forms of bread and v●yne.  

Communion in one kind  That the Communion in both kinds is not necessary ad salutem, by the la of God, to all persons.  

Marriage of priests unlawful.  That priests after the order of priesthood by the la of God may not marry.  

Vows of chastity.  That vows of chastity or wydowhead made to God advisedly, aught to be observed by the la of God.  

Private mass.  That private Masses are to be continued and admitted in the kings English church, & congregation, as whereby good christian people do receive both many and goodly consolations and benefits, and it is agreeable also to Gods la.  

Auricular confession.  That auricular Confession is expedient and necessary to be retained and continued, used, and frequented, in the church of God. In the same Parliament and by the same authority Every man saying, publishing, 
These articles were according to the law of God in king Henry's time.  preaching, teaching, affirming, declaring, disputing, arguing or holding opinion against the first of these articles, is adjudged a manifest heretic. etc. 
Ibi. pag 587  misbelievers in the other, are with great rigour corrected and reform.  
This was the state of religion left by king Henry, 
The same articles were contrary to the law of God in king Edward's time.  after whose death in the time of his son, upon very ●ight occasion was quite disannulled all this that the father had by parliament Acts and statutes so carefully established. 
Fox ubi su. in historia Cranmeri pag. 1473.  For straight upon his father's funerals king Edward (saith M. Fox) being but a child (of nine or ten year) by the instinct of his uncle the Lord protector and Cranmer, 
A realm pitifully ordered, where a child of 9 years old may by order of law overthrow all religion. Change upon change.  by consent of parliament did first abolish these six articles, and then set forth a second book of Reformation, and after that a third (as the religion had daily more increase) more perfit than the first, under the title and authority of his name. After which sort the Zwinglian religion being placed, with much dissension and alteration held out for the time of that Prince, and was of the next, with like authority of Parliament rejected & abolished. But being restored again, in the beginning of the Q. majesties reign, from that time hitherto how the body of the realm hath more and more degenerated from that Zuinglianisme to Puritanisme, which (as D. Whitg. 
D. Whitg. Defens●a pa. 31. usque ad 51.  well proveth) is the very next degree to Anabaptisme, what infinite numbers in every shire (as their own writers record) are joined to t●e Family of love, which is a mere abnegation of Christianity, what swarms of Atheists have sprung up, with which (as D. 
Ibi. pag. 178  Whig. telleth us) their English congregation is replenished, this I leave to the knowledge, remembrance, experience, and eye sight of the discrete reader.  
If I should note the variety and difference between our Protestants, 
Infinite difference between our English protestants and those of other nations.  and the Protestants of other nations, as of Germany, Polonia, Zuitzerland, and France, I should never make an end, because most true it is, there is no one article of faith, either touching the blessed Trinity, Christ's incarnation and passion, resurrection, & ascension, touching the person of the holy Ghost, or touching his office: there is no one sacrament, as the Eucharist, Baptism, forgiveness of sins in penance, confession of sins to a priest, Holy orders: there is no one rite or ceremony either touching government or discipline of the church, wherein they disagree not.  
These few examples, which I have brought, containing matters of such weight, That princes are heads of the church and are not: that baptism remitteth sins and remitteth not: that private baptism is lawful and unlawful: Confirmation allowed and disallowed: Christ's descending into hell granted and denied: that he is God of his father, and yet is God of himself: that all kinds of Religions may for their conscience sake take arms against their prince, yet Catholics may not in any case or for any cause make supposal of such a matter: that women are barred by the law of God from exercising authority over men even in matters civil, and ag●ine, that women by the law of God have supremacy over the clergy, bishops and archbishops, even in matters most divine & spiritual: that copes and such like ornaments are to be used in church service, and are to be abolished and burned as monuments of Idolatry: that by like authority of parliaments, divers and contrary faiths are confirmed and ratified: These few examples, I say, all appearing manifestly in the practice and behaviour of one little Island, and in the compass of a few years, all notoriously to be seen in perusing a few english books and writers, declare sufficiently how true that is which D. 
Whit. Def. Tract 1. p. 74  Whiteg. affirmeth of the Puritans, and we find as true in all sorts of Protestants, 
A rule most assured.  that commonly such as once divide themselves from the Church, fall from error to error without st●y: they declare sufficiently, how true that is which I affirm, ●●at these men have no certainty or stability of faith, & therefore hard it is fo● us to know, what to ref●● or dispute against, whereas we find such continual change and variety.  
Yet all this notwithstanding, albeit they have one faith for Germany, an other for Eng●and, and in England, one for the South, an other for the North, one for the father's reign, an other for the sons, one for the brother, an other for the sister: and under the ●ame Prince, one for the beginning of her reign, an other for the time ensuing, one for the nobility, an other for the commonalty, one for the public church, another for their private houses, one in their Communion book, an other in their several writings: although they have Annuas and menstruas sides as S. Hilary and S. Basil said of the Arrians, every year and sometimes every month a new faith, yet gladly could we devour the pain to find out and learn such their yearly & monthly faiths, that by refelling them we might save those christian souls, which through the same, monthly & daily and hourly, perish everlastingly had we not a far greater d●fficultie in learning out what manner of arguments are of force and allowable amongst them for refu●ing of the same.  
Among Catholics, in all schools and Universities, in all books & writings, 
Grounds or heads of disputation  arguments drawn from the scriptures of God, from the Traditions of the Apostles, from the Authority of the Catholic Church, of general Counsels, of the ancient Doctors & fathers, of the supreme Pastors of the Church giving sentence definitive in any controversy, these all and singular are of such weight and estimation, that each one convinceth the adversary part, and no Catholic dare ever resist or oppose himself, if he hear the voice and sentence of any one of all these, and besides these, other arguments in divinity we can not possibly devise any. Use any of all these in disputation with the Protestant, 
In the protestants writing or disputing there is no ground.  he careth not for them, neither will be bound to them farther than it liketh his own lust and fancy.  
Approve the Invocation & help of Angels by the authority of Tobias, the free will of man by the book of Ecclesiasticus, 
Scripture denied. Whit. contra Camp. pag. 17.  they answer, Little care we for the example of Raphael the Angel mentioned in Toby, neither acknowledge we those seven Angels whereof he speaketh. As little account make I of the place of Ecclesiasticus, neither will I believe the freedom of man's will, though he affirm it a hundred times. 
Traditions of the Apostles denied.  And as for the Traditions of the Apostles besides the written word, it is their very profession to contemn them. and who is there of them all that ever wrote any book of c●mmon places, 
General Counsels denied.  who hath not a large treatise particularly against them.  
Allege against them general Counsels, they answer, 
T.C. pag. 16. apud. D. Wh. Tract. 2. p. 95  If this be a sufficient proof to say, such a Council decreed so, such a doctor said so, 
Of this see more chap. 3.5.7.17. & after in the preface.  there is almost nothing so true but I can impugn, nothing so false but I can make true. and well assured I am, that by the●r means the principal grounds of our faith may be shaken.  
Allege the ancient fathers, not one or other, 
Ancient doctors of the Catholic Church denied. Whit. contra Sand. pa. 92.  but all together affirming one and the self same thing, they answer, If you argue from the witness of men, be they never so learned and ancient, we yield no more to their words in cause of faith and religion, than we perceive to be agreeable to scripture. 
than we perceive to be agreeable to scripture.  Nether think you yourself to have proved any thing, although you bring against us the whole consent and swarm of fathers, 
Si vel intogrum patrum Senatum in nos commoveris. D. Whitg. Trac. 2. p. 112  except that which they say, be justified not by the voice of men but of God himself. And it is their common manner as to make small account of any author that is against them, so lest of all of the old ancient fathers whom some of them are not ashamed in most despiteful sort to call Pillory doctors. 
The ancient father's pillory doctors.   
But this their behaviour towards the ancient fathers and Doctors that be of our Church may seem in the judgement of many to stand with reason. For why (may it be said) should they be bound to our Augustine's, Hierons. and Cyprians, more than we will be bound to their Luther's, 
New Evangelists Apostles & doctors of their own church denied.  Caluins and Melanchthons'? At the least then (say we) they ought to be ruled by doctors of their own, such as they call and honour for 
a D Whitg. defence. etc. Tract. 4 c ●●. p. 230. Vide ibid. pa. 217.  Apostles & Eua●ge●istes of their new church and belief. Yet when the authority of such is pressed against them, it weigheth no deeper, then of those other, whom they call pillory doctors. For how freely contemn they Martin Luther? how freely reject they Hulderike Zuinglius? We receive M. 
Vbi supra Tract 2. c. 4. pag. 111.  Calvin (saith T.C.) and weigh of him, as of the notablest instrument that the lord hath st●rred up for the purging of his churches, and restoring of the plain and sincere interpretation of the scriptures, which hath been since the Apostles time. And yet we do not so read his works, that we believe any thing to be true, because he saith it, but so far as we can esteem, 
So far as we ●an esteem  that that which he saith doth agree with the Canonical scriptures. The very self same answer giveth the contrary part, when the same man's judgement is objected against him. I reverence M. Calvin (saith D.W.) as a singular man, 
Ibi. Tract. 3. ca 7. pa. 201.  and a worthy instrument in Christ's church. But I am not so wholly addicted unto him that I will contemn other men's judgements in divers points not fully agreeing with him etc. 
When as in my opinion  when as in my opinion they come nearer to the true meaning and sense of scripture than he doth.  
And because the course of this new divinity is now brought to rest most of all on the credit of these reverend fathers and doctors, 
A great fall in divinity from the authority of saints, to the authority of these Masters.  and in steed of the ancient form of alleging▪ T. us saith S. Chrysostom, thus S. Augustin, thus S. Basil, the fashion is now to allege, Thus saith M. Ca●uin, thus M. Bucer, thus M. Bullinger: therefore through variety somewhat to avoid tediousness, and not grieve to much the ears of their auditors by flat denial, divers ways and reasons have they, to pass over when they please the authority of such their own doctors and masters. One way and the same very plain is to refuse them, because they were men. As for example. If you press me with M. 
Ibid. pa. 291  Martyrs and M. Bucers' authority, I first say they were men, and therefore though otherwise very watchful, yet such as slept sometimes. A second way is, because they had some other error, as, M. Bucer (you say) alloweth private baptism, 
Ibid. Tract. 9 pag. 522.  and consequently the baptism by women. It may be, that as M. Bucer although otherwise very learned hath other gross absurdities, so he may have that. A third, because some other doctor of as good credit and estimation, is of a contrary opinion. 
Ibi. Tract. 1. pag. 67.  as, M. Musculus a learned man is of your judgement. and M. Calvin as learned as he, and divers other are of that judgement that I have alleged. This is no great proof on your side, nor reproof of ours. A fourth and the same most sure, is to challenge the liberty of the gospel, and therefore not to admit their verdict but at pleasure. 
Vbi supra Tract. 10. c 6. pag 549.  as, Touching M. Bucers, M. bullinger's & Illyricus allowance of holy days, if they allow them in such sort as M. Doctor urgeth, than that good leave which they give the Churches to dissent from them in that point, I do take it granted unto me being one of the same church. Although as touching M. 
It is to observed that protestants seldom abide 35 years in one opinion.  Bullinger, it is to be observed that since the time he wrote so, there are above 35 years, since which time although he hold stall, that the feasts dedicated unto the lord, as of the Nativity, Easter and Pentecost may be kept, yet he denieth flatly that it is lawful to keep holy the days of the Apostles.  

Martyrs of their own faith and gospel denied.  If these serve not the turn, a man would think their martyrs, those who were so full of the spirit, that they willingly shed their blood and suffered death by fire for conf●irmation of their faith, these men's testimony should be irrefragable, for justifying of those points especially for which they lost their lives. But neither want they their old ordinary means to shift of the authority of these martyrs were they never so glorious. 
D. Whitg. Tract. 21. c. 1. pag. 710.  For although they were excellent personages (say they) yet their knowledge was in part, and although they brought many things to light, yet they being sent out in the morning, or ever the sun of the gospel was risen so high, might oversee many things, which those that are not so sharp of sight as they were, may see etc. And if they had died for this or that article, 
Martyr's may not take from any protestant his liberty to be supreme judge.  yet the authority of their martyrdom could not take away from us this liberty, that we have to inquire of the cause of their death. Martyr's may not be said to seal their errors with their blood, or with the glory of their martyrdom prejudice those which write or speak against their errors. For this is to oppose the blood of men to the blood of the son of God.  
What remaineth now for the last cast, 
Whole churches of their own religion denied.  but the majesty not of one or other doctor, or of a few martyrs, but of great and ample reformed churches, as of France of Germany, of Zurike or Geneu●? & yet even these also, pass with like manner of answer. And they have as general a rule to reject such, as they have the poorest doctor that cometh in their way. As for exaple, when other reformed churches are brought to reform the disorders of the English church, 
Ibi. Tract. 9 ca 1. pa. 481.  To which reformed church (saith the answerer) will you have the church of England framed? or why should not other reformed churches as well frame themselves unto us? For we are as well assured of our doctrine, 
All protestant churches be they never so contrary are assured of the truth.  and have as good grounds & reasons for our doing as they have, except you will bring in a new Rome, appoint us an other head church, and create a new Pope, by whom we must be in all things directed. 
Ibid cap. 2. pag. 491.  And again. I have told you, and now I tell you again, that there is no cause, why this church of England, either for truth of doctrine, sincerity of public divine service, and other policy, should give place to any church in Christendom. 
Ib. Tract 20. pag. 704.  England is not bound to the example of either France or Scotland, I say truly, that we are not bound to their examples.  
These be all the places and corners of arguments, which ●n their divinity by any search we can find out. For although they have amongst them Popes, I mean such ministers as affect and usurp Papal and more than Papal authority, as the 
a Orthod. confess. Eccles. Tigur. fol. 105.106.107  Tigurines against Luther, and 
b Cal. admonitio. tertia ad Westpha. p. 114. Zuin. tom 2 in Exegesi ad Luth. foe 327  other zwinglians against the Lutherans commonly inveigh for such arrogant behaviour, and 
c Histo de la vie de Calu. etc. chap. 12.  the governors of Berna being themselves Sacr●mentaries used to call Calvin Pope of Geneva for his lordlyn●s and sway which there he bore, and 
d Calu. ubi supra. pag. 5.  Calvin writeth of joachim Westphalus, that in sending forth condemnations and excommunications against the churches of his sect, he passed all the Pope's officers, Omnes Papae scribas et datar●os superat, and the 
e Collo. Altemburgense fol. 404.  German Lutherans of one fashion, accuse their fellow Lutherans of an other fashion, that they play the Popes, and practise over them a new dominion of Antichrist, 
Nowm Antichristi dominium. Redolent Papatum. Ibi. fol. 535.  and that all their doings savour of a very Papacy, and the Puritans commonly name the Archbishop of Canterbury the perie Pope of England, 
f Apud D.W. Tract. 18. pa. 685.  and 
g Ibi. Tract. 11. pag. 559.  D. Whitgift showeth well, that every Puritan minister laboureth to have in and over his own parish more than Papal jurisdiction, yea, 
Ibi. pag. 560.  that they seek to transfer the authority both of Pope, Prince, Archbishop, 
In stead of one true lawful Pope the protestants have many tyrannical pope's  and Bishop, to themselves, & bring the prince and nobility into a very servitude, so as the Protestant churches want no Popes, but have them after an other sort, and in far more abundance than have the Catholics: yet because these Popes of theirs differ nothing from the doctors, of whom before I have spoken, no several or distinct kind of argument can be drawn from their primacy.  

The protestants can never have any general Council.  And as for general Counsels, so far are they from ever having any, that I verily suppose, they can not so much as in their fancy and imagination conceive how any one should be ever gathered. For having no one head amongst them who should take order for any such assembly, having no consent and unity among the members who should labour to the helping forward of such a company, being divided into so many churches, sects, and congregations, they can never resolve, either who should be the Precedent in such a Council, or who should be the actors or disputers, or of what strength the Canons should be, or who should have the execution of them. And when all cometh to all, the liberty of the gospel which maketh every man judge of other fathers, doctors, and ancient Counsels, will give like freedom to every particular man, to take like judgement and control over the fathers of such a Council.  
Wherefore these being all the means and ways which we have to reason or write against them, and these being their fashions of answering, as we find in every German, Zuitzer, or French Protestant, albeit for the reader's ease and more facility of judgement I have exemplified the same by two or three of our English writers, such as I take to be common in most men's hands, if now a man list to draw these their answers into a certain method, we shall find that they contain for every unlearned & bold ●angler, an universal form and art of rejecting whatsoever Theological argument he may be pressed withal, 
The protestants manner of answering, & reducing all to their own singular arbitrement.  and of reducing the supreme conclusion and resolution to his own singular fancy and wilfulness. Against many books of Scripture he is taught to say, that they are superstitious, and therefore he will not believe what they teach, though it be affirmed in them a hundred times. Against Counsels, that they are not to be admitted, because by them the principal grounds of his faith are shaken. Nether yet the ancient doctors, unto whom he yieldeth no more in cause of faith and religion, than himself perceiveth to be agreeable to scripture. And touching the late doctors and writers of his own church and gospel, although in courtly and honourable terms he magnify them far above the other, yet neither to their judgement will he stand, farther than he can esteem that which they teach, to agree with the canonical scripture, when as in his opinion they give the true sense and meaning thereof. And whereas to refuse any, it is sufficient to say, that he was a man, or, he had some other error, or, some other is of a contrary judgement, which never wanteth amongst doctors guided by so contrary spirits, or, they give the churches leave to dissent from them, which I take granted unto me being one of the same church, who can be so simple as to be tied to one or other doctor, having so manifold reasons to refuse them all? And as for their martyrs, whose names should be most reverend, and judgement most weighty, they also are reduced in to the same order and obedience with the rest. For their martyrdom may not take away, from the Protestant, this liberty that he hath to inquire of the cause of their death, or prejudice him in speaking against their errors. for this is to oppose the blood of men, to the blood of the son of God. And those martyrs being sent out in the morning before the sun of the Gospel was risen so high, 
An apt comparison, declaring that the protestāns neither have, neither can have any stay in their religion.  oversaw many things, which these men see now, which live as it were at noontide, in the most clear beams & light of the same gospel. Which comparison expressing most ap●ly their continual proceeding and running forward to new points and articles of faith, also before hand instructeth their after comers to keep on the like course, which they see these their predecessors to have begun. For as those Protestants, who lived twenty years since, and bragged then of the clear light of the gospel, are now cast back by these men in to a darksome kind of twilight, unto whom the sun was not yet risen: so the posterity who shall live ten or twenty years after these, are by like example informed to turn over this present age, unto that obscurity of the day dawning, and challenge unto themselves the brightsomnes of the noon light. And the same may every age and sect say, as it marcheth farther & farther on in newness of heresy. & last of all, the authority of whole Churches and provinces is as lightly shaken of as any of the rest, for so much as England is not bound to follow France or Germany, more than France or Germany is bound to follow England & each Sect of Protestants is as well assured of his doctrine, and hath as good grounds and reasons for it as hath any other. & to challenge such authority to the church of any province, is to bring in plain papistry and make that Church, Romish and Antichistian.  

The protestants of our age, in bold denial of all things far exceed the heretics of ancient time.  judge thou now (Christian reader) what hold or stay we have in disputing with these fellows, whom thou seest to cast away and refuse all grounds of disputation, such as are used either in our church or in their own: and how far these men be grown to a headstrong desperateness beyond the manner of all the ancient heretics. For when S. Austin and the old fathers had to dispute with such, as Donatists, Arrians, Manichees, Pelagians, and others, they urged them with the authority of 
a Aug. de util. cred. ca 17. contra epis. Fundament. ca 4 contra Crescon. li 4. cap. 61. & alibi passim  God's Church, with the judgement of the 
b August. de pec. orig. li. 2. cap. 7.8.9. epist. 90.92.95.106.157. vide Possid. in vita Aug. lib. 1. ca 18.  Sea Apostolic, the 
c Aug. epist. 165.166. & Psal. contra partem Donati Tom. 7. in principio  Succession of bishops in the same, with the determination of 
d Aug. contra ●ulian. lib. 3 c. 1. con Donatist. lib. 4. cap. 7.  general Counsels, finally with the name 
e Aug. count epis. Funda. ca 4▪ & Trac. 32. in loan.  Catholic, and that which was so called of all men, and the heretics seemed to be moved therewith and acknowledge such manner of argument. But the heretics of our time contemning impudently all these, Church, Sea Apostolic, Succession of bishops, general Counsels, and whatsoever else may be invented, are come so far, that they now despise and tread under foot the name 
f See Beza in praef. test. novi an. 1565. dicat. princ. Condensi. and Musculus in praefatio. Io corum communium.  Catholic, which the Apostles by divine wisdom found out, and by their Creed sanctified & appropriated to true Christians, members of Christ's only, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. in so much that in the synod held at Altemburg between the Divines of the Palsgrave of Rhine and the Duke of Wirtemberg, when one part brought forth a text of Luther against the adversaries, they perusing the place at large, 
The protestants at defiance with the name Catholic.  and finding there the word (Catholic) streightwaies reject the whole as corrupt and counterfeit, because Luther was never want to use that word. Ista verba (catholicè intellecta) non sapiunt phrasin Lutheri, 
Colloq. Altemb. in res. ad excusat. corrup. fol. 154.  say they, and upon this only reason conclude that book not to have been made by him.  
And yet would to God our adversaries could be content to yield to the very scriptures themselves, 
The protestants admit not the very scriptures.  such pieces I mean and books as they leave unto us, and hitherto with us acknowledge for Canonical Wou●d to G●d they could frame themselves humbly to admit such scriptures, when of themselves they are plain for us & against them. For so surely built is the Catholic cause, that by such help she is able sufficiently to defend herself and confound the adversaries. But whereas besides the refusal of all the forenamed witnesses both of our church and of their own, as though none ever besides themselves in particular, no Saint or man either in heaven or earth, had wit, learning, or grace, whereas (I say) besides all this they expound the same scriptures by plain partiality, fantasy, & frenzy, whereas they make themselves the only arbiters, both what books are Canonical, what Apocryphal, and which is the true sense of them, whereas in examining the sense they run sometime from greek to latin, sometime from latin to greek, sometimes urge one or other greek example against innumerable latin, sometimes prosse one or other father's reading against all greek, commonly corrupt the sense both of latin and greek, 
See after cha. 13. & 14.  & stick only to certain heretical versions made by their masters in favour of their several heresies: whereas they are grown to such extreme folly, hardness, & impudence, it may seem nothing else but waist of words to deal with men▪ whom contention, pride, ignorance, malice and obstinacy against the Church and her pastors hath so pitifully blinded.  
Now if I may with the reader's patience descend from this which I speak generally of the English protestants, to apply the same more specially unto the party whose book I have to examine, it shall both justify more clearly that which hitherto hath been said touching their irreligion & want of faith, and withal set forth the practice of those proud and arrogant rules of answering, which I before have noted, and beside show what stuff is contained in his book of Antichrist, wherein he so vainly and insolently triumpheth.  
It hath been an old disease of ancient heretics, first of all to invade the chief pastors of the church, that they being removed from the government, themselves might more freely spoil the flock, 
Cyprian epist. 55.  as witnesseth S. Cyprian. And for like reason their manner hath been more maliciously to bark at the Sea Apostolic, 
Aug. de utilit. cred. cap. 17.  as saith S. Austin. In this, as in many other mad parts the heretics of our age have not only matched, 
How the protestants fell to call the Pope Antichrist.  but also far surmounted the heretics of ancient time. For when as upon their first breach from the church, & spreading of this new heresy, they were reproved by their chief pastor and governor: upon malice, and spite, and desire of revenge, they braced forth into this railing, to call him Antichrist, not meaning for all that to call him Antichrist in such a sense, as the church and faith of Christian men understandeth, when we speak of Antichrist which shall come in the end of the world, and of whom S. Paul to the Thessalonians, 
2. Thess. 2.  and the scriptures in some other places specially do mean, but in such a general sense, as S. john intendeth when he saith, 
1. john. 2. v. 18. Ibi. 5. v. 2.3.  that now there are many Antichristes. and who so denieth Christ to have come in flesh, he is Antichrist. But the later Protestant's going beyond their masters (as commonly it fareth in every heresy) to make their cause more plausible, and justify their schismatical departure from the church more assuredly, have taken up the proposition in the more extreme and desperate sense, and now hold the Pope of Rome to be that singular Antichrist, of whom S. Paul and some other of the Apostles fore-prophecied. This wicked, and shameless assertion being refuted at sundry times and of sundry men, namely of D. Sanders, not only as false & unprobable, but also as heathenish & unpossible, M. Whitaker hath now taken upon him to make a reply against his arguments and maintain that former assertion of his brethren: 
The form and manner of M. W. answering.  but after such a sort, as partly argueth in him want of all religion and conscience, partly declareth him to have deeply impressed in his heart a wonderful pride and contempt of all others, a principal note and mark of Antichrist. And to begin with the later, I will shortly run over one or two of the first demonstrations, and M. W. answeres framed there unto.  
First of all D. Sanders disputeth, that the succession of the Roman bishops can not be Antichrist, because Antichrist is one man, which he confirmeth by sundry good testmonies of scripture, whereunto he joineth the universal consent of all the ancient fathers. 
Pag. 2.  His words are, Denique omnes sancti patres, 
All the fathers universally, following there in the tradition of the Apostles, say that Antichrist is one certain man.  Graeci, Latini, Sylli, quiper tot saecula vel in Oriente, vel in Occidente vel in Aquilone, vel in Meridie vixerunt, secundùm fidem & traditionem ab Apostol●s acceptan, de Antichristo locuti sunt velut de human uno. Briefly all the holy fathers, Greek, Latin, Syrian, who for so many ages lived either in the East, or West, or North, or South, according to the faith and tradition received from the Apostles, have spoken of Antichrist as of one man. What is M. W. answer to this? 
pag. 21.  After certain cavils made to the places of scripture, thus at a clap, he dischargeth the father's writing according to the faith which they received of Apostles. We repose no such confidence in the father's writings, that we take any certain proof of our religion from them, 
They all err 〈◊〉 so saying.  because we place all our faith and religion, not in human but in divine authority. If therefore thou bring us, what some one father hath thought, 
Patr●● etiam simul universi.  or what the fathers universally all together have delivered, the same except it be approved by testimonies of scriptures, it availeth nothing, it gaineth nothing, it convinceth nothing. For the fathers are such witnesses, as they also have need of the scriptures to be their witnesses. 
All the fathers wanted wit and learning, in comparison of the protestants.  If deceived by error they give forth their testimony disagreeing from scriptures, albeit they may be pardoned erring for want of wisdom, we can not be pardoned, if because they erred, we also will err with them. The fathers for the most part thought that Antichrist should be but one man. but in that as in many other things they erred, either because they yielded to much to the common opinion concerning Antichrist, either because they weighed not the scriptures so diligently as they ought, etc. 
A special mark of Anchrist.  In these his words (Christian reader) thou mayst see the very image & principal part of Antichrist. For preferring himself before the universal primitive Church of all the fathers than writing and expounding the scriptures, & teaching Antichrist to be one man, According to the faith received of the Apostles, he manifestly preferreth himself before the holy Ghost the ruler and director of the Apostles and that Apostolical Church, according to Christ's most assured & infallible promise. & what is this else, but to extol himself above God, 
2. Thess. 2. v. 4.  Super omne quod dicitur Deus, which is one of the special marks of Antichrist? And yet this Antichristian arrogancy in treading under his feet all fathers, all churches, all antiquity, is the very main ground of all the rest of his answers. As for example.  

Pag. 25.  M.D. Sanders second demonstration is this. The Church of Rome can not possibly be the Seat of Antichrist, 
The second demonstration, that the succession of Popes can not be Antichrist.  because it is that Seat, which hath most faithfully kept, & diligently enlarged the faith of Christ, against all Antichristes. This he proveth by S Ignatius, S. Policarpus, S. Ireneus, Tertullian, Origen, SS. Cyprian, Athanasius, Ambrose, Hierom, Optatus, Austin, Ciril, Prosper, Gregory, etc. by all good and learned writers that flourished within the first six hundred years. That it continued the same faith, and departed not from it in any point the last nine hundred years, he proveth by S. Isidorus, by Theodorus, by S. Beda, Regino, S. Lanfrancus, Rupertus, S. Bernard, the general Counsels of Laterane, of Lions, of Vienna, of Constance, of Florence, the most sufficient authority that can be alleged in the world. 
The answer  Now what is M.W. answer to this? 
pa. 35.36.37 38.39.40.42.43.  The fathers of the first six hundred years he granteth to have spoken truly, for so much as all this while that Church was very pure & excellent, 

Mark this well.  
A verity manifest & confessed.   and maintained inviolably the faith delivered by the Apostles S. Peter, and S. Paul, and briefly was of all other Churches most notable and flourishing, omnium ecclesiarum praestantissima florentissimaquè. 
pag. 4●.  But touching the later nine hundred years he maketh so great a difference, 
pag. 32:  as between the house of God and a den of thieves, between a live man, 
pag. 33.  and a dead carcase. Thus he speaketh. Although the ancient Roman Church received Christ most of all, and those that were in the society of the Roman Church defended the Christian faith most valiantly, yet these praises appertain nothing to the present Roman Church which refuseth Christ himself, & furiously assaulteth the Christian faith. I am vides, Sandere, tuae demenstrationi securim esse inflictam, quando a prima ecclesia Romana quae fuit optima et purissima tuam hanc distinguo etc. Now thou seest M. Sanders thy demonstration knocked on the head with a hatchet, whereas from the first Roman church, 
A falsity evident which never was & never will be proved.  which was best and purest, I distinguish this thy Roman church which a man may truly ca● the synagogue of Satan.  
Now this being in deed the very hatchet of his answer (as he calleth it) and whereby he choppeth of the neck of D. Sanders demonstration, and which therefore it principally standeth him in hand to prove, let the reader consider, if he bring any probability, any argument, story, father, Council, authority, any kind of reason other than his own naked and peevish asseveration. Only he varieth as boys in grammar schools, that his assertion by many pretty phrases, 
Beggarly stuff.  as that Rome is degenerated into a bastard faith. 
pag. 34. pag. 35. pag. 3●.  that our Popes are altogether unlike to the ancient Popes. that now there is an other form of faith in Rome, an other religion. 
pag. 37.  that our Popes possess the same place with those ancient, 
pag. 38.  but have lost their faith many hundred years since. that in the Roman church now nothing remaineth of old Rome besides the name. that of old, 
pag. 40.  sovereign was the authority of the Roman Sea amongst all people, both for the goodliness of the city, and purity of religion and constancy of the men. but now none of these things remaineth etc. Thus in every page well-nigh he affirmeth, & saith, & telleth us again & again, that thus it is departed, and thus it is degenerated, and thus it hath altered the faith, and is become the synagogue of Antichrist. Against which ridiculous and childish babbling, when his adversary objecteth those Confessors, Martyrs, Historiographers & Saints, 
Reason.  that lived since S. Gregory's time, together with the general Counsels the very flower of Christianity, he with one railing blast turneth them all a side, 
Railing. pag. 44.  saying he admitteth them not, because they all, more or less received the mark of the beast. Ask him a reason why he so raileth, consider what authority he opposeth against these, reason thou findest none, authority thou findest none. Only as kings and princes ratify their edicts and Proclamations with their own only name Teste meipso, so this man confirmeth his answers with the sole authority of Guilielmus Whitakerus, which being put in the front of every answer, is in deed the very pith and effect of all the answers following.  
And therefore whereas he saith If we shall receive for witnesses all those men 〈◊〉 to Antichrist, 
Ibid. pa. 44.  we shall never have end of contending, 
If other kinds of protestants use the like liberty, no heresy can ever be repressed.  I say if it may be lawful for every heretic thus to dear, with such wooden or lea●en hatchers to cut of the sinews of such strong and forcible demonstrations, thus so answer reason with railing, and grave authority with lucifer-like arrogancy, if the Trin●tariās, Lutherans, anabaptists, or Arrians, may have like liberty to avoid the whole army of Christ's Catholic Church: Arrianisme will never be rooted out, Lutheranisme will never have end, the anabaptists and Trinitarians can not possibly be mastered, the worst of these being able to say for himself at the least as much as doth the Zwinglian in defence of his Zuinglianisme.  

The third demonstration.  And this is the very form, fashion, manner, and substance of his answer to the next demonstration. where to S. 
Ibid. pag. 54.  Austin and S. Jerome, reaching Peter's chair and succession of Priests in that Sea to be the very rock which the proud gates of hel● overcome nor, which thing they affirm upon manifest warrant of Christ's words, 
Matth. 16. Luc. 22. See the annotations in the new Test. upon these places.  he answereth upon warrant of his own word, that that succession of priests is not the rock, & the gates of hell have prevailed against that church, so as the faith which sometimes flourished there, now appeareth no where in it, 
Pag. 61.62.  & long since is departed into other places. Whereas D. S. replieth, this to be false, and and that church ever to have retained the same true faith, and never to have brought in any heresy or made any change of doctrine, which he proveth by all historiographers that ever lived in the church, Eusebius, Prosper, Beda, 
Pag. 54.  Regino, Marianus Scotus, Schafnaburgensis, Zonaras, Nicephorus, Ced●enus, Sigebertus, Gotfridus, Viterbiensis, Trithemius and many others, against them all this only censure he opposeth, Historias vestras Sandere non moramur, we regard not M. 
pag. 6●.  Sanders your stories, and yet himself for his own side b●ingeth not so much as one story. So that against scriptures reason, counsels, father's old and new, historiographers, all kind of writers, himself ever cometh in as an omnipotent and universal Apostle, Doctor, Father etc. as though in his only word consisted more pith, than was in all men's that ever lived since Christ's time.  
And now somewhat farther to descry the incredible vanity, folly, pride and self love of the man, 
The impossibility of M. W. paradox, that the Pope is Antichrist.  let the reader note the gross and barbarous impossibility of that paradox, which by this his supreme authority he would defend. He granteth the Church of Rome, to have been pure, godly & christian, for six hundred years after Christ, as before hath been declared. When then grew it to be so impure, wicked; and Antichristian? ten years after. For thus he writeth: 
pag. 66.  Six hundred and ten years after Christ or there about, Bonifacius the third governed the Roman church. What was he? to answer truly, very Antichrist. In which words joined together, thus much he saith in effect, That whereas within the space of ten or twelve years before, the Roman church was religious and evangelical, in such sense as they understand it, that is, abhorred the Pope's universal jurisdiction as Antichristian, and limited his power within the precincts of his own Patriarkship, reverenced every prince as supreme head of the church within his own dominion, detested the sacrifice of the mass as injurious to the death of Christ, acknowledged no justification but by only faith, allowed marriage of priests and religious persons as agreeable to the liberty of the gospel, held for sacraments none other but Baptism & the Eucharist, and Baptism an only sign not remitting sins, and the Eucharist a sole figure, from which the truth of Christ's body was as far distant as heaven is from earth, and so forth according to the rest of the articles of their reformed faith: within the decourse of so few years, all these things were turned upside down, & the contrary faith planted in steed thereof. That is, the Roman church of late so sound and perfit, suddenly became most corrupt and impure. she approved the universal authority of the Roman Bishop, and appointed no bounds or limits to his jurisdiction, which was mere Antichristian. she took from Princes their Supremacy, she brought in the sacrifice of the mass, and highly advanced it against the death and sacrifice of Christ. she acknowledged justification to proceed not of only faith, but of works also. she established the single life of priests and votaries, and condemned their marriages as sacrilegious and execrable. 
A wonderful change upon the sudden in all the Christian world▪ and yet more wonderful that no man should note it.  for two sacraments she admitted seven. to baptism she attributed remission of sins, and in the Eucharist she believed the real and substantial verity of Christ's presence, & so forth according to the articles of Catholic religion, or papistry, as these men term it.  
Now whereas thus much is comprised in their paradox of making the succession of the Roman bishops Antichrist, whereas such weight lieth in the matter, which of itself to common intendment is so absurd, unreasonable and in deed unpossible, whereas we also bring forth Fathers, Counsels, and Doctors avouching the contrary gather thou (Christian reader) whether we have not just cause utterly to discredit them in this so blunt, & senseless assertion, until we see their Chronicles, their monuments, their antiquities, some manner warrant beside their own in a matter of such importance. Whereas they allow us no such, and yet challenge to be credited upon their own word, assure they self (reader) their dealing in this behalf is not only foolish, unlearned, and ignorant, but also inhuman, furious and diabolical.  
Notwithstanding whereas M.W. 
That the Roman Church of the later thousand years hath not changed the faith which she had the first five hundred.  besides those former profess which to any indifferent man may seem more than sufficient, requireth of us farther declaration, that in these later ages the Roman church hath not departed from that faith, which in her first time she professed, to content him (if any thing m●y content him) and make more evident the invincible equity of the Catholic cause, I will prove the same by such historiographers, as himself (I trust) will allow for upright, and nothing favourable to our cause. Those witnesses I mean to be, first of all himself, and then, john Calum, Peter Martyr, Martin Luther, Flacius Illyricus, with such other pillars & founders of his own congregation. Out of himself this I gather. That to have been the true and Christian faith, which the Roman church maintained the first five hundred years, 
Before pag. 47.  at what time that church was must pure & excellent, & preserved inuiolabl● the fa●th delivered by S. Peter and S. Paul. This proposition is commonly found almost in every page of M.W. answer to the second Demonstration. Out of the other, Calvin, Luther etc. this I gather, that the Roman church in her first & primitive purity maintained and believed the Pope's Supremacy, the sacrifice at the mass, the same to be available for the dead, priesthood, the real presence etc. no less than we do now. 
Chap. 4.7.10.11.  This thou shalt find witnessed by their several confessions, and approved at large hereafter in places convenient. The conclusion hereof rising is this, first that these are no points of false or Antichristian doctrine, but such as Peter & Paul taught the primitive Roman church. Next that the later Roman church hath not departed from the former, but hath kept inviolably the self same faith without change or alteration. And so the false supposal whereupon this book standeth, being by such evidence refuted, the rest of the building must needs come to ground.  

Cal. insti. li. 4. c. 18. ¶ 18. Omnes reges terrae & populos, à summo usque ad novissimum ●●●briauit.  Now I say farther, that this point which M.W. taketh for a most certain and clear verity, that is, the fall of the universal church (for after the fall of the Roman church, they can show none that stood, and it is their general both preaching and writing, that she corrupted the whole world with her errors) and her apostasy from Christ these later hundred years, 
To affirm with the protestants that the universal church hath failed, is to deny Christ's incarnation and all scripture.  upon which (as I have said) dependeth the very substance of this his book, is an absurdity in Christian religion, so foul, monstrous, and abominable, that it can not be defended of any man, except he first of all deny the very incarnation of Christ, his preaching, his death and passion, his eternal kingdom & priesthood, the sending of the holy Ghost, the entire sum of all whatsoever hath been written by the Apostles, or foretold by the prophets. For to what end was Christ's incarnation, 
Ose. 2. v. 19.20. Eph. 5. f. g.  but to join himself unto a Church, from which he would never be separated? To what end was his preaching but to erect and instruct such a Church? 
joan 17. v. 19 Eph. 2. v. 14. etc.  To what end his death and passion, but to redeem & sanctify such a Church, & leave unto it an everlasting remedy to blot out her sins and offences? How is he an eternal king, 
Ps. 2. v. 6. 1 Tim. 6. v. 15. Hebr. 7.  who hath not an eternal people obeying him and observing his laws? how an eternal priest, whose priesthood and sacrifice for so many hundred years was applied to none, & availed for none? and to what purpose was the holy Ghost sent, 
Act. 2. Iôan. 24. v. 16.  but to remain with the church for ever, and lead her into all truth? And what is the sum of the gospels, but a declaration that Christ by himself, by the holy Ghost, 
Mat. ca 28▪ v. 20. Marc. 4. v. 32 1. Cor. 11 v. 26. Mat. 5 v 14.15. 1. Tim. 3. v. 15 Luc. 24. v. 47 Act 15. 2. Timoth. 3 v. 9 Ephes. 4. b c  by his Apostles, founded such a church, in which his will should evermore be openly preached, his sacraments rightly evermore ministered, true faith and religion always preserved, a certain way for converting infidels to the faith, for confuting errors and heresies be continued, and all true Christians maintained by lawful pastors in unity of his true faith against all blasts of vain doctrine, even until his coming to the general judgement. Finally that such a city and common wealth it should be, so constant, so strong, so unmovable, 
Mat. 10. v. 17 Mat. 16 v 18. Apoc. 20. v. 9  that it should uphold the glory and name of Christ, ● 'gainst Princes, against Potentates, against Kings and Emperors, against all the force of the world & the devil, though they all with might and main applied their whole power to the suppressing and rooting out of it.  
And the self same is the effect of all the ancient Prophets, that the preachers of Christ's catholic church should never cease day nor night to preach the truth: 
Esa. 62 v. 6.  that howsoever darkness covered all other nations, 
Esa. 60 v. 2.3.  yet the light there of should never be extinguished: that the spirit of God and truth of doctrine should never departed from it, 
Ibid. v. 20. c. 62. v 4. c. 59 vers. 21.  but remain in it from one generation to an other even for ever: that it should never be brought in to a narrow room, 
Ibi. c 60. a▪ b▪ & ca 2. v 2. Psal. 2. v. 8. & psal. 71. v. 8.11.17.  as was the synagogue of the jews, but should be diffunded through all provinces of the earth: that the course of heaven, of the sun, of day and night should rather fail, 
jerem 33 c. d. e. psal 88 v. 34.35 etc.  than priests and preachers of the new testament: that albeit other monarchies had an end & were altered, as the Assyrians, the Persians, the Macedonians, the Romans, yet this should never suffer any such a teration, 
Daniel 2. v. 44.  but should stand unchangeable for ever. Wherefore to affirm that this Church hath failed, is to affirm, that Christ, his Apostles, & Prophets, are all liars, that what soever is written in the old and new testament, is all vain and fabulous.  
For touching the strange devise of an invisible church, 
Tower disputations, the second day.  which some of them have of late imagined, it is nothing else, 
The invisible church a poetical fancy.  but a mere poetical fancy: a fancy which consisteth only upon their own word and credit, for proof whereof they never yet brought any scripture, council, father, doctor, chronicler, or writer, nor ever shall be able: a fancy by which any sect never so horrible, may defend themselves to be a Church as well as they: a fancy framed and patched together of mere contrarieties and contradictions: a fantastical opinion which being long since abandoned of the learned protestants in other countries as most wicked and pestilent, is now (I know not upon what misery and necessity) received of our English Divines. 
Melanch. in locis come. c. de Ecclesia aedit. 1561.  Whensoever we think of the church (saith Melanchthon) let us behold the company of such men as are gathered together, which is the visible church: neither let us dream, that the elect of God are to be found in any other place, then in this visible society. For neither will God be called upon or acknowledged, otherwise than he hath revealed himself, neither hath he revealed himself else where, save only in the visible church, 
The scripture knoweth no church but the visible.  in which only the voice of the gospel soundeth. Nether let us imagine of any other invisible church, but let us know, that the voice of the gospel must sound openly amongst men, according as it is written Psal. 18, Their sound is gone forth in to all the earth. Let us know, that the ministry of the gospel must be public, and have public assemblies, as it is said Ephes. 4. Let us join ourselves to this company, let us be citizens and members of this visible congregation, as we are commanded in the 25. and 83. Psalm. Which places and other the like, speak not of Plato's Idea, but of a visible church, etc. 
Idem in praefat. lib. Corpus doctrinae Christianae in Ecclesiis Saxon. & Misnicis principis elector●s Saxon. impress. Lipsiae anno 1561. Vide eundem in Repetit. Confess. August. offerendae Sinodo● Tridentinae anno. 51. ca de ecclesia. Et in resp. ad impios articulos Bauaricae Inquisitio, quest. 3.  And in sundry other places refelling this mad fancy, he ever concludeth, Necesse est fateri esse visibilem Ecclesiam, de qua filius Dei, etc. It is of necessity that we confess a visible church, whereof the son of God saith, Matth. 18, Dic ecclesiae, Tell the church, & whereof Paul saith 1. Cor. 4, We are made a spectacle to the whole world, to angels, and to men. What a spectacle I beseech you is that which is not seen? and whereunto tendeth this monstrous speech, which denieth the visible church? Delet omnia testimonia antiquitatis, abolet judicia, facit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 infinitam, & illam Cyclopum politiam, in qua● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut est apud Euripidem. It abolisheth all testimonies of antiquity, it taketh away all judgements, it causeth an endless confusion, 
The protestants invisible church  and induceth a common wealth of unruly ruffians or Atheists, wherein no one careth for an other.  

Calv. institut. lib. 4. ca 1. ¶ 2. No salvation out ●f the visible church.  And Calvin interpreteth the article of our creed, Credo Ecclesiam Catholican, of the Catholic visible Church. & saith furthermore, that the knowledge thereof is so necessary, that there is no hope of life by grace in this world, except we be conceived, brought forth, nourished, a●d ruled by her, so long as we live. 
Ibid. ¶ 4.  Add quod extra eius gremium nullae est sp●randa peccatorum remissio, neque ulla salus, teste jesai. c. 37. verse. 32. joel. ca 2. v. 32. Ezechiel. ca 13. v. 9 psal. 106. v. 4. Add here unto that out of the lap of this (visible church) no pardon of sins is to be hoped for, nor any salvation, as witness isaiah, joel, Ezechiel, and the Prophet David.  

Oecolamp. in Isa. c. 2. v. 2.  And Oecolampadius writing upon the Prophet isaiah, and those words, ca 2. Fluent ad eum omnes gentes, Create is the dignity (saith he) of the Christian church above the synagogue of the Jews, in that it shall be most populous, and of all nations, sundry shall join themselves unto it abundantly. Wherefore let the Jews be ashamed, which think themselves alone to be the sons of Abraham. Away with the montanists, which say that they alone have received the holy Ghost. Confounded be the Donatists etc. how much should we withdraw and take from the church catholic, if we believed these men? 
Idem in jeremiam ca 33. v. 29.  And again upon jeremy. God here speaketh of the eternity of Christ's kingdom, and sweareth that as his league is steadfast with the sun and moon, with summer and winter, with day and night, 
Kings and Priests never fail in the church.  so also he will perform that which he promised to Christ, that he shall have kings and priests, and that for ever, and that not a few, but as the stars of heaven and the sand of the sea, both for their dignity and purity, and also for their multitude. The like words he hath, and confirmeth the same by sundry places of scripture, in Isai. ca 64 v 13. Daniel. ca 2. v. 44. Zachar. ca 2. v. 1.2.3. et ca 7. v. 13.14.15. et ca 12. v. 6.7.  
And Illyricus gathereth very well out of the first chap. of S. Matth. 
Illyr. glossa in Math. ca 1. v. 1. Some such stories of the Protestants church, what state it had 600. or 700 years ago, were worth the seeing.  that the true church in the midst of all persecutions, destructions of cities. Common wealths, and peoples, is not only preserved miraculously by gods special aid & protection, but also Ostendit ista series (saith he) ecclesiam et religionem veram habere certas historias suae originis et progressus. This genealogy proveth, that the true church and religion hath assured histories of her beginning and increase. 
Brent. in Luc. c. 17. hom. 19 Lavath. in Ezechiel ca 20. v. 39.40. Luth. Tom. 4 in Isa. ca 9 etc. 52. & 53. & 60. Bul. in Apo. Concio. 62. & 87.  I pass over very many places of these and other learned Protestants, Brentius, Lavatherus, Luther, Bullinger, who in their Commentaries upon the scriptures refel this savage opinion of our english Protestants, by infinite and the same very evident places of scripture.  
And wonder it were (if any thing were wonderful in men forsaken of God, and given over to their own sense) how these men do not perceive, yea and feel the most sensible contradiction, which disputing of this question, and of Christ's real presence in the sacrament, they run into. For here they charge us, that we take from Christ the truth of his body and deny his incarnation, 
Notable forgetfulness and contradiction.  because we say it is invisible and not circumscribed with a certain place, which they say are proprieties so essential to human nature, that the very glorified body of our Saviour remaineth not a body, if it want them. Of this argument M. W. insulteth and triumpheth in this book, Hoc argumentum (saith he to M, Martin) impetus tuos non pertimescit, 
See after pa. 177.178  This argument feareth not your forces. Yet talking of the Church militant, which consisteth of a number of bodies, by nature, mortal, by essential propriety, visible and bound to a certain place, by Christ's ordinance dispersed through all quarters of the world, 
After pa. 349.350.  this Church (they say) was a true church, and yet invisible, consisted of Emperors, Priests, nations and peoples, and yet circumscribed with no certain place, appearing in no certain city, province, or kingdom: so tying most ethnically, the glorious, celestial, deified and supernatural body of Christ, to the base rules of corruptible philosophy, from which they exempt the mortal bodies of men, which by the law of God and nature are subject thereunto.  
But to return to the fall of the universal Church, upon the ruins whereof M.W. book in particular, 
Call libel. de necessit. reformandae ecclesiae.  & this new congregation in general is built and standeth, the issue of that doctrine is no other, neither possibly can be, but a flat abnegation of Christ & Christianity, as the writings of our adversaries joined with their practice declare abundantly to all those, who list to open their eyes and take a little pains to learn that which so deeply it importeth them to know.  

To say that the church hath failed, is to make Christ a liar and deceiver.  And to this purpose notable is the story of David George the Hollander, who being expelled from the low countries for the sacramentary heresy, and for the same cause honourably received and entertained by them of Basile being then of the same religion, 
ab an. 1544. ad 1556.  and many years well esteemed of in that city, after proceeded so far in the gospel, that he took to himself the name and office of Christ, and accounted our Saviour for a seducer and deceiver, and secretly drew many to his opinion. For which cause, three years after his death, 
Year 1559. The story of David George set forth by them of Basile.  the rulers of that City took the body out of his grave and burned it, and withal set out the whole story of his life, faith, and death, and the rest appertaining to his condemnation and their own defence. This man by what reason principally was he lead into that Turkish madness? forsooth his chief reason was this, as in the same book appeareth. 
If Christ had been the true Messiah, his church had never failed.  If that Christ had been the true Christ, than the Church erected by him should have continued for ever. But now we see, and it is manifest, that the Romish bishop, that Antichrist, hath surpressed and overthrown many hundred years since the church, which that Christ erected. Hereof it followeth, that he was not the true Messiah, but a lying master and a false prophet.  
And Sebastianus Castalio in the preface of his bible dedicated to king Edward, what doth he else, but closely deny Christ to be the true Messiah, when upon this very ground of the churches fall, he thus discourseth. 
Castalios discourse that Christ is not the true Messiah.  First he layeth for a foundation, the excellencies and prerogatives of the church which should be established by the Messiah, as her quietness and unity in religion described by Michaeas, cap. 4. That the earth should be so replenished with the knowledge of our Lord, as the sea is with waters. isaiah 11. And again cap. 60. Whereas thou were forsaken, envied and unfrequented, I will make the (saith God) to arise into an everlasting height, so as thou shalt suck the milk of other nations and the breasts of princes, and thou shalt know that I thy God am thy saviour and defender. 
The light of the church shall never be extinguished.  Thy sun shall no more go down, nor thy moon lose her light, for our lord shall be thy light which ever shall continued. After this sort much more he hath touching the churches happy estate and continuance, as before hath been noted. Then looking to the effect and accomplishment of these promises according to Protestants learning and judgement, 
Quò magis libros sacros considero, eo minus hactenus praestitum video. utcumque illa oracula intelligas.  he protesteth expressly, that this excellency and felicity promised to the church of Christians by the coming of Messiah, the more he considereth the scriptures, the less he findeth the same as yet to have been performed, howsoever a man understand those places alleged. Whereof he frameth this argument. Equidem aut haec sutura esse fatendum est, aut iam fuisse, aut deus accusandus mendacit. Quod si quis fuisse dicet, quaeram ex eo, quando fuerint. Si dicet Apostolorum tempore, quaeram, cur nec undiquaque perfecta fuerit, et tam cito ex●leuerit dei cognitio ac pietas, quae et aeterna et marinis undis abundantior fuerat promissa. 
An argument worthy to be considered.  Truly we must confess, either that these things shall be performed hereafter, or have been already, or God is to be accused of lying. If a man answer me, that they have been performed, I will demand of him, when? If he say, in the time of the Apostles, I will demand how it chanceth, that neither then the knowledge of God and true religion was altogether perfit, and afterwards in so short a space vanished away, which was promised to be eternal, and more abundant than the floods of the sea.  
Which argument of his, if we mark well, and every part thereof, it is easily perceived, that he concludeth those things not to have been performed in the Church of the new testament, which all prophets foretold should be performed at the coming of the Messiah. For whereas he driveth the sum of all to one of these three necessary consequentes, either that God is a liar, either that the Church erected by Christ should ever stand in the sight of the world, and ever flourish with most abundant knowledge of the will of God, or that such a Church shall be founded hereafter by the Messiah: and then removeth the first, which the nature of every man abhorreth to hear, then denieth the second, according to the general scope of the protestants doctrine, which affirmeth the Church for these thousand years passed to have been drowned in palpable darkness, superstition, and idolatry, what remaineth but to approve the third, vz, that the things foretold to be wrought by the Messiah, are not yet accomplished, but shall be hereafter. which is as much as in evident terms to say, that the Messiah is not yet come, or Christ is not the true Messiah, who hath performed nothing of that which was his part and office according to the oracles of the Prophets.  


Calvin in Daniel. ca 2. v. 44. Lut. To. 7. li. de judaeis. etc.  
The Protestants under pretence of more purity, drive men to judaisme and Turkery.   This if I would prosecute at large by showing into what straights, and shameful and miserable shifts some principal Protestants, for example Calvin and Luther disputing with the jews have been brought, by reason of this detestable supposition, that the church so many hundred years hath failed, the reader could not but abhor and detest even to the gates of hell this damnable heresy, which upon pretence of reforming the church and making all things pure and perfit, doth in deed join with the Turks and jews, and thrust men headlong to the very denial of Christ's Incarnation. And most certain it is, we can never against the jews maintain Christ to be the true Messiah, if we put this paradox of the Protestants to be true, that Christ's church within so few years after his departure was suppressed & trod under foot by the Pope. And this one reason, to pass by all other, will justify the same to their eternal confusion: that whereas by the incarnation and coming of Christ the church of Christians should be enlarged infinitely in all kingdoms, 
Esa. 49. per tot. ca 2. v. 3.4.  provinces, and cities, above the synagogue of the jews, 
Esa. 54. v. 1. cal. 4. v. 27. see before pag. 59  which after that time should be narrow, contemptible, remaining in a few, and nothing comparable to that other, by the Protestants faith this is turned clean contrary. For in any age or time of these later thousand years, it is easy to show by sufficient authority of chronicles & histories, that the jews have had their known and visible synagogues in the most notable places and provinces of the world, in Greece, in Constantinople, in Germany, in Mantua, in Venice, in Paris, in England, in Spain in Portugal: whereas for many ages they can not name under the cope of heaven any kingdom, province, city, town, village, house or sheepecote, where the church of christ hath appeared, if we esteem the same according as they now by their preaching and writing describe it.  
And therefore whereas M. W. objecteth commonly, that Doctor Sanders denying the Pope to be Antichrist and defending that an other shall come hereafter, 
The end of M.W. doctrine touching Antichrist.  withdraweth men from consideration of the true Antichrist to a false and feigned one, on the contrary side let the reader take this for a verity as certain and sure as the Gospel, that he and his, upon such pretence of a false and imagined Antichrist, of late days conceived and brought forth in the fantastical brains of a few heretical miscreants, upon pretence of bringing men a nearer way to heaven then ever their forefathers went, upon pretence of framing a church more pure, more sincere, more perfit & Apostolical then was in the world before, I say, upon these false and lying reasons, they withdraw men from the only true, ancient, Catholic & Apostolic church, wherein they were baptized, to their manifold, scattered, & divided apostatical congregations: they lead men out of the way where only saluarion is to be looked for, and place them there, where remaining they are most certain and assured of everlasting damnation of body and soul. Yea as appeareth by the course of their doctrine, the drift of their preaching and writing, and experiment of their brethren, under the veil and shadow of this their Antichristian doctrine, they induce men to believe that all scripture is false, that the prophets were liars, that the Apostles were deceivers, that Christ was a false teacher and seducer, & not the Messiah described by the prophets, that judaisme standeth upon better grounds than Christianisme: which conclusion they can never avoid, except first they abandon and revoke this their doctrine of Antichrist suppressing the Church, as false and execrable.  
And as for the Popes of Rome, whom this man will needs have to be Antichrist, 
If the Pope of Rome be Antichrist, there be many worse Antichrists in the world  this I dare say boldly and stand to the arbitrement of any reasonable and indifferent Protestant that by experience knoweth Rome, and England, the demeanour of the bishops who of late have governed there, as for example, Pius 4. Pius 5. and Gregorius 13. and our Superintendents, who in the same time have ruled in England. Let Antichrist be described in such sort and with such qualities as the scripture describeth him. Afterward let there be laid in equal balance that which the world knoweth by public view and experience to have been in the foresaid bishops, their fear of God's judgement testified by their whole order of life, their much prayer, their infinite alms, their justice towards all, their singular care to remedy the wounds of the Christian world, and gather into one the scattered flock of Christ, wherein they have spared no travail or charges. Lay withal the public and known looseness in many of our English Superintendents, the contempt of God's judgements, so much as may be gathered by their external behaviour & manner of living, their oppression of the poor, their infinite avarice, their few prayers, their lightness, their carnality, and whatsoever else is better known to the people where they live then to me: let these things I say be weighed by the judgement of any reasonable Protestant, and I doubt not but he will confess, that if in the time of the forenamed Popes, the Sea of Rome was possessed of Antichrist, in the same season many bishop's Seas in England were possessed of double and triple Antichrists.  
I come now to speak of the second part, vz, the want of religion and conscience which M. W. showeth in this his answer, wherein I must be the shorter, because I have stayed somewhat long in the first. His want of conscience as in sundry other points, so in this I note especially, that whereas he pretendeth to set down M. D. Sanders arguments fully and entirely, and so to frame his answer accordingly, he in many and the same of best moment performeth nothing less than that which he most pretendeth.  
M. jewel amongst many false practices, used this as one very apt to beguile the simple, and whereby I think at this present very many learned men are deceived. That is, 
M. jewels manner of answering D. Harding.  from the discourse of his adversary, he would cut out & remove from the sight of the reader, the principal strength, were it Scripture, Counsels, Fathers, or reason, whereby the adversary justified his cause, & after shuffle up some odd talk & impertinent allegations against the rest. For example let the Defence of the Apology of the English church serve, where there is no matter seriously handled, from the first beginning to the last line of the book, but the very pith and most forcible parts, 
He leaveth out the best part of D. Harding'S book.  as it were the joints and sinews are thus taken away and left out of the book: sometime whole and many pages together, sometime half pages, sometime four or five lines in a side, sometime whole sentences or pieces of sentences, according as he thought requisite for the bettering of his cause, and disgracing of his adversary: & yet notwithstanding, he peeceth and patcheth up the rest, as though it were the full and perfit discourse of D. Harding. This is as much as if some bragging Thraso appointed to combat with his enemy, should at the time of fight, cause his enemy to be tied up in prison, and show his chivalry upon a man made of clouts. this is in steed of a body, to fight with a shadow. I will not exemplify this by any particularity, because I can assure the reader by certain experience, let him in that book fall upon what place he list, he shall hardly miss an example.  
This very practice hath M.W. learned of him, and putteth it in ure in this his answer to D. Sanders demonstrations. For wheresoever D.S. 
An unconscionable way of answering.  disputeth most firmly out of scriptures and reasons grounded there on, & multitude of father's agreeing in the exposition of the scriptures, wheresoever he preventeth the cavils of the adversaries and forestoppeth the common arguments which they make for the contrary part, there M. W. diligently and carefully taketh order to cut and leave out all such pieces, that he may have the more liberty to run at random, and talk his pleasure of the rest. So for example, 
Apud. Saunder. pa. 764.  in the seventh demonstration he leaveth out in the middle, almost half a side of D. Sanders, a piece of very good importance for the fortifying of his argument. In the tenth demonstration where D. Sanders preventeth and answereth their objections, 
Saunder. pa. 767.  and where in deed he fully confuteth before hand the substance of M. W. reply, 
Ibid. pag. 770.771.  there a whole page is left out. And the self same part he playeth in the thirteenth demonstration, leaving out almost two entire pages where in like manner his reply was before hand thoroughly discharged. So in the sixteenth demonstration he omitteth almost a side of the argument, 
●●g. 774.  where D. Sanders convinceth the Protestants of contradiction to themselves, and proveth them to play the part of Antichrists for corrupting the very letter of scripture at their pleasure.  
And to pass by the like false demeanour in other places, and to make a little stay upon one only example, in the 36 demonstration he so wickedly behaveth himself, as the reader can never otherwise judge of him, then that he is a man wicked, unconscionable, without all fear, of God. or regard of man, given only to continue talk and serve the time, without any care to search out the truth. D. Sanders there disputeth thus. Christ instituted a true & real sacrifice at his last supper. This he proveth by scriptures, reasons drawn out of the scriptures, & father's interpreting the scriptures. This sacrifice Antichrist shall abrogate & take away. This he proveth also by father's expounding the scriptures, and gathering so much of daniel's Prophecy. These be the parts of which he concludeth the Pope not to be Antichrist, who taketh not away that sacrifice, 
Unreasonable mangling. corrupting, and falsifying.  but defendeth & well alloweth it. Nowhere wondered it is to note, what mangling, and defacing, and piecing, and patching he useth in setting down this demonstration. In the first paragraph of D. 
Apud Saunder. pa. 785.  Sanders five lines he leaveth out, wherein is compared the state of the jews and Christians touching the law and sacrifice. Then shuffling in four lines, he forthwith leaveth out almost a whole side of a leaf, where D.S. by good reasons, conference of Scriptures, and fathers, proveth the Mass to be the sacrifice of the new testament. and then putting in one line of S. Ireneus cited by D.S. and leaving out many lines following of the same author, and pertaining as much to the matter, omitting withal D.S. discourse thereupon, he forthwith joineth an other place of S. Ireneus cited likewise by D.S. but after his manner cutting of at the least the one half: and omitting D.S. argument thereupon, as also a notable place of Hippolytus the Martyr (writing, that in the time of Antichrist the holy churches shall be like unto poor cottages, and the precious body and blood of Christ shall not be extant in those days, the Mass shall be abolished etc. all which he saith is nothing to the purpose) whereas D. S. bringeth in a large place of S. Hierom, he setteth down one piece of a line, and leaveth out ten times as much ensuing, and the same most to the purpose. And finally using the like treachery towards S. Chrysostom (cited as the rest by D. S.) from whom he croppeth the greater part and the most necessary, thus he maketh up his answer to the 36. demonstration.  
And that the reader imagine not the places of those fathers, S. Ireneus, S. Hierom, & S. Chrisost. to be idle & needless, let him know, that they are such, as whereby D. Sanders proveth directly one of his principal propositions, 
Apud Sand. pag. 789.  that Antichrist shall abrogate & take away the sacrifice of the new testament according to the prophecy of Daniel. Finally in the 38 demonstration where the argument is framed, that the best princes have always favoured the Sea of Rome, as Constantinus Magnus, Theodosius, Martianus, Carolus Magnus, Ludovicus Pius, etc. & persecutors, tyrants, and wicked princes have most dishonoured it, as Constantius, julianus, Valens, Anastasius, Theodoricus etc. the answer is made, by cutting away all this out of the book, and thrusting in a tale of a tub, that Cardinals & bishops be kings who much honour the Pope.  
This manner of answering is not to search out the truth, as becometh Divines, or to bring men into the right way, as is the duty of Christians, but only to keep men's heads in musing & expectation of new books, to make them misspend their time, to keep the printers occupied, and as it were to walk and talk on a stage for no other purpose but to pass away the time. This is truly to be Carnifex papiri, A murderer of paper, 
Illyr.  as Illyricus commonly calleth the zwinglians. this is in deed to be Miserabilis librifex, 
Luther.  A miserable bookewright, as Luther malapertly nameth king Henry, a learned prince and of famous memory. This is thoroughly to approve and justify that which Luther in the beginning, sentenced against Zuinglius and Oecolampadius the fathers of the sacramentary Gospel, & which from them (as it may seem) hath descended to their posterity. 
Luther. To. 7. Defensio etc. contra fanaticos sacramentariorum spiritus. fo. 381.  Isti boni spiritus (saith he) si parum admodum rethoricantur etc. These good (sacramentary) spirits if they can a little play the Rhetocians, though they touch not any one argument, yet think they of themselves that they have answered the matter passing well & said much to the purpose, et putant causam suam consistere in scriptione multorum librorum, et in commaculatione pap ri. and they suppose that their cause standeth in writing of many books & blotting of much paper.  
And no doubt it proceeded of some like craft, that M.W. against us & our English translation of the Testament, wrote his reprehension in latin, to the end pardy, that neither our common countrymen understanding only the English, should know those faults which he reproveth in latin, nor strangers understanding only his latin, know how justly he refelleth that which was written in English. Whereby notwithstanding he might obtain thus much, that both sorts should hear tell of some errors noted and refuted, but what they were, and how well, how truly and substantially the refutation was made, neither the one nor the other should be able to examine, much less to judge: the rest that understand both tongues (who only may espy his unjust accusations, defaults, and ignorances) being not so many, nor always so diligent, nor at any time so free, as to compare his latin pretenced reproof with the truth set down in English. For so much as the adversaries now against their old pretence of honouring and allowing holy scriptures, 
The Protestants forbidden the reading of scripture.  cruelly punish the readers and keepers of them, & spoil men of the new Testament itself: the translation and notes whereof they shall never be able to reprove, as we invincibly to the eternal shame of heresy have reproved theirs. And yet these men that will not suffer our translation to be read of such as understand it, 
See after pa. 459.  with feigned hypocrisy protest that it nothing harmeth their cause, and wish that strangers could read it also.  
These (Christian reader) are the false flights, of lying, of dissembling, of bragging, of removing grounds of disputation, of denying sundry principal parts of faith, of continual altering their faith, of preferring themselves before all men, of taking to themselves in particular, the supreme judgement both of all scriptures, & the true sense thereof, these be the difficulties, which may dissuade and withdraw any man from writing or disputing against such sophistical wranglers. yet because we may not upon any loath somnes in our own behalf, or lost labour in respect of them, omit to do good to others, whom we may any way profit, here thou hast so much as appertaineth to the defence of the Discovery, of the Translation, and Annotations of the new testament. The rest shall follow hereafter, if those who have the regiment of my life & studies, shall think the time not evil spent, in refelling so unseemly, so unprobable, and unchristian an argument.   

AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.  
WHEREAS of late in the Tower disputations we have seen that learned and holy man F. Campian, so much disgraced both in private speech and public writing, because in citing a place of Luther touching S. james epistle, he miss the print wherein the place was to be found, the later editions of his works differing notably from the former, 
The heretics alter their works continually.  which chopping & changing is common to the most heretical writers of our time: for fear of like inconvenience, I have thought it good amongst many, to note the print of certain books, which in this treatise are often times alleged. Know thou therefore (Christian reader) that in citing Luther, I always mean the print of Wittenberg set forth by Melanch. in divers years, the second Tome the year 1551. the fift 1554. the seventh 1557. In citing Zuinglius I mean his works as they were set forth after his death by his son in law Rodolphus, without name of place or printer. M. Foxes Acts and Monuments, I understand as they were printed the year 1563 by john Day. Bezaes' notes upon the new testament I mean as they were printed at Geneva, the year 1556. Sleidan I cite after the print of Strasburg the year 1566. Castalios bible, after the print of Basile, the year 1556. Caluins' Institutions, as he last of all digested them into books and chapters, and printed them at Geneva. Thus generally, except I note otherwise in the margin. Other books which have not so much variety (although some be in more prints than one) be they latin or english, I commonly note not only according to the chapter, but also according to the page or leaf, as I do also the forenamed, that thou mayst with so much the more facility find out the places quoted, and so better judge of the matter rreated.  
Next, whereas some are offended with us, for that in writing or speaking of them, 
Of the name, Protestants and Sacramentaries.  we use the names of Sacramentaries, zwinglians or calvinists, Puritans, and Parliament Protestants, which they say are odious nicknames found out of us, 
Ful. in the Answer to M. Martin's preface. pa. 17.  and therefore one of their writers of late chargeth us in speaking of them to use no other names than Christians and Catholics: for our discharge herein thus much I must signify unto thee, that if either truth & learning would bear us using such terms as they require, or any reader either Catholic or Protestant understand us, we would most gladly for love of the truth and their contentation so speak and write. But now consider thou how intolerably such speeches would sound in the ears of any indifferent reader. I have occasion sometimes to produce Luther writing Contra fanaticos Sacramētariorū spiritus, against the fanatical spirits of the Sacramentaries, sometimes Contra Zuinglium et discipulos eius, against Zuinglius & his disciples, sometime D. Whitgift against the Puritans, (for so he calleth them) sometimes the Puritans against him and such as maintain the Communion book and religion of England, in such sort and so far forth as is approved by Act of parliament. Now citing these writers how can we cite them without a lie, if we cited them in other words than themselves use? If I said Luther in his book against the fanatical spirits of the Christians & Catholics, or, D. Whitg. in his Defense against the Christians and Catholics, who could either perceive what I meant, or who would not judge that I did them great injury in making them to write against Christians, which none do but jews & Turks, or against Catholics which none do but heretics and Apostates. And marvel it is, that the name of Protestants is now grown into so great dislike, which hitherto hath been so magnified in books, pulpits, and ordinary phrase of talk, and which M. 
Pag. 653. & 1717.  Fox in his huge volume of Acts and Monuments always useth as most proper to their gospel, & maketh it opposite sometimes to Papists, sometimes to Catholics, which he useth for one.  
But the truth is, those that profess the English faith and religion, 
Those that profess the English religion, are not Catholics.  either have no name at all to be known by but the common name of heretics, which is to general, and would be to odious, or their most proper name is zwinglians or Sacramentaries. For to call them Catholics and Christians, besides that it is false and ridiculous, and may with like probability be challenged of every other kind of sect, Lutheran, 
Brentius et Lutherani passim. See before. pa. 39  Brentian, Arrian, Puritan, besides that their greatest writers mock and scorn at the name Catholic as Popish and superstitious, besides this I say, it expresseth not that particular religion, in which they differre from the rest of the Christian world, for which we write against them, and for which the Lutherans oppose themselves against them, and which by their name ought specially to be signified.  

Nor Protestants.  The name of Protestants, which commonly they usurp, is wrongfully challenged of them, as which duly & only belongeth to the Lutherans, 
Sleidan. li. 6 fol. 102.101.109.  who for opposing themselves against the decrees of the Empire & Emperor touching Catholic religion, and protesting that they would stand in defence of their own, according to the Confession exhibited at Auspurg, were first for their so doing and protesting, named Protestants, as much to say, as men that stood and protested against the Catholic faith for their private, in such sort as hath been noted. From which Confession of theirs as likewise from all other communion, 
Ibid. lib. 7. fol. 110. et 114. et lib. 8. fol. 128.131.  those of the English religion, were by the name of zwinglians expressly excluded.  
And briefly, that no other name can be duly applied unto them besides the name of zwinglians, by this reason it may plainly appear. 
Those of the English faith, are most properly called zwinglians, or Sacramentaries.  When they broke from the rest of the Christian world, which they say was covered with palpable darkness, and betook themselves to that light of the gospel, whereof now they so much brag and boast, who was their master, ringleader, and Apostle therein, but Huldericus Zuinglius? So much they write most evidently in the Apology of their English church. 
Apol. Ecclesiae Anglicanae. d. ●.  In the midst of that darkness (say they) those most excellent men, Martin Luther, and Hulderike Zuinglius sent from God to illuminate the whole world, first came to the Gospel. Missi à Deo ad illustrandum terrarum orbem, primum accesserunt ad evangelium. Now whereas themselves & all other, name those gospelers which follow Luther's sense and interpretation, by the name of Lutherans, they who prefer Zuinglius before Luther, and profess themselves to have received the light of the Gospel from him, how should they be called but zwinglians? not only for like reason, which hath been used in all times and ages from the first beginning of the primitive Church, where the Secte-maisters have given appellation to their after-comers, as in Martion, Valentinus, Carpocrates, Novatus & the rest, but much more and especially because themselves challenge him for their master in their particular faith and religion. And therefore it can not be avoided, but as Luther's scholars, are called Lutherans, so Zuinglius disciples aught of like right to be called zwinglians.  
And to end this quarrel, our adversaries themselves who have written of these matters, shall serve to quite us of all fault. M. Fox in his story when soever he speaketh of that sect which himself best-liked, 

Protestants Hussites. Gospelers. See before pa. 16.  
Acts and monuments pa. 901.902.  
Ibid pa. 993. aeditionis postremae. Sacramentaries.  
Lutherans. zwinglians. These names themselves use, besides a more general name used and confirmed by Act of Parliament. see before pag 21. Sleid. lib. 8. fol. 128.131.133. et lib. 9 fol. 150. Ibid. lib. 7. fol. 107. et lib. 20. fol. 368. lib. 21. fol. 382.390 ibid. lib. 5. fol. 75.78.   ordinarily calleth them, sometime Protestants, sometime Hussites, sometime at large, men forward in promoting the proceed of the gospel, sometime more briefly, Gospelers. And writing precisely of the division between Luther and Zuinglius he saith, With Luther in the opinion of the Sacrament consented the Saxons: with the other side of Zuinglius, went the Helvetians and as time did grow, so the division of these opinions increased in sides, and spread in farther realms and countries, the one part being called of Luther, Lutherans, the other having the name of Sacramentaries. So in Sleidan we have very common the name of zwinglians and Sacramentaries, as likewise he calleth the other part Lutherans, and their religion Lutheranisme, and even so they termed themselves. It were tedious to justify this out of Luther, Zuinglius, & especially all historigraphers of our age. And in truth it is much like, as if a man should light a candle at noontide. Wherefore in this we must desire our adversaries to bear with us, if we speak not only as all Catholics, but as all Protestants, as Luther, as Sleidan, as M. Fox, as generally all writers in their books and volumes are accustomed to speak, and as the world of them hath learned, and as the adversaries themselves by all reason induce us to speak, and as of necessity we must speak, if we will speak and be understood.  
Touching any other fault, I shall be ready either to defend it, or to correct it. to correct it, if it be noted against me justly, to defend it if it be objected undeservedly. & this I protest not only in words, as commonly do all Protestants, but in simplicity of truth, as meaning to perform the same. And therefore willingly I submit what so ever I have written, to the judgement of all Catholics, simply and with out exception to whom judgement of these matters appertaineth. to the judgement of all Protestants, even of M. W. himself, so far forth as he shall give censure of it and refel it by the written word of God, expounded according to the analogy of faith.   

A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS.  

Chap. I. Of Luther's contemning S. james his Epistle and calling it stramineam. Pag. 1.  
Chap. II. Of the Canonical scriptures, and that the English clergy in accepting some and refusing others, are lead by no learning or divinity, but by mere opinion & fantasy. Pa. 19  
Chap. III. How M.W. defendeth Luther preferring his private judgement before all ancient fathers and Doctors. Pag. 42.  
Chap. FOUR Of priesthood, and the sacrifice continued after Christ in the state of the new testament, and that it derogateth nothing from Christ. Pa. 56.  
Chap. V Of Penance, and the value of good works touching justification and life eternal. Pag. 82.  
Chap. VI How unreasonably M.W. behaveth himself, in reproving and approving the ancient fathers, for their doctrine touching good works. Pag. 114.  
Chap. VII. Of M. jewels challenge renewed by M. W. and the vanity and falsehood thereof. Pag. 129.  
Chap. VIII. Of Beza corruptly translating a place of scripture Act. 3. and of the real presence. Pag. 169.  
Chap. IX. Wherein is refelled M.W. answer to certain places of S. Chrysostom touching the real presence and sacrifice. Pag. 203.  
Chap. X. Of the place in S. Luke's Gospel cap. 22. corrupted by Beza. Pag. 231.  
Chap. XI. M.W. general answer to the book of Discovery. and of the notable impiety committed by the translators of the English Bibles. Pag. 260.  
Chap. XII. M. W. reasons against the latin bible are answered: and the same bible is proved to be in sundry places more pure & sincere than the Hebrew now extant. Pag. 280.  
Chap. XIII. Of the purity of our latin testament in respect of the greek copies now extant. Item a comparison of our translator with other of this age, with an answer to those objections which M. W. deviseth against him. Pag. 360.  
Chap. XIIII. That to leave the ordinary translation of the bible appointed by the Church, and to appeal to the Hebrew, greek, and such new divers translations as the protestants have made, is the very way to Atheism and Infidelity. Pag. 406.  
Chap. XV. How M.W. inveigheth against the new testament lately set forth in this college, with a clear refutation of such faults as he findeth in the translation thereof. Pag. 443.  
Chap. XVI. A defence of such faults as are found in the Annotations of the new testament. Pag. 474.  
Chap. XVII. Of certain blasphemies contained in the Annotations. pag. 527.  
The Conclusion. Pag. 548.    
A REFUTATION OF M. whitaker's REPREHENSION OF THE LATE ENGLISH TRANSLAtion and Catholic Annotations of the new Testament, and of the book of Discovery of heretical corruptions.  

CHAP. 1. Of Luther's contemning S. james his Epistle and calling it STRAMINEAM.  
AMONG sundry controversies raised by the Protestants in our days, one and that of great weight and consequence, is the Canon of holy Scriptures, that is, what books are to be admitted into divine and supreme authority, and as certainly written by inspiration of the holy Ghost to be received without any doubt or contradiction. In examining which question, the behaviour of our adversaries deserveth diligent consideration. For as in the beginning, they much praised the Fathers, Church, & Counsels of the first five hundred years, not for any respect or reverence they bore unto them, 
The proceeding of the new gospel.  but by so doing to discountenance and thrust out of credit, the Fathers, Church and Counsels of the later thousand, by whom they saw most evidently their heresies to have been condemned: so not long after, for like purpose, they made vaunt of the scriptures, against those very first and most ancient Fathers, not for any just honour or regard which they had of the scriptures, but by that means to disgrace the Fathers, and ease themselves of answering their authority, when soever they should be pressed therewith. For that in deed they account not of the very scriptures more than of the Fathers, but turn them over for us to defend no less than the Fathers, time and experience hath showed, their public writings profess (as by that which hereafter ensueth, shall manifestly appear) and M. Whitaker though in word he would fain dissemble the matter, yet in fact and truth plainly declareth so much. which being so, let the Christian Reader as in other things, so in this especially note the proceeding of that which these men call the gospel, the gross impiety whereunto it tendeth, and in to what open profession of infidelity in a short space it is likely to break out, which in the compass of so few years is grown to such a head, that now already they dare as boldly call in question and deny parts of the holy scriptures, as not long sithence they made the like quarrels against the writings of the ancient Fathers. Let the Christian Reader note I say, not their words, but their doings, not their sergeant dissimulation in speech & pulpit sometime used, but their evident practice, reasons & asseverations published in books, confirmed by arguments, deduced by necessary coherence from their doctrine, and many ways expressed by themselves in sundry their Conferences, Institutions, and disputations, and he shall easily perceive our adversaries after denial of the Fathers, Counsels, Tradition, and the authority of the Church Catholic, now at this present to stand upon like denial of the written word, the Apostles & Prophets, so as they leave no one ground whereupon a christian man can rest his faith, or stay himself. Thus much I gather not only by the writings of sundry other Protestants whereof some I shall touch hereafter, but even of M. whitaker's discourse in defence of Luther about S. james Epistle. whose words and reasons for this purpose and the Readers better intelligence, I will set down and prosecute somewhat the more at large.  
And first of all concerning S. james his Epistle, M. Martin reproveth M. Whitaker for denying that Luther called that Epistle stramincam, and in so clear a case charged Father Campian with a notorious lie. It is easy to guess (saith M.W. 
In prefat. pag. 2. ) what a fellow we shall find you in the rest, who are not ashamed in the very beginning to lie so egregiously. When F. Campian replied that it was in some one of Luther's first editions, though otherwise altered in the later: 
In respons. ad episto. Campiani.  neither so saith M.W. Praefationem illam purgatam esse dixisti, quam tamen constat nullo unquam verbo mutatam esse. You say that preface was corrected, whereas it is certain that there was never any word changed in it. Now this being the fault which M. Martin layeth to M. W. see how well he defendeth himself. First, because after he had read over all Luther's prefaces upon the new Testament (as he saith) he found none such, there of he inferreth: 
prefa. pag. 2.  He is not to be accounted impudent (as you call me,) who denieth that to be true which he knoweth not to be true, but he that to deceive others defendeth that as false which he knoweth to be most true. but I am so far from acknowledging this to be true, that I never thought it to be more false than I think it now. I will not wrangle upon the definition of impudence but whether this dealing be not most shameless and detestable in a Christian, let any man of indifferency judge.  
First it can not be excused of gross and insolent boldness and rashness, upon the view of one only edition to deny so peremptorily a thing objected so often, 
The Heretics corrupt their own writers.  by so many learned men of name, and for aught I could yet read or hear, never denied by the Lutherans: especially, whereas withal nothing is more notorious, than the manifold alterations which Melanchton and those of Wittenberg have made in Luther's works, corrupting, depraving, putting in, and taking out, so much and so far forth, as pleased their changeable humour: where of the zealous Lutherans in a synod holden at Altemburg, by procurement of the Duke of Wirtemberg, 
Anno 1568. Colloq. Alt. in respo. ad excusa. cor. fol. 227.  and Palsgrave of Rhine, lamentably complain. Electorales (say they) Lutheri scripta enormiter quám faedissimé depravant, ita ut post obitum Lutheri etc. The Divines of the Prince Elector, do most filthily and beyond all measure deprave Luther's writings, so as since Luther's death there have not been more foul corrupters of Luther's books. In the same Council many times they fall into this argument, and each side in most spiteful terms object to others this fault, as may be seen, if you list to peruse the pages here noted in the margin. And in fine there is promise made, 
2. Respon. ad Hipothe. a fol. 284. add fo. 290. & fo. 353.355.441 442.443.526.  as a matter of great importance, and one of Hercules' labours, that the Duke of Saxony will cause Luther's works to be printed without corruption. Illustrissimus Dux Saxoniae, 
Ibi. Saxoni. ad respons. de difcess. fo. 539.540.  curabit tomos Lutheri sine depravatione typis excudi. which notwithstanding is perhaps a harder thing then the Duke of Saxony can perform, though his power were much greater than it is. What speak I of the Lutherans, with whom Luther's words be authentical and little inferior to scripture, whereas the very Caluinists, and that in Geneva, where Calvin is all in all, yet notwithstanding have in their prints corrupted Luther's works. whereof joachim. 
Westphalus in apologia contra calum. Cal. ca 46. pag. 458.  Westphalus a Lutheran thus writeth in his Apology against the slanders of Calvin. I Marvel much (sayeth he) that Calvin keeping such a do about this one word, could not see the most filthy mutations and corruptions of the divine commentary of D. 
The works of Luther corrupted by the calvinists in Geneva.  Luther upon the epistle to the Galatians, and translated into French, and printed at Geneva. In one place some words are taken away, in an other many more, some where whole paragraphs are lopt of. 
Detruncaeti.  in the exposition of the sixth chapter, two pages and an half are left out. where Luther doth reprove the Sacramentaries, there especially those falsifiers took to themselves liberty to mutilate, to take away, to blot out and change. some where they remove the name of Sacramentaries, at other times they have put in words such as pleased them. and that this was done at Geneva without Caluins' knowledge, it is not very likely.  
And touching this very place whereof we treat, when Coclaeus objected it to Bullinger, as now M. Martin did to M. W. he answered, (not denying that which was so public and notorious) but, Guperem Lutherum sobrié magis, modestaus' & circumspectius etc. 
Bull resp. ad Cocle. ca 3.  I would to God Luther had judged and given his sentence more soberly, discreetelye, and circumspectly of saint james his Epistle, and the apocalypse of saint john; and certain other.  
Add we hereunto M. W. own confession set down in this preface. 
Pag. 4.  I confess (saith he) that Luther hath written in a certain place, that james his Epistle is not to be compared with the Epistles of Peter and Paul, and that in comparison of them it may be judged an epistle made of straw. Which a man would think were sufficient to clear M. Martin and M. Campian, and to condemn Luther and M. Whitaker. For how or in what comparison could Luther so speak, but only to disgrace that epistle, & in respect of other scripture to make it light and contemptible: that is, not to make it scripture at all. For if he thought it to proceed from the holy Ghost as did the books of the Prophets, the Gospels, and Epistles of saint Paul, how could he without intolerable injury done to the holy Ghost so debase that writing, which he believed to proceed from his divine inspiration. 
Ibid.  But M. Whitaker replieth: That word albeit I defend not, yet justly may I say that Luther is injuried when he is accused to have rejected as made of straw that epistle, and plainly and simply to have named it so, whereas he called it so in comparison: especially whereas these words are not found in the books of later prints. and except I by chance had happened upon a most ancient edition, I might have sought long enough in the later. 
Manifest contradiction.  Confess you then that there hath been such choppinge and changing in Luther's works, that the one differ so far from the other, & namely in this very point? How standeth this now with your former bold asseveration: It is certain, there was never any one word changed therein? And what reason have you better to credit these later prints set forth by Luther's scholars, than the ancient set forth by the master and author Luther himself.  
But to end this matter, may it please you to read Father Duraeus, 
Duraeus fol. 8.  there shall you be informed in what print and edition of Luther, 
S. james epistle denied by the Protestant's.  these words are to be read, to wit, not in the later of Wittenberg corrected and corrupted by the civil Lutherans, but in the more ancient of jena, a City in religion lutherish to, but yet after a more exact and precise order then are those other. There may you find that Pomerane a great Evangelist among the lutherans, touching S. james Epistle writeth thus. Faith was reputed to Abraham for justice. by this place thou mayest note the error of the epistle of james, 
Pomeran. ad Rom. ca 8.  wherein thou feast a wicked argument. besides that he concludeth ridiculously, he citeth scripture against scripture, which thing the holy Ghost can not abide: wherefore that epistle may not be numbered amongst other books, which set forth the justice of faith. There may you find Vitus Theodorus preacher of Norimberg in high Germany, 
In Annot. in ●o. Test. pag. v●i.  writing thus. The epistle of james, and apocalypse of john, we have of set purpose left out, 
S. james epistle & the apocalypse left out of the Protestants bibles.  because the epistle of james is not only in certain places reprovable, where be to much advanceth works against faith, but also his doctrine through out is patched together of divers pieces, whereof no one agreeth with an other. Unto these you may add for your better satisfaction the judgement of the Centuries, noted by F. Campian though not touched by you. 
C●●. 1. li. 2. c. 4. colum. 54.  They say, that the epistle of james much swerveth from the analogy of the Apostolical doctrine, whereas it ascribeth justification not to only faith but to works, and calleth the la, a la of liberty. And in the next book: 
Cent. 2. ca 4. colum. 71.  Against Paul and against all scriptures, the epistle of james attributeth justice to works, and perverteth as it were of set purpose, that which Paul disputeth Rom. 4. out of Genes. 15. that Abraham was justified by only faith without works, and affirmeth, that Abraham obtained justice by works. 
Luther. 10.5. in 1. Pc. ca 1.  You may add Luther himself in his commentary upon S. Peter. ep. 1. ca 1. fol. 439.440. in the common edition of Wittenberg, where after he hath given many rules taken from his own licentious doctrine, whereby to discern the true and canonical scriptures from false and Apocryphal, of them all thus he concludeth. pa. 442. Atque inde etiam facile discitur epistolam D. jacobi nomine inscriptam, handquaquam Apostolicam esse epistolam: nullum enim prope elementum in ea de his rebus legis. Hereby we easily learn, that it is no Apostolical Epistle, which goeth in S. james his name: for there is in it no letter or title of these matters: that is, of only faith, confidence, resurrection etc. whereby we must esteem of true & canonical scriptures. And that this fault lie not altogether upon Luther and the lutherans, Wolfg. Musculus, a famous writer amongst the zwinglians, upon like reason pronounceth like sentence. They object unto us (sayeth he) the place of james. 
Muscu. in locis commu. ca de lusti. num. 5. pag. 271.  but he whatsoever he were, though he speak otherwise then S. Paul, yet may he not prejudice the truth. And after he hath at large showed the disagreement between those two Apostles, thus he breaketh forth into the open reproach of S. james. Wherefore he (S. james) allegeth the example of Abraham nothing to the purpose, where he sayeth, wilt thou know o vain man, that faith without works is dead? Abraham our Father was he not justified by works when he offered his son Isaak? He confoundeth the word, faith. how much better had it been for him, diligently and plainly to have distinguished the true and properly Christian faith, which the Apostle ever preacheth, from that which is common to Jews and Christians, Turks and Devils, then to confound them both, and set down his sentence so different from the Apostolical doctrine, whereby as concluding he saith: you see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone, whereas the Apostle out of the same place disputeth thus etc. And after he hath made S. Paul speak as he thinketh best, he inferreth: Thus sayeth the Apostle of whose doctrine we doubt not. Compare me now with this argument of the Apostle, the conclusion of this james: A man therefore is justified by works and not by faith only, and see how much it differeth, whereas he should more rightly have concluded thus etc. In which discourse the Reader may see that he not only contemptuously refuseth to call him an Apostle, and ever nameth him as opposite to the Apostle, but also that he refuteth him as making false arguments, and taketh upon him to be his master, and as it were calling him ad ferulam, checketh and controlleth him for a corrupter of scripture, misapplying the word of God, and wickedly pulling down that which S. Paul had so well built up.  
All which being so plain, evident, and manifest, and the word, straminea found out at length, & acknowledged by M. W. a man would think all this matter ended, and that egregious lie fathered upon M. Campian, turned upon M. W. head, & withal M. Campians first reason justified, wherein he burdened the Protestants with denial of the holy scriptures. And yet M. W. yieldeth not, but like a valiant soldier is so far from giving over, that he pursueth his adversary still, as though he had the better of him and wh●e so? or how can he possibly defend himself? forsooth, because Luther non plane & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stramineam appellavit: 
pag. 4.  Luther said not plainly and simply that it was strawen, or made of straw, but in comparison of saint Peter, and saint Paul's Epistles. I believe in deed: Nether did F. Campian or M. Martin say so, or any wise man else for although he were as mad and shameless in his assertions, as ever was heretic, yet to have termed that epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stramineam, simply made of straw, or any otherwise then to have signified the unworthiness of the same in respect of holy scriptures, (and in that sort, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word of blasphemous contempt) had been as wonderful, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have affirmed that is was made of wood, or mortar.  
And here in the very front and beginning, let the reader note in M.W. the lively pattern of a perfect wrangler, maintaining a continual babbling upon words, and never drawing nigh to the point. Father Campians and M. Martin's charge upon them being evident, that they contemn the written word, as is proved by Luther, 
M.W. notable wranglinge.  M.W. knowing not well what to say, runneth he knoweth not whether, up and down, and about, forward, and backward, now granting, and by and by recalling: so that in the compass of one leaf, in one plain matter, he hath more contrary windings and turnings, than a grave and sober man could be driven unto, in the writing of a large volume. First there is no such thing, and F. Campian lieth egregiously. now himself hath found it out. then there was never a word changed in Luther's preface. now the later editions differ much from the former. again, Luther calleth it not simpliciter stramineam, but in respect of S. Paul's epistles, and S. Peter's. If this serve not the turn, than I require you (saith he), to bring forth the other words that follow, arida, tumida, contentiosa, or else this of straminea is no great matter. yet one fetch more. Although I will not defend this of Luther's, yet you have injuried him, in saying that he called it omnino stramineam, altogether made of straw. look (saith M. Martin) in Illyricus and there you shall find the matter granted. I have so done (saith M.W. 
pag. 3. ) & let me be counted impudent, if you find this word there. Thus much I grant, Illyricus saith that Luther rehearseth grave causes, why this epistle ought not to be esteemed for a writing of Apostolical authority. But what is this to the purpose? as though he that denieth the epistle to be apostolical, termeth it stramineam, made of straw. This is a copy of M.W. vain in writing, first to deny the matter be it never so evident, and when the matter is confessed them to cavil upon syllables, and when matter, and form, & the very syllables are found, yet to yield to nothing, but to keep the pen or tongue walking: as though in this point like verbal grammarians and ridiculous sophisters, we principally hunted after these syllables stra mi ne am (which nevertheless are found) and not as students & searchers of truth in divinity, sought out first and chiefly, whether by these and the like contemptible speeches, the adversary laboured to disgrace & deface that Apostolical writing, and so impiously to avoid such authority, when he should be pressed therewith.  
Wherefore to draw to some issue, howsoever Luther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called it stramineam or called it not, or whether he spoke so in respect of the matter of the epistle, or the form, or by way of comparison with S. Paul, or whatsoever other quiddity M.W. either now hath or hereafter shall devise, if Luther did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to deface the epistle, which M.W. denieth not, and to dispossess it of Canonical authority as the thing itself speaketh, if by his example the German Divines & churches altogether contemn it, if upon Luther's sentence Illyricus pronounce, 
Illirieus in praefa. jac.  that Luther in his preface rendereth great causes, why this epistle ought in no case to be accounted for a writing of Apostolical authority, unto which reasons I think every godly man and not given to contention ought to yield, if Pomerane say, the writer thereof maketh a wicked argument & concludeth ridiculously, if Vitus Theodorus thrust it clean out of the book, if the Centuries affirm that it swerveth from the Apostolical doctrine, and teacheth clean contrary to S. Paul and all scriptures, if Luther flatly & expressly deny it to be Apostolical, and affirm it to contain no one title or letter of such matter as the apostles are wont to handle, if Wolfgangus Musculus use him so contemptuously, as though he were some poor rascal not worth the naming, and teach him what he should say, and set him to school: this being evident, then F. Campions' conclusion standeth strong, 
Had it not been a goodly matter & worthy the labour of such great men in the Tower disputations, to discuss whether Luther called S. I●mes Epistle stramine●, made of straw, simply or only in comparison?  that Luther with his complices contemn that part of scripture, howsoever he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strawen or wooden And therefore either let M. W. like a good child confess with Luther, 
* Cont. Campi. pag. 198.  whom gladly he worshippeth as his father, and with the Lutherans, whom he embraceth as his most dear brethren in Christ, that this epistle is no more worth than his father and brethren make of it, or if he mislike such consanguinity (as sure I am they abhor him) let him then detest them as profane and wicked men, who so impiously reject the written word of God, that is, the foundation, as they say. whereon is built their new congregation. and so may the reader note down one more capital and substantial point of dissension between those two churches lutheran & zwinglian, then hitherto he hath considered. although neither can he so do precisely, but rather note it as a division among the zwinglians also, for so much as it appeareth by Musculus, that the zwinglians of Suitzerland, no less than the Lutherans of germany, disagree from the English church in their Canon of scripture, yea the English church within itself, as shall appear in the next chapter.   

CHAP. II. Of the Canonical scriptures, and that the English clergy in accepting some and refusing others, are led by no learning or divinity, but by mere opinion and fantasy.  
AFTER S. james followeth a question proposed by M. Martin, 
Pag. 4.  how it chanceth that the English church doth admit S. james epistle which sometime was not admitted, and yet will refuse Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, & the books of Maccabees, which were no farther disproved, then that of S. james. The reason in truth is, & the same in effect given by M.W. 
Whit. cont. Camp. pag. 17. 1●.19.  because these later contain such proof of the catholic religion, as by no sophistication can be eluded. S. james they think is not so flat, but shifts they have to rid their hands of him well enough. So much writeth Calvin. Some there are, that think this epistle not worthy of authority, 
Cal. in argument. ep ja.  but I because I see no sufficient cause why it should be rejected, 
The Heretics sit in judgement upon the scriptures, & allow & disallow as they find most fit for their sects.  gladly without controversy embrace it. for whereas the doctrine of free justification seemeth to be refuted in the second chapter, in his place I shall easily answer that matter. As if he had said, that therefore he admitted it, because he had found out a quiddity to avoid that hard objection against only faith. which answer notwithstanding because it is false, peevish, sophistical, and cannot abide the trial, as well proveth Illyricus, Pomerane & Musculus, they therefore thought the other way more cleanly, rather upon pretence of some doubt made in the primitive church, clean to shake it of with the rest, then upon a vain toy which must in fine shame itself, make hazard of their solifidian justification, which must needs come to the ground, if this Apostle retain his old credit. This I say in deed is the reason, but because thus to have spoken plainly, had given a sure demonstration to the reader, that they make no more account of scriptures then of fathers, no more reckoning of james or Peter, then of Gregory or Austin if they be against their conceived heresies, therefore M. Whit. seemeth to shape a more cleanly answer, and this it is.  

Whit. pag. 5.  All the church (saith he) reproved not the epistle of james, and they that reproved it were moved so to do by no sure reasons: 
The reason why the english clergy admit some books of scripture and refuse others.  but these books which you name, Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the whole church of old rejected: neither were they written in the Hebrew tongue, whereas no books of the old testament were Canonical but only those, which the lord commended to the old church. Two reasons he seemeth to give, the first that no books in the old Testament are Canonical but such as were written in the Hebrew, the proof whereof consisting only in M.W. authority without either reason, or probability, or Doctor, or Council, if I oppose against him S. Augustine with the catholic church of that age, 
Aug. de doct chri. li. 2. c. 8.  I trust the reader will not greatly stagger which side he ought to take. 
A ca 2. vers. 4. usque ad finem 7. ca  and if this reason hold, I marvel what shall become of Daniel, a great part whereof is held of them for Canonical, & yet is not written in the Hebrew. His other argument is of more force, that the whole primitive church refused the books of Maccabees, 
Pag. 5.  judith, & Toby: but certain onlv, & that upon no good reason refused S. james. These two parts if he prove, and show this difference, he saith somewhat, & I will be of judgement as he is. if not (whereof I assure myself) then as before, so here still, lust and fantasy ruleth them in mangling thus the scriptures, not reason & divinity. let us see how he proveth that the whole church rejected the former. S. Hierom saith, the church readeth the books of judith, Tobias, & the Maccabees, but reckoneth them not amongst canonical scriptures. This for them. how may we find now, that not the whole church but some particular men, and they not upon any good reason refused S. james? For this part we must credit M.W. upon his word. for beside his word, reason or conjecture he yieldeth none, but contrariwise to disprove this his distinction, and approve that without reason or conscience, he and his fellows have made choice of the one with condemnation of the other, thus to do M.W. himself ministereth us mattet abundant. for thus he writeth in his first book in iustifiing friar Luther against S. 
Contr. Camp. pag. 9 vide ibi pa. 10.12  james. Luther was not ignorant what the ancient church judged of james his epistle. Eusebius doubted not to write of that epistle expressly, I would have all men to know, that the epistle which is ascribed to james, is a bastard epistle. what could be written more plainly? but perhaps Eusebius pleaseth you not. give me a reason why. hear then Jerome, whom you know to have been a Priest of the Roman Church. The epistle of james is avouched to have been set forth by some other in his name. the one affirmeth it to be a counterfeit, the other saith, it is supposed to have been published not by the Apostle, but by some other. why then are you angry with Luther, whom you see not suddenly or rashly first to have begun to double of that epistle, but therein to follow the judgement & testimony of the ancient Church? Let us now join together these two proofs of M. W. 
M. W. reasons make most against himself.  with consideration what thence is and must be deduced, to wit, the cause why the English congregation admitting S. james, hath rejected those other, and we shall straightways find, not only that he overthroweth himself (which is a common trick amongst such good writers) but also concludeth the contrary of that which here he pretendeth. The Church readeth the books of judith, Toby and the Maccabees, saith S. Jerome, but reckoneth them not amongst the Canonical scriptures. In that the Church at solemn times read them, it is a great argument that she much honoured them, although she admitted them not as then universally into that highest room of supreme authority. But of S. james we hear not so much, but contrariwise Eusebius directly affirmeth (if M. W. say true) and judgeth, & would all other men so to judge, that that epistle of S. james is a false and bastard epistle. and Jerome, a priest after the order of the Roman Church, (and not a minister after the fashion of the English congregation) is brought to prove the same. Who seethe not now what great difference there is between these two verdicts given in by these ancient fathers. the first being read in the Church, had a degree to Canonical scriptures, the later had no such. Of the first he bringeth in S. Jerome saying only that as than it was not acknowledged for Canonical. he bringeth in S. Jerome to say as much of the second, and for a surcharge he joineth Eusebius, directly affirming it to be a bastard epistle, and withal wishing all men so to judge of it: himself inferreth that Luther in his rashness which we condemn, followed the judgement and testimony of the ancient & primitive Church. he affirmeth farther as a general principle, & namely treating of this epistle: Quod principio statim non habet divinam authoritatem, 
pag. 5.  non potest tempore & hominum approbatione fieri divinum. That which at the first hath not presently divine or canonical authority (as in their opinion S. james had not) can not be made canonical by the approbation of men. yet now of these, he would have us learn this distinction, that the primitive Church universally rejected the books of judith, Toby, & the Maccabees, & some only, and those without just cause, refused S. james epistle: and therefore that the English congregation hath done very discretelie, to authorize the one, & disauthorize the others. let him not play to much the Sophister, but answer as becometh a Divine, & save himself in this, from open folly & contradiction, & he shall show more wisdom & learning than hitherto he hath given us occasion to deem in him.  
And that he may the better way the verity and substance of his answer, 
The sum of the Tower disputation touching the scriptures.  and the reader have occasion to consider, what a variable & tottering gospel these men preach, and how justly we object to them, that at their pleasure they make havoc of scripture: I will lay to M.W. reasoning, the effect of the late disputation had in the Tower with F. Campian touching this point. This they make the main ground of their whole argament. 
The fourth days conference.  Those books which old fathers and Counsels have not received for canonical, & books to ground our faith upon, them can not nev● me●, nor the Tridentine Council make canonical. This proposition standing for good which they so confidently urge, 
Whit. pref. pag. 4. & 5. & con. Camp. Pa. ●0.  and M.W. thinketh y● most assured, let us see upon this rule what waste they make of the sacred books. upon that ground thus they build, or rather pull down. Aug. li. 2. cap. 8. de doct Christiana leaveth out Baruch, and the two last books of Esdras. Hierom in his preface upon the book of Kings, saith, that Sapientia Salomonis, jesus the son of Sirach, judith and Tobias, are not in the Canon. Eusebius in his sic●e book and 18. chapter (it is the 19) leaveth out the third and fourth of Esdras, Tobias, judith, Baruch, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, and the books of Maccabees. and concerning the epistle to the Hebrewes, though himself say plainly it is S. Paul's, yet he confesseth that many have doubted thereof. also concerning the second epistle of S. Peter, he saith it was doubted of many, & so of some, were the last two epistles of john. The same Eusebius li. 4. ca 26. (it is 25.) speaketh of Melito bishop of Sardis, who reckoning up the volumes of the old testament, omitteth Esdras, Toby, Hester, judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, the books of Maccabees. And the Council of Laodicea omitteth Luke's gospel & the Apocalyps. you see therefore that these old Fathers, have least these books out of the canon, & yet were not called heretics nor blasphemers. Thus far they. Afterwards they define those to be not Canonical but Apocryphal, 
Ibi. A. 2. ●.  that are not in the (ancient) Canon received and allowed to have proceeded undoubtedly from the holy Ghost. and those Apocryphal are forbid to be read. and though they may be read for moral lessons, yet not for matters of religion. Afterward the same argument is resumed again, and especially that part urged, 
Ibi. 3. b. 8.  that the Council of Laodicea leaveth out those former books, in the old Testament, Tobias, judith, the book of wisdom, Ecclesiasticus. and in the new Testament, Luke, and the Apocalyps. And when F. Campian answered, that that Council was but particular, reply was made, that the Council was provincial, and farther confirmed by the sixth general Council holden in Trullo, Constantine being precedent, as Bartholomeus Caranza writeth, fol. 71. And therefore we may leave out of the canon Toby, judith etc. which your Council of Trent thrust in as authentical. Hitherto your brethren in the fourth days conference. 
The first days conference in the Tower. D. 1.2.  In the first day, upon like warrant they reckon amongst Apocryphal books, that which you labour so much to save, S. james, which there is called a counterfeit or bastard epistle, by judgement of Eusebius. Item, the epistle of Jude, the later of Peter, the second and third of john. And against these they allege Eusebius▪ Jerome, Epiphanius, and the Council of Laodicea, confirmed as they say there again, by the general Council holden in Trullo. And yet (such is their inconstancy) in the same place, some of these, in word they profess to receive, but only as at pleasure, of courtesy and liberality, not as of faith, duty, and necessity. For the sum of all cometh to this, and it is the effect of that disputation.  
Such books as of old have been doubted of, we are not bound to admit for Canonical, but may refuse now.  
These particular books here named, have been doubted of in old time: ergo these books we are not bound to admit for Canonical, but may refuse them now.  
This being your reason, and the same so manifestly approved by them and you, out of the same, for our present purpose against you this I note. First how justly we accuse you for defacing and renting out so many parcels and whole books of scripture. 
Sundry books of the scripture denied by the protestants.   

In the old Testament.  
Tobias.  
judith.  
Hester.  
Baruch.  
The book of Wisdom.  
Ecclesiasticus.  
The two books of the Maccabees.   

In the new Testament.  
S. Luke's Gospel.  
The Epistle to the Hebrews.  
The Epistle of Saint james.  
The 2. of S. Peter.  
The 2. & 3. of S. john.  
S. jude.  
The Apocalyps.   
Unto these, partly yourselves in your common bibles, partly your brethren join certain other pieces, both of the old Testament and of the new: as The prayer of Manasses. Paralip. lib. 2. The song of the three children. The story of Bel. Canticum canticorum. and a part of S. john's Gospel. some of these held for canonical these fifteen hundred years, some these twelve hundred, all above a thousand.  
next your distinction of the whole Church, and some of the Church, were it true, as it is most false, is utterly refuted by these your own doctors: for by their sentence, whatsoever hath been doubted of not only in the whole Church, but in a part (for they go not about to prove that these were doubted of in the whole Church, and least of all S. 
S. Luke's gospel doubted of.  Luke's Gospel) that may you doubt of, and number amongst the books Apocryphal: and both you and they prove as substantially that S. james was doubted of, as you prove the same of judith, Hester, the Maccabees or any other. saving that they foully overreach themselves when they affirm that S. Luke's Gospel with those other, was left out and not received for Canonical in the Provincial Council of Laodicea, and the same confirmed by a general Council afterward.  
Then cometh to my remembrance your profound argument against M. Campian in defence of Luther. Luther despiseth S. james his epistle saith M. Campian. 
Contr Camp. pag. 9,  you answer. Bene habet, crimen hoc omne jacobi epistolam attingit etc. That goeth well. All this fault toucheth only james epistle. Luther doth not in a word violate Matthew, Mark, Luke, or john, nor Paul, nor Peter: 
exagitat.  only he somewhat shaketh up james epistle. A deep reason: as though S. james being canonical scripture were not to be esteemed as honourably, and violated as little as S. Peter, 
The open way to deny all scripture.  or any of the other. and as though he in so writing, and you in so defending, do not lay the way open to shake of and violate all the rest as well as that. For now if a man burden you with the refusal of S. Luke, your defence is already provided. bene habet, all goeth well. All this fault toucheth only S. Luke. Our doctors do not in a word violate Matthew, Mark, john, nor Paul, nor Peter, only we somewhat shake up Luke's Gospel, and so piece-meal till none be left, you may and will shake out one after an other, & still, Bene habet, all goeth well, until you fall to open profession of Atheism, in the broad way whereof, you are far & well gone already.  
fourthly, because in the end of your preface you brag so much of your forefathers, 
pag. 24.  that they have ever vanquished ours, here you put us in mind what forefathers those are. 
Aug. de heresy. heresi. 53. Epiph. here. 75.  Hitherto your forefathers were known to be, Aerius in denying prayer & sacrifice for the dead, Vigilantius of whom you learned to condemn the invocation of saints, 
Hiero. count Vigilanti. & Io●iniat.  & honour done to them in the Church, jovinian in breaking vows of chastity deliberately made to God, and making the state of matrimony, touching merit, equal in the sight of God with the state of virginity & continenty. Which men notwithstanding were forced to yield to our forefathers, S. Epiphanius, 
The protestants as in sundry other parts of their doctrine, so in denying certain books of scripture, imitate the ancient heretics.  S. Hierom, and S. Augustine as hitherto all Christendom is witness, and therefore were not such victorious captains as you would make them. In this place as though your purpose were to overbear us with number, and make your army so much the more strong, you multiply and set in rank against us more fathers. For whereas you so blasphemously speak of the book of judith, 
The 4. days conference.  that it is far unworthy to be called scripture, and yet match S. Luke and the Apocalyps with it, whereas you say most plainly of these and all the forenamed books, that you are not bound to admit them but may refuse them, that they be read for moral lessons not for matters of religion, you simply disallow for canonical those two books. And who are your fathers herein, but those ancient Archheretikes Martion and Cerdon, 
Epiph. here. 42.  & those other for their brutishness called Alogi or Bruti.  
In which your doing as the reader may easily perceive how you trot forward to plain Apostasy from Christ, by calling now the very Gospel into question: so why we should number you amongst those old Brutish heretics, 
Epiph. her. 51.  yourselves yield us more abundant reason, than our fathers had in calling them by that name. For yourself M.W. confess and prove your doctors and masters to be the most senseless and brutish creatures that ever went on the earth. For, to avoid direct answering to the question proposed you, 
W. contra Cam. p. 28.  how you know the books which you call scripture, to be heavenly and penned by divine inspiration, that is, by what testimony you know those writings to be canonical or holy which be so called, you say, and I with as good reason will demand of you how you know the sun to be the sun, or how you assure yourself that God is God. for we know as assuredly that these are the holy scriptures commended by God to his Church, written by the Prophets and Apostles, and delivered by divine authority, as we know the moon to be the moon, or (at a word) any other thing, whatsoever we comprehend by most certain knowledge: and this answer Caluine also giveth you. And this answer I admit from you and Caluine, 
Insti. li. 1. ca 7. ¶. 4  and hereof I conclude that you are more truly called Alogi and brutish, 
The protestants refusing the authority of the church, can never give reason how they know some books and not other, to be canonical scripture  then were those other ancient heretics. For was there ever in the world, any so notable a Choraebus or Grillus having the shape of man, that fell at brawling & disputing with his friends, whether the sun which we see, were the sun, or the moon, the moon, as you do against Luther, & your churches against the Lutherans, whether S. james epistle be canonical? then if you think right, (as I trust you will speak well of yourself) with the same breath you condemn your father Luther, and your brethren the Lutherans, for the veriest sots and stocks that ever lived: for they know not the moon, they know not the sun, which to you shineth so bright & clear. And to oppose yourself unto your brethren at home, and to your own self, how say you to S. Luke, to the epistles of S. Peter, Jude, john, & the Apocalyps, be they canonical or no? if you say yea, as I think you will, (or at the jest, 
Cont. Campian. pag. 9  that was your opinion in September last, as your book showeth) than your doctors now denying the same, you see what is to be concluded, that one part of you is as wise as those former, who know not the sun from the moon. If you deny, and be of their judgement, as it may be very well, your faith being as mutable as is the moon, yet so you prove yourself no wiser than they, who in so short space have fallen out with yourself & altered your judgement, and now esteem that for apocryphal, which then was to you canonical, that is, now judged that to be the moon, which then you thought to be the sun. Our lord give his people grace to think of you as you prove yourselves, that is, so fantastical & inconstant, that you know not what to say: and whiles you seek to keep yourself aloof from the Catholic church, the sure pillar & ground of truche, 
I. Tim. 3. v. 15.  you plunge yourselves overhead and ears, in such foul absurdities, as never did heretics before you.  
For what is the reason of all this? because besides the written word or scripture, you will not acknowledge any tradition of the Church, whereunto by this question you are enforced of necessity. 
The protestats refusing the church, believe not the scriptures.  For if we are bound to believe certain books, as for example the Gospel of S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. john, and S. Paul's Epistles to be Canonical, that is heavenvly and penned by divine inspiration, and yet the same can not be proved by scripture, them clear it is that we are bound to believe somewhat which by scripture can not be proved, and so the tradition of the Church is established. And marvel it is that you perceive not, how grossly you overthwart yourself, and plainly refel that, which you would seem most earnestly to confirm. For if you march your belief of scripture, with knowledge of the Sun and Moon, and such like as are known by only sense & the light of nature: 
See after chap. 16.  than you deny it to be any article of your faith. For these two, are directly opposite: and the apostle confirmeth this reason, when he defineth faith to come by hearing, 
Rom. 10. ver. 17.  and hearing by the word of God. ergo fides ex auditu, auditus per verbum Dei. And therefore if you believe, not with humane faith, as you believe Tusculans▪ questions to have been written by Cicero, but with Christian & divine faith, as you believe Christ to be your saviour, if thus you believe the Gospel which beareth S. Matthews name, as likewise that of S. Mark, and S. john, to have been written by them: than you believe so, because so you have heard it preached, 
1. Cor. 15. ver. 11.  and so you have received. and consequently by the Apostles authority, that very matter so preached unto you is the word of God. which word of God whereas you find not in the scriptures, 
Somewhat is the word of god besides scripture.  hereof it followeth manifestly, that somewhat is the word of God which is not scripture. and therefore you and your fellows believing only scripture, believe not all the word of God, but only a piece thereof. and so did the worst heretics that ever were, yea so do at this day the very Turks and mahometans.  
But to end this special matter with you M. W. touching your distinction between S. james, and Tobias, judith, the Maccabees, etc. where you make this to be the difference, that S. james was refused but of a few, and the other generally of the whole Church, tota Ecclesia repudiavit say you, for declaration of your truth herein, I refer you to the most evident testimonies of the same ancient Church. S. 
Aug. de doc. Chris. l. 2. ca 8.  Augustine setting down the Canonical scriptures as they were read and believed in his time, placeth S. james I confess in order with the Gospels, & Paul's epistles: yet not excluding those other, but in the self same place numbringe Toby, judith, and the Maccabees with the books of Moses and the Prophets. his (saith he) 44. libris, veteris testamenti terminatur authoritas. In these forty and four books, is concluded the authority of the old testament. Likewise the Council of Carthage approveth for Canonical S. 
Con. Cart. 4. ca 47.  james, but in the same Canon it approveth as far the other forenamed and teacheth of them as directly as of the other, that they are Canonical scriptures. Somewhat before S. Augustine's days, they were not by public decree of the Church received, as appeareth by S. 

Con. Laod. can. 59  
The epistle of S. Paul to the hebrews, as much doubted of in the primitive Church, as that of S. james. and b●●n, as much as those books of the old testament which the protestants reject.  
Hier. in isaiah cap. 6. et 8.   Jerome and the Council of Laodicea, but then, when there was as great doubt of. S. james epistle, S. Paul to the Hebrews, and the Apocalyps. touching the first, it is manifest by that which hath been said by you and your fellows. Of the second, there was more question than of the first, and S. Jerome seldom citeth it, but he giveth a note, signifying that it was not in his time taken for Canonical. In the Epistle to the Hebrewes, which the custom of the Latin Church receiveth not, (saith he) it is thus written. Again. the blessed Apostle, in his Epistle to the Hebrewes, 
Latina co●suetudo.  although the custom of the Latin Church receiveth it not amongst Canonical scriptures. Again. 
Idem in Hier. cap. 31.  this authority the Apostle Paul used, or whosoever he were that written that Epistle. In catalogo he saith, that even unto his time, 
Hiero. in Catalogo. Caius.  it was not accounted the writing of Paul: and that Caius an ancient writer denieth it to be his. and in his epistle to Paulinus set before the Bible, he saith, that a plaerisque extra numerum ponitur. of the more part it is put out of the number of Paul's writings. The like might be declared by S. Cyprian, Lactantius, Tertullian, Arnobius, and S. Austin, if it were needful. and the Apocalyps was yet more doubtful than either of these two, & as we see by the Council of Laodicea, left out of the roll of Canonical writings, 
Conei. Laod. can. 59  when both the other of S. james and S. Paul were put in. Wherefore, as false that is which M.W. constantly avoucheth of the ancient Church, touching the severing of these sacred volumes, so hath he not yet, nor ever shallbe able with reason to satisfy M. Martin's demand, why they of England have condescended to admit the one rather than the other.  
And here the reader may consider & esteem as it deserveth, of that glorious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in fine he singeth to himself, setting the crown of triumph upon his own head and his fellows. 
Pap. 24. M.W. brag of confuting the catholic doctrine, vain and impossible.  Nothing (saith he) is now more vulgar than the Papists arguments against us. Quicquid afferri a quoquam potuit, vidimus, diluimus, protrivimus. what so ever could be said of any of them all, we have seen it, refelled it, and trod it under foot: he may consider I say, how like this man and his companions are to work such masteries, who as yet know not what those weapons are, which they should use in achieving such conquests. For whereas they vaunt to do this by the written word, & yet are not resolved amongst themselves what that written word is, and how far it extendeth, it is as fantastical a part to brag of victory, as if a mad man should run into the field to slay his enemy, and when he cometh there, knoweth not with what weapon to begin the fight. Wherefore well may he, and his fellows hear and see the Catholic doctrine, as isaiah speaketh of the jews concerning the doctrine of Christ, 
Mat. 13. v. 14  hearing shall you hear & shall not understand, and seeing shall you see and you shall not see, and well may they tread it under their feet, as our Saviour parabolically forespoke that heretics would do, when he said: 
Mat. 7. v. 6.  Nolite proiicere margaritas ante porcos, ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis, but to refel, confute, & suppress it, that is no more possible, then that Christ should be false of his word and promiss, 
Mat. 16. Luc. 22.  that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And whereas it hath continued by the protestāns common grant, above a thousand years, in truth, ever since Christ his passion, against other manner of tempests than these are, heretics of excellent learning, heresies of marvelous subtility, most mighty Emperors, rulers of the world: now to imagine that it may be vanquished of these gross and contrary heresies, fortified with no manner of learning, whereof many are so base, that men even by the light of nature abhor them, having nothing to maintain themselves, but only a vain challenginge of the Spirit, and bold craking of the word of the Lord, which a parrot can do with a little instruction as well as they, thus I say to talk, were more fit for Pasquillus Estaticus, or a sick man when he raveth, than a sober Divine, that weigheth what he speaketh.   

CHAP. III. How M. W. defendeth Luther preferring his private judgement before all ancient fathers and Doctors.  
NEXT cometh in again friar Luther, whom M. Martin accused for saying that he esteemed not a thousand Augustine's, Cyprian'S, & Churches, when they are against him. That the reader may better carry away the matter, I will first put down Luther's words where upon this controversy standeth, after it shall be easier to judge how aptly M. W. defence is framed. The words of Luther, 
Luther tom. 2. contr. Regem Angl. fol. 342.  are in his book written against King Henry the eight her majesties father, and are these. But I (saith he) against the sayings of fathers, of men, of Angels, of devils, set not old custom, not multitude of men, 
The common vain & spirit of every Sect of protestants.  but the word of the only eternal majesty, the Gospel. here I stand, here I sit, here I glory, here I triumph, here I insult over Papists, Thomists, Henricists, Sophists, and all the gates of hell, much more over the sayings of men, be they never so holy. God's word is above all, the divine majesty maketh for me, so as I pass not, if a thousand Austin's, a thousand Cyprian'S, 
Henricianae ecclesiae.  a thousand Kinge-Harrie Churches stood against me. God can not err or deceive. Austin, Cyprian, and likewise all other elect might err, & they have erred. here answer master Harrie, here play the man. I contene thy lies, I fear not thy threats, here thou standest astonished like a stock etc. These are the words with which M. Martin findeth fault. M.W. defendeth them thus. 
Pag. 6.  If Luther had preferred himself before all fathers & Churches, he were not to be borne withal. but this Luther never challenged to himself. But in some causes, Luther might esteem more his own judgement, than the authority of Austin, or Cyprian, or a thousand Churches. For if that which Luther taught, were agreeable to God's word, Luther's judgement was to be preferred, before all the contrary judgements of all men living.  
Before I enter into the examination of this answer, let me demand this one thing in courtesy of you M.W. what the reason is, 
Luther's extreme hatred against the Sacramentaries & zwinglians.  why you so busily and eagerly defend Luther, be his words never so strange, or fanatical. or why is the Pope Antichrist for resisting your Gospel, whereas Luther you advance, if not into the place of Christ, yet at least among the number of his Apostles. Did the Pope of Rome ever persecute your zwinglian gospel, 
Cle●●●ius a Zwinglian made a book entitled, victoria venitatis & ●uti●a papa●us Saxonici. an. 1561  with more deadly hatred, than did that pope of Saxony? Did he not from the very beginning, to his later breath, hold you and your brethren, for most damnable wretches, and professed enemies of the eternal testament of Christ? Are you ignorant, how for this cause, he wrote whole volumes against your first Apostle Zuinglius? 
Confess. orthodox. Eccles. Tig●r. tractat. 3. ●o. 108.  Read you never the Confession of your brethren of the Tigurine church where thus they complain? Lutherus statim ab initio, m●rdere, furere, convitiari, & bacchari coepit etc. Luther presently at the beginning, began to bite, to play the mad man, to rail and rage, and besides this, he filled his books with the horrible names of Devils, Sectaries, Spirits, mad men: and whatsoever slanders came to his mind, 
Immaniter contra nos expuit.  he cast them out against us outrageously. Complain they not in the preface of that Confession, that he inveigheth against them as against obstinate heretics, 
Ibid. in prefat. fol. 3. ●.  and such as are guilty to themselves of all impiety, as profaners of the Sacraments, and the most vile and pestilent men that go on the ground? He proscribeth and condemneth first of all the faithful doctors and ministers of God, Oecolampadius, Zuinglius, and their disciples wheresoever they be: all friendship and communion with us, he counteth wicked & abominable: and what soever cometh from us, be it letters, be it books, be it salutations, be it benedictions, he will not only not read, but he will not so much as vouchsafe to look upon them, or hear them spoken of: so far forth, 

Lauatie●. in historia Sacram. fol. 32.  
Luther rejecteth the bible translated by the zwinglians, how much more ought catholics to avoided the same?   that when Eroschoverus the zwinglian printer of zurich sent him a bible translated by the divines there, Luther sent it him back again with this greeting, that he should not send him any thing that proceeded from the ministers of the Tigurine church. for he would have no dealing with them, neither would he receive or read their books: for the churches of God could not communicate with them. Yea, he protesteth that he had rather sustain a hundred several deaths, then to become of your opinion, or show any countenance of bearing favour to it. 
In confessio. Tigur. verse supra fo. 30.  The Lord defend (saith he) that I wittingly and willingly by the authority of my name, should cover or confirm the very lest error of the fanatical Sacramentaries. Nam vel centies laniari aut igne comburi mallen etc. For I had rather be torn in pieces or burnt with fire a hundred times, them to follow the opinion, and agree in doctrine, with zwinglius, Oecolampadius, & the rest of those miserable, unfortunate, fanatical men. Finally, know you not M. W. that thus he began, thus he went forward, thus he continued, thus he ended his days, dying such a mortal enemy to you, that he seemed to make his hatred and detestation of your church and gospel, a piece of his justification before Christ? as in his last Confession made a little before his death, and recorded in the foresaid Confession of Zurake it appeareth. 
Confess. Tigur. tract. 3. fol. 108.  Ego qui iam sepulchro vicitus obambulo, hoc testimoniam et hanc gloriam ad Christi salvatoris tribunal perferam etc. I (saith he) that now walk nigh to my grave, will carry this testimony and this glory to the tribunal seat of Christ my Saviour, that I have with all earnestness, condemned and avoided those fanatical men and enemies of the Sacrament, 
The zwinglians condemn themselves in defending Luther.  Zuinglius, OEcolampadius, Stinckf●ldius, and their scholar, whether they be at Zuruke, or in what place else soever under the s●nne. Thus Luther.  
If you know this Master Whitaker, as you will seem to be ignorant of nothing, what maketh you so busily to defend Luther's barbarous and proud vaunts, as though he were such a pillar, without whom your church could not stand? But belike it is sufficient, that he was an Apostata friar as were the founders of your gospel, that he with you agreed in railing at the Pope and Sea of Rome, and so for his agreeing with you in these smalller toys, you care not for his disagreeing from you in those weighty matters. Well, be it as you list, and perhaps you have more reason than I perceive, otherwise you shall never be able to justify this demeanour in the sight of any man endued with common sense. Let us hear how cunningly you cure this stinking sore. for nothing stinketh more before the face of God and man, than a poor contemptible wretch, so Luciferlyke to prefer himself before innumerable, excellent, learned, and glorious Saints of God. What distinction have you to save Luther's honesty? Forsooth this: 
M.W. distinction, when Luther's judgement is to be preferred before all the Church.  In certain cases, Luther might more esteem of his own judgement, then of Austin, Cyprian, or a thousand Churches. For if that which Luther taught, were agreeable to God's word, than Luther's judgement was to be preferred before the contrary judgement of all men and Churches. Here M. W. thinketh he hath spoken much to the purpose, and therefore advanceth himself aloft. Scripturam Lutherus protulit, cuinullus mortalis resistit, quaeque tandem Pontificiis decretis pestem atque exitium afferet. Luther brought with him scripture which no mortal man can withstand, and which at length shall be the bane and destruction of the Popish decrees.  
That I may the better conceive this distinction, and either yield to it if it stand with reason, or discover the vanity of it, if it fall out to be but a peevish battology of words as I trow it will prove: let me require a plainer explication of that part. 
The folly of M.W. distinction.  Luther might well prefer his judgement before a thousand Austin's, Ciprianes and Churches, if he spoke with scripture. Is this the meaning, that in case and controversy of religion, if a thousand Cyprian'S, that is, all the Fathers teach us one thing, and bring scriptures for them, and one father Luther teach us the contrary, and bring scriptures for him, may Luther in this case prefer his own judgement before all those Fathers? if so, as the speech itself is so monstrous execrable as the devil himself can not open his mouth into more horrible pride, so what heresy, what Apostasy, what Atheism in the church can ever be controlled, if this rule be made currante? why should Arrius yield to the Council of Nice? Nestorius' to the Council of Ephesus? Macedonius to the Council of Constantinople? seeing they brought scriptures for them, and by this rule ought to have preferred their private judgement before those bishops, as Luther & his offpringe do theirs, before the Council of Trent, or will he say, that if perhaps a thousand Austin's and Churches teach some doctrine without the written word of God, that is, citing no text for it, & Luther against the same, bring the written word, that is, some text of the scripture after his sense, in this case, he may better esteem of himself then of all the rest.  
But first, he can never give instance that either the ancient fathers did so in their times, or that we do so now. for howsoever in the Counsels of Nice, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, the bishops stood much upon the tradition of their elders (ea que sunt patrum teneantur, 
Cone. Chal. actio. 1. Lirine. cont haeres. ca 43.  say they, sic credere à sanctis patribus edocti sumus, let us hold fast the faith and decrees of our fathers, thus to believe we have been taught by our holy fathers) yet they wanted not scriptures, as neither did the fathers in the Council of Trent, nor we at this day in our controversies with the protestants. And if those ancient fathers had alleged no direct & evident place against Arrius, Nestorius, Eutyches, yet notwithstanding, the Christian people were bound to believe them, grounding themselves only upon the Catholic & universal faith of the churches which were before them, as they did in the question of our B. Ladies perpetual virginity. And albeit the heretic brought some clauses of scripture for the contrary part, yet ought all faithful men to yield no more credit thereto, than to the devil when he alleged scripture against our saviour. 
Mat. c. 4. v. 6.  because, as the devil so all heretics may use scripture against the true sense and meaning thereof: 
joan. c. 14. et 16. Ephes. cap. 4. b. c. Esa. ca 59 v. 21.  the universal church can never teach or believe so, as by Christ himself we are assured. And this case in effect cometh to one issue with the former. for, give this scope to an heretic, that all the Bishops, Churches & Fathers may err & he alone, if he can allege a text, may therefore rightly contemn all other in respect of himself, as every Sectmaister doth and hath done, where is the Church's quietness? what order is there for continuance of faith? to what end was the coming of Christ? to what use, the sending of the holy Ghost? Or perhaps M. W. will say, posito per impossibile that all the Churches & fathers teach against scripture, 
In this case the authority of the devil as well as of Luther is better than all Fathers, or all the angels of heaven. Gal. 1.  & Luther alone teach with scripture, then lo Luther may think himself a better man than they all. and this is true, & this I grant: as in like manner I confess that if the heaven should fall, we know what would follow. And yet of these two suppositions, the Spirit of God putteth the later to be more possible, 
jerem. 31. g. & 33. d.  that the course of heaven shall sooner alter, than the Catholic Church of the new Testament fall from Christ to Apostasy.  
But it may, be M.W. will say, I scan his words to narrowly, his meaning is plain, that whereas Luther bringeth scriptures against us, that is, against all the Austin's, and Ciprianes, of the Catholic Church, all the Bishops now living, he may well trust his own judgement. if this be the meaning, yet still all cometh to one end. and why may Luther so do, more than Caluine? why Caluine, more than Muncerus? why a Zwinglian, more than a Puritan, Anabaptiste, or Trinitarian? Or what assurance hath he, more than those other? 
Luther's judgement with scripture against the Sacrametaries.   
But if Luther's judgement bringing scriptures with him, be so forcible against us, may not we, (trow you) Lutherize a little after your example, and say the same against you? As for example. 
Luther to. 7. A defence of the literal sense of our saviours words etc. against the fanatical spirits of the Sacramentaries.  Luther hath made a book entitled, defensio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verborum coenae, accipite & comedite, hoc est corpus meum, contra fanaticos Sacramentariorum spiritus. In that book not very long or large, yet containing more substance than some whole volumes of his do, his principal conclusion rising upon this text of scripture, and grounded upon many texts of scripture beside, is, that he and his, 
Ibi. fol. 383.  will and may retain external peace and civil concord with the zwinglians in matters temporal, but quoad spiritum, eos ad extremum usque halitum devitabimus, arguemus, & damnabimus pro idololatris, verbi Dei corruptoribus, blasphemis, & deceptoribus etc. touching the soul and matters spiritual, we will avoid them as long as we have a day to live, we will reprove and condemn them for idolaters, corrupters of God's word, blasphemers, 
The Sacramentaries enemies of the gospel by Luther's judgement confirmed with scripture.  and deceivers, and of them as enemies of the Gospel, we will sustain persecution and spoil of our goods whatsoever they shall do unto us, so long as God will permit. And in the same leaf it followeth immediately: aptly may we say to these men offering us peace, as Christ said to judas in the garden, judas with a kiss betrayest thou the son of man? So this is the very peace and kiss of judas: for offering us their friendship, they would withal obtain of us to hold our peace, and in silence behold the fierce and slaughters, whereby they thrust headlong infinite thousands of souls down to hell. Here is Luther's judgement, and that with scripture. for against all communion with the zwinglians, he in this place urgeth the words of our saviour Math. 10. verse. 34. Luk. 14. v. 26.2. Cor. 6. v. 14. Eph. 4. v. 5. May Luther now prefer his judgement thus qualified, before a thousand Calvin's, a thousand Peter Martyrs, or whosoever else be the greatest doctors of your congregations, before all Zwinglian churches? Or if Luther may so do, may not we do the like, and think of you as he doth, and that by warrant given us from your own mouth? May we not say to you upon like ground. Scripturam Lutherus protulit cui nullus mortalis resistit, etc. Luther hath brought scripture which no man can withstand, and which at length shall be the bane and overthrow of all the Zwinglian and Caluinistical opinions?  
Now if (which is the extreme refuge) you will say, that Luther's judgement against you is not agreeable to scripture, and therefore not so deeply to be accounted of, then see I beseech you how finely and suttely you have fet this matter about. for now the sense of your distinction is, that when Luther affirmeth any thing agreeable to the scriptures, by judgement of yourself, he ought to esteem more of it, than of a thousand Austin's, a thousand Ciprianes, & an innumerable company of catholic churches. And thus, 
Every protestant, sovereign judge of scripture Counsels. doctors, old & new.  whiles you first give Luther power to judge over all Fathers, Doctors, and Counsels, and then make yourself judge over Luther, to approve & reprove him as you please, who seethe not that in fine, you make yourself supreme judge of altas before of scriptures, so now of Fathers and Counsels, old and new, Catholic and heretic, no less of your own doctors, than the ancient fathers and doctors of Christ's church, 
See the 5. chap. in the beginning.  which is in deed the very last refuge and extreme resolution of all your new divinity.  
Finally (because it grieveth me to spend time in such unreasonable pelf) may it please you at your better leisure, to consider the sense of this parcel, & to put it down somewhat more intelligiblie, and if you can so do, and save yourself from the note of much folly (for, from being an heretic by Luther's judgement, what soever the answer be, you shall never save yourself) you shall perform a matter of more difficulty, than perhaps you are aware of. In the mean season, as it standeth, it carrieth with it gross faults, as many wellnigh as it hath lines: whether you oppose Luther to the ancient primitive Church, as it seemeth, and as doubtless he meant, or to the catholic church of our time, which you would infer, or to your own divided Zwinglian congregation, which by like sequel doth follow, or whether you consider Luther in this case, only as one principal author of your Gospel, & so make this privilege common to him with other, or rather consider him singularly by himself, because he was the first that broke the ice, and opened the way to this soul Apostasy, which is now so far spread: or finally whether you thus advance Luther, but ever holding the reins in your own hands, which (I ween) must be your last refuge, and final determination.   

CHAP. FOUR Of priesthood, end the sacrifice continued after Christ in the state of the new testament, and that it derogateth nothing from Christ.  
THE difference between you & M. Martin about priests, is no private, but a general controversy between all catholics and Protestants. your minister like terms of Baalites, 
pa. 7  and Antichristian sacrificers, I contemn, & am content to dissemble. many breaths more strong and rank than this, we must gladly abide, or else we are not such, as by God's mercy, we hope & profess ourselves. Comfortably saith our saviour, 
Mat. 10. v. 24.  the disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. if they have called the goodman of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household? therefore fear ye them not. For to comfort ourselves withal, if we be Baalites and Antichristians in respect of our priesthood, then certainly Christ is the captain Baal & antichrist, from whom our priesthood descendeth. And that will I prove in few, principally and first, by your own words, secondarily by manifest deduction out of the scriptures.  
A priest you define thus, 
pa. 6. Who are truly priests.  Sacerdotes two verè & propriè sunt qui sacrificia faciunt, qualis fuit Aaron & Aaronis filii, & Melchisedechus, & quem illi adumbrabant, Christus. Priests truly and properly are they that offer sacrifices, such as was Aaron, and the sons of Aaron, & Melchisedech, and Christ whom they prefigured. Those that offer sacrifice, you acknowledge to be priests truly and properly, not only by abuse of speech, as in this place against S. Austin you falsely cavil. In the number of such priests that offered sacrifice, you reckon Melchisedec, 
Melchisedec did sacrifice.  & after him Christ, of whom Melchisedec was a figure. This you would never have said, had you been skilful either in your own divinity, or in the faith of the Catholic Church. for although hitherto we have many ways laboured, and used all possible means of proof that Melchisedec offered sacrifice, yet we could never obtain so much of your brethren, because they well saw, that therein was included the manifest confirmation of the Catholic faith touching priesthood, & the utter ruin of your Genevian Ministry. For if Melchisedec sacrificed, then was it in bread and wine, for other sacrifice of his never man imagined, and the scripture proveth it invincibly, which mentioneth that, & no other, nor by word, syllable, or title, giveth the lest insinuation of any beside. Then how necessarily it must follow, that Christ sacrificed in like manner, and how from him, power to do the same is derived unto priests of the new testament, this shall be showed hereafter.  
First of all, that of Melchisedecs' sacrifice being most certain, & of you granted, and of us believed, you shall here note how stubborn & desperate, yea beyond all measure, 
The sacrifice of Melchisedec denied generally by the protestants though confessed by M. W.  stubborn and desperate are your fellows & masters, who in this so evident a truth, have hitherto resisted the Church, & would never confess, that either Melchisedec did the one, or Christ the other. I will not stay to prove it, because you confess it: only for plainer declaration, I will touch the matter briefly. In the book of Genesis, where only is described this sacrifice, thus we read. Melchisedec rex Salem, 
Gen. 14.  proferens panem & vinum (erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi) benedixit et. Melchisedec king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine (for he was the priest of the most high God) blessed him, that is, 
Heb. c. 7. v. 6  Abraham. In these words, we see the reason given of Meschisedecs' priesthood, & the same to consist in his action about the bread and wine, that is, in his sacrificing as M.. W. telleth us. But the Protestants to avoid this, into how many forms and fashions have they turned themselves? How many quirks and false sleights have they devised? until in fin, they have run in manner generally, to corrupt the sacred text for avoiding of this inconvenience. In most of their writings, & many of their translations, they give the sense thus: that M●lchis●d●c king of Salem, brought forth bread & wine, & because he was a priest of the most high God, therefore blessed Abraham. So writeth Musculus in his common places. That part of the sentence, 
Mus. in loc. come. cap. de Miss. papist pa. 492.  (and he was priest of the most high God) is to be referred to that which followeth, vz, and he blessed him for as a king, he brought forth to Abraham bread & wine, as a priest, he gave him his blessing. Upon this reason, to make the holy text more aptly serve this heretical devise, in the English Bible it is turned thus. 
Bib. printed anno, 1579.  Melchisedec king of Salem, 
Corruption of the scriptures.  brought forth bread & wine, & he was a priest of the most high God, therefore he blessed him. Thus the protestants commonly interpret it, and to note one for all, thus writeth Caluine, in his commentary upon the Hebrews. 
Cal. in. come. in episto. ad Heb. c. 7. v. 9  Prius illud quod narrat, regium, fuit, etc. That first thing whereof Moses speaketh in the story of Melchisedec, was the part of a King, to refresh with bread and wine, those that came weary from the fight: the blessing appertained to his priestly function. The difference between him and the ancient fathers, in the same paragraph he compriseth thus. 
Ibid.  Hereby is refuted their devise who seek out the chief resemblance (between Christ and Melchisedec) in bread and wine. We see the Apostle searcheth out every particular point diligently and curiously: he pursueth the name of the man, the seat of his Kingdom, the eternity of his life, the right of his tithes, the benediction which he gave to Abraham. In any of these there was less weight than in the oblation. shall we say, that the holy Ghost forgot himself, when he maketh stay upon these small matters, 
Calvin rejecteth the ancient fathers touching the sacrifice of Melchisedec.  and omitteth that which was the principal, and most pertained to the purpose? wherefore I marvel the more that so many old Doctors of the Church were possessed with this opinion, that they stayd upon the oblation of bread & wine. For thus they say. Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedec. but Melchisedec offered bread and wine: ergo bread and wine appartaine to Christ's priesthood. Thus far Calvin. 
Cal. in psal. 110.  the like he writeth in his commentary upon the Psalms. I will not stand to satisfy his marveling, why the Apostle should pretermit that which the holy fathers after observed. In one word this I say, that if he had weighed, either the preface of the Apostle when he began this argument, saying, 
Heb. 5. v. 11.  of Melchisedec we have great speech, and inexplicable to utter: or the same Apostles manner of writing & preaching at other times, to like auditors, or S. 
1. Cor. ca 2. ver. 5. ca 3. ver. 2. Hier. ep. 126 ad Euagri. Greg. Nazi.  Jerome handling this matter, & giving reason of the Apostles so doing, or S. Gregory Nazianzene in his oration de moderatione in disputationibus servanda, or in his second oration de theologia, he would perhaps easily have left of marveling, and rather have marveled at his own folly, who could be moved to marvel at a thing so reasonable and ordinary.  
But touching our purpose, let the christian reader, out of Calvin note these two points. The one is, that Calvin and the calvinists generally, find nothing wherein Melchisedec sacrificed, & so by sacrificing prefigured the sacrifice & priesthood of Christ: The other is, that the ancient fathers and the catholic Church, acknowledge Melchisedec to have sacrificed, and that in bread and wine, and by that sacrifice to have foreshowed Christ's sacrificing in like manner, and to this side M. W. forsaking Calvin and the Protestant's joineth himself. 
Christ did sacrifice at his last supper.  This therefore is clear, that Christ fulfilled this prefigurative sacrifice of Melchisedec: & we never find it done, but only them when he offering bread and wine, that is (saith S. 
Cip. ep. 63.  Cyprian) his own body and blood, 
Luke 22.  afterwards said to his disciples: hoc facite in meam commemorationem, and then (as witnesseth S. 
Iren. li. 4. ca 32.  Ireneus) novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offere Deo. he taught the new oblation of the new Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles, in the whole world offereth unto God. 
The sacrifice of the Mass deduced directly from Christ by M. Whit. own grant.  This being true, as M. W. granting so far as he doth, can not go back, nor possibly invent any tergiversation, thus I frame him an argument.  
That which Christ did, and appointed to be done, that may and aught to be done.  
But Christ at his last supper offered sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedec, and appointed the Apostles and priests to do the same:  
Ergo the Apostles and priests may and aught to offer sacrifice.  
The Mayor is evident, and no Christian will deny it. The Minor having two parts, is proved touching the later, by Christ's express commandment, Hoc facite in meam commemorationem, do this for a commemoration of me. the former wherein lieth the difficulty, is acknowledged by M. W. for if not only Aaron, but also Melchisedec offered sacrifice, & thereby prefigured Christ, them it followeth of necessity, that Christ offered sacrifice, not only in bloody manner as did Aaron, but also in unbloody and mystical sort, as did Melchisedec, 
Psal. 109. Heb. 7.  according to whose order he is specially named a priest, & so by perfect correspondence, fulfilled that antecedent figure. & hereto S. Cyprian, S. Ireneus, S. Austin, and all the ancient fathers, according to Calvin's confession and evident truth, give witness: that M. W. be not left post alone, to sustain so great a burden. Of this first argument, I deduce one more.  
They who may and aught to offer sacrifice, as did first Melchisedec, and afterward Christ, are truly and properly, sacerdotes.  
But priests of the new testament, may and aught to offer sacrifice in such sort.  
Ergo they are truly and properly sacerdotes, priests.  
The Mayor is true and set down in form by M.W. the Minor is the conclusion of the last argument, and so proved sufficiently already: then I hope the Conclusion will stand. wherefore leaving this matter for M. W. to scan, and to record with himself, who is that Baal, founder of the priesthood of the new testament, now may we view with better judgement, how substantially he answereth S. 
Aug. civi. li. 20. ca 10.  Austin's place de Civitate dei, where S. Austin doth distinguish between all Christians, who are unproperly called priests because of their mystical Chrism and unity with Christ, 
Propter misticu chrisma.  & others, qui proprie iam vocantur in ecclesia sacerdotes & episcopi, that properly are now called in the Church, priests and bishops: and properly such are they by M. W. definition which properly offer sacrifice. M.W. answereth, 
pag. ●.  that the name (priest) was of old time, after a more peculiar sort applied to the pastors and ministers that handled the word and sacraments, but there was an abuse in so speaking. than you agree not with S. Austin, who teacheth that propriè, in propriety of speech, they were so called. who, if they had then to execute no other priestly function, then have now the English ministers, as M. W. supposeth, or would pretend, I grant the word priest could not be applied to them but as abusively, as if one would call a civil magistrate by that name, or one of the queens Readers in the Universities. For, preaching of the word, & ministering of some one or other sacrament, although in the Catholic Church it be done by priests, yet properly that is not the reason why they are called by that name. but the true reason, is that which M.W. rendereth, quia propriè offerunt sacrificia, because properly they offer sacrifice. Now, that S. Austin meant of priests in this sort, & that himself was such a priest, 
S. Austin a priest.  to pass over many pregnante and evident places in him, for brevities sake I refer you to the known story of his mother's death. Where she first of all in her deathbed requesteth, 
Aug. Conf. li. 9 cap. 11.  that her son would remember her at the altar of God. When after her death, the corpse being brought into the Church, and placed beside the grave, before the time of burial, prayers were said, 
Ibid. ca 12.  & the sacrifice of our price and redemption offered for her. when afterward, S. Austin in his most devout & zealous prayer made to God for her, reckoneth this to her singular commendation, 
Ibid, c, 13.  that at her departure she took no care for costly manner of burial, or sumptuous monument, but only desired to be remembered at thy altar o Lord, from whence she knew was dispensed that holy sacrifice, 
Coloss. c. 2.  whereby was blotted out the handwrittinge which was against us, whereby triumph was obtained against Satan our eternal enemy. & strait ways: inspire (saith he) o Lord my God, inspire to thy servants my brethren, that whosoever of them shall read this, may have remembrance at thy altar, of Patricius and Monica my father and mother.  

An objection  But against this M.W. hath an objection, as common & plain to them that know ought in divinity as Dunstable high way: & answered before hand abundantly, in the annotations of the the new testament, Heb. ca 7. v. 12. 17.23. his argument is: 
pa. 6.  I say there are no priests of the new testament that offer sacrifice after Christ, who is the eternal priest according to the order of Melchisedec, & obtaineth sacerdotium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an eternal priesthood. he hath made an end of all sacrifices, & taken away the succession of priests, & committed his church to be ruled by pastors and doctors for ever.  
To begin with the last where you end, if Christ abolished all priesthood, and left his Church to be governed for ever by pastors and doctors, 
The English church ruled by Pastors, such as are no priests.  which were no priests, had this appointment and ordinance of his, effect, yea or no? if no, beware what you say, for little differ you from a jew, & a man of Mahomet's religion, and weak is your faith in Christ's godhead, if you think that in so many places of scripture, he appointed such a regiment for his Church, 
The church of Christ was never so ruled.  which after his departure never took effect. if yea, then show us where, or when, was his Church so governed. was it a hundred years ago, before Friar Luther first of all in our memory, induced this kind of government? you must needs say, no. Ascend we then 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and ten ages, until S. Gregory's time, was it all this while governed by such pastors as you describe? I ween as yet you will say, sure I am you should say, no. For those pastors, were still priests, and that in proper sense, as appeareth by all stories. Such were our first Apostles, the converters of our nation, those excellent men, SS. Augustine, Paulinus, Laurentius, Melitus, justus etc. sacred by the Pope of Rome, or other lawful Bishops in obedience of the Sea of Rome, offering sacrifice, living and dying as priests: 
Beda in eccles. histor. Aug.. li. 1.2.3.4.  as by the goodly story of Venerable Bede our countryman, you may every where learn. Such pastors and priests they were, by whom, and under whose regiment, our Churches were first builded, and the ecclesiastical state of our realm ordered: as now under the regiment of them that call themselves pastors no priests, and are in deed no more the one than the other, all is pulled down and overthrown. And if in any other country of Christendom, the churches had any other regiment, such as you pretend now in England, of pastors no priests, show us your books, and we will believe you. But you will say, from S. Gregory upward all was smooth and jump as it is now in the English congregation. Suppose that to be true. how in the mean season can you justify your own saying, 
in perpetuum  that Christ delivered his Church to be governed for ever, by such manner of pastors. Can Christ's decree be made frustrate for so many ages? Can man's iniquity (as you in your Apology commonly, 
Aug. de unitate eccle. c. 6.10.12.20. con. epistol. Parm. lib. 1. c. 1. li. 2. c. 19 con. lit. pet. lib. 2. ca 31. con. Cres. gran. li. 3. c. 63.64.65.  but most bluntly object) stop the course of Christ's omnipotent and eternal providence? know you not how copiously S. Augustine hath confuted this self same slanderous objection in your forefathers the Donatists?  
But pass we on. come we to the first fathers of the primitive Church. were they lay ministers after the manner of the English congregation, that is, pastors, no priests? how dare, or can you say so? seeing in S. Austin manifestly you see a sacrificing priesthood: 
Sup. pa. 23.  seeing yourself acknowledge Saint Jerome to have been a priest of the Roman Church which never yet approved any such ministry as you have invented: 
Bal. act rom. pont. in Leo ne. pa. 45. Calu. lib. de scan. et lib. de vera eccl. reforman. ratio. inter opuse. P. Mar. in defence. Eucha. con. Gardi. Par 1. obiec. 156.  seeing your great rabbin and sink of iniquity john Bale, calleth S. Leo the great and first of that name, in plain terms an idolater for this cause: seeing your chief captain & Apostle Caluine, and after him P. Martyr, and before him Huldericke Zuinglius, 
Zuin. to. 1. Epichir. de ca none missae fol. 183.  affirm in general of the fathers in the primitive Church, that for maintenance of the unbloody sacrifice, they forced & abused the scriptures. 
Cal. in libel. de caena domini.  and Caluine more execrable than the rest, addeth, that the ancient Church expressed the very form and type of the Aaronical & Levitical sacrificing, eo excepto, quòd panis hostia, loco animalis utebantur, saving that instead of a beast, they used bread. all which proveth that in proper manner of speech they sacrificed: and therefore by your own definition, in proper speech were priests. And finally, doth not Illyricus with his companions, confess in word & prove by deed, 
Sacrifice offered by priests, was common in the primitive church, by confession of the adversaries.  that sacrifices were ordinarily offered to God in the flower of the primitive Church, in the midst of the persecutions, for the souls departed, in the honour of Saints, for general and particular necessities, as is now used in the Church of Rome? Thus writ they. 
Cent. 3. ca 5. col. 138.  To this end, S. Cyprian in his third book and sixth epistle to the priests of Rome, willeth those days diligently to be noted, wherein the martyrs departed this life. In the same place he speaketh of oblations, & sacrifices observed in the memories of martyrs. Let us be informed (saith Tertullian) what be those days, wherein our blessed brethren by glorious death pass to immortality, that we here may celebrate oblations and sacrifices in remembrance of them. And there is very common mention of oblations in Tertullian. as in his book de corona militis. we offer sacrifices yearly for the dead, and for byrthdayes. S. 
pro natalitiis.  Cyprian saith, that oblations and sacrifices were yearly made in the remembrance of martyrs. lib. 3. epist. 6. & lib. 4. epist. 5. & li. 1. epis. 9 he speaketh of sacrifice for the dead. And to end with one sentence of S. 
Ib. c. 10. col. 247.  Cyprian by them alleged, thus they cite him. Our lord jesus Christ (saith S. Cyprian lib. 2. epist. 3.) be is the high priest of God the father, and sacrifice to God the father he first offered, and commanded the same to be done in remembrance of him. And that priest truly executeth Christ's steed or room, who doth imitate that which Christ did, and then in the Church offereth he a true and full sacrifice to God the father, if he begin so to offer, as he seethe Christ himself to have offered. Thus ascending from our time up to the primitive, and most pure and uncorrupt age of the Church, yet we find not the performance of that promise & order set by Christ, that his Church should be governed by pastors that were not priests.  

M. jew. challenge touchig the sacrifice art. 17. answered & confuted by the chief protestants of our time.  And here by the way to put you in mind, because in this preface, so freshly you provoke M Martin now departed, and renew M jewels challenge, may it please you, being put a little besides his bias of comparing phrases together (which was the very bones and marrow of M. jew. divinity) to weigh how well you can make his challenge agree with the manifest confessions of these your own doctors and if it like you to view Caluine in the book before quoted, 
Cal. de vera eccle. reforratione.  you shall there find five Doctors within M. jewels compass, by name, S. Ireneus, Arnobius, S. Athanasius, S. Ambrose, and S. Augustine, not the least or meanest of the fathers, either for antiquity, or holiness, or learning reproved and checked by Calvin, for this great oversight forsooth, because to prove the unbloody sacrifice of the church (which they believed, else would they never have applied the scripture to confirm it) they misinterpret and falsely apply the scriptures, ita vidiculè (these are his words) ut dissentire cogat & ratio et veritas, so ridiculously, as both reason and truth constraineth me to dissent from them. whereas if he had lived until this time, and had been acquainted but with half those phrases, 
jewel. artic. 17. con. Hatding.  which in the 17 article M. jew. hath raked together (of which benefit by your labours he might now have been partaker) he never needed to have run into that desperate vain, of bidding plain defiance to all the primitive church.  
And thus much being spoken by the way, through occasion of M.I. challenge renewed by you, let us return to conclude (if it may be) our former matter. from this age unto the primitive church we find not (as you see) pastors without priests. than it followeth, say we, that Christ never appointed any such. For then surely in some age, yea, in every age they would have appeared. And how you will lose this knot I much doubt. yet I fear, you will take Alexander's sword and cut it a sunder, and now apply that to yourself, which before you yielded to Luther, that when your judgement agreeth with scripture, you set more thereby, then by a thousand Augustine's, a thousand Cyprian'S, and all the churches. If you thus say (as I think you have nothing else to say) yet remember that besides these many Augustine's, and Cyprian'S, and churches, you have one Christ standing against you. who promised and appointed (as you confess) far otherwise.  
But pass we on. what scripture have you against priests? S. Paul, who saith that Christ is an eternal priest after the order of Melchisedec, and hath his priesthood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. what gather you of this? you leave the word in greek, as though it were so much the more terrible, and able to confound all priests then if it were in latin. Our old interpreter translateth it, sempiternum, Beza, perpetuum, Calvin, immutabile, Castalio, nunquam transiturum, 
1577.1579.  the English bible of one year, unchangeable, of an other, everlasting. make the best of it, and take which you list, or all, if ye please. The sense of the Apostle is easy enough, 
How the priesthood of Christ is eternal above the priesthood of the law.  by the comparison which he there prosecuteth: that as Christ had many excellent prerogatives above the priests or priesthood of Aaron, so among many other this was one, that whereas the priesthood of Aaron passed from one to an other, from father to son, by reason of death, Christ never dying but ever living, never departeth from his priesthood, but retaineth it for ever. To make the reader better conceive this, which though it be many times read in your congregations, yet is perhaps never or seldom well understood of the minister himself, the priesthood of Aaron is briefly to be recalled to memory. In the book of Numbers, 
Numer. 20.  God thus speaketh unto Moses. Take Aaron and his son with him, and lead them into the mountain Hor. And when thou hast taken from Aaron his (priestly) vesture, thou shalt put it on Eleazarus, and Aaron shall die there. Moses' did as our lord commanded etc. And when he had spoiled Aaron of his garments, he put them on Eleazarus, and Aaron died there. In this short story, is noted the nature and state of the levitical priesthood passing from father to son, and ending in the first by death, in like sort as any other faculty of life, or body, civil or natural endeth. But in Christ it is not so, who ever living, keepeth ever his priesthood as well as his life, never departing with it to any other, as did Aaron to Eleazarus, he to Phinees, and so one to an other in course of succession. So that Christ hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sempiternal, ever lasting, unchangeable, or unremovable priesthood, far otherwise than Aaron and the Levitical priests had.  
This being the Apostles reason and sense and word, what followeth hereof, or what would M.W. infer? I see not what may be concluded, but either it is so true, that we will never deny it, or it is so foolish, that he should be ashamed to mention it. if he say Christ is a priest for ever: we affirm no less. that his priesthood passeth not from him: it is our belief. that the force and virtue thereof endureth forever: we live and die therein. and all the baptisms, reconciliations, sacrifice, sacraments, all grace, virtue, sanctification, which is in the church Catholic, dependeth of this faith, and floweth from the eternity of this one everliving priest and priesthood. 
Christ's priesthood is no more against the office of other priests, than his kingly power is against the office of temporal kings.  But will he infer hereof, that therefore there ought to be no other inferior priests, and that this derogateth from his priesthood? this lo, is so childish, that amongst mean learned divines, it deserveth rather laughter than answer. Christ is a priest for ever, therefore there are no priests: why, then let us argue, Christ is a true man for ever, therefore we are not, or he hath a soul for ever, therefore we have none, or he is a king for ever, therefore let us depose all princes, and remove princely authority. Christ is our doctor, master, and teacher for ever, 
Mat. 23. v. ●. 10. Heb. 1. v. 2. jac. 3. v. 1.  and so farewell all masters and doctors, & so the Exchequer shall save that, which the Q. Majesty bestoweth on the University readers, & finally, because Christ liveth for ever, therefore let us rid ourselves out of the way, lest we derogate from Christ. For as Christ in most excel lent sort hath the one, that is, priesthood so hath he all the rest: body, soul, kingly power, prophecy, to be a master, doctor, and teacher. all agree to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & that, eternally, unchangeably, and unremoveablie.  
But o miserable people, whose souls are committed to such teachers, & most unfortunate church, where such doctors possess the principal chairs, where the very learned men, who should be lights to the rest, are so blinded with heresy, that they see not so much, as either common knowledge of mean divinity, or the continual practice of civil policy, or their very Communion book thrusteth into their eyes and cares. for how is it possible that a learned man having any sense of divinity, should be moved with this new devise, hanging upon one Greeke or Latin word, which so many hundreds of learned father's Greek and Latin could never yet espy. 
See S. Chry. Occumen. Theophil. S. Amoros. S. Primasius or any other in Heb. ca 7.  but though they knew both this particular controversy, and generally all truth, by many degrees more fully, then possibly can any of these sectaries or secte-maisters, yet were they so far from any such collection, that evermore, in saying and writing, in teaching and confuting, in life and death, they practised the contrary.  
And what reasonable man casting his eyes upon the Q. majesty, should not by and by descry the vanity of this sophistication. 
The authority of princes communicated to inferior magistrates without injury of princes, showeth how the power of Christ is communicated to priests without injury of Christ.  for if she may confer upon some of her subjects, in every shire of her realm, authority, and government to rule, to imprison, to chastise, to correct, to release, to decide controversies, to arraygne in judgement, to condemn and execute even unto death, & all this, with out empayringe or diminishing her princely authority, nay to the much greater show & declaration thereof, for so much as her subjects doing these offices under her, & having all their power depending of her (she absolutely ruling, & depending of none) by these so many little rivers as it were, do more excellently set forth the largeness of the main springe: how much more easily may we conceive this of Christ, our universal and absolute king and priest, in the regiment of his Church, that he without empairinge of his supreme, everlasting, and incommutable priesthood, may communicate these sacred priestly functions with his ministerial officers, for the benefit of his subjects the Christian-catholikes dispersed through out the world: and so much the more, as in every holy action wrought in the Church, in every consecration, in every sanctification, in every reconciliation, in every baptism, in every sacrament and sacrifice, whatsoever is done to the benefit of man's soul, Christ our high priest hath therein a more true and effectual operation concurring with his minister, then hath any prince under the sun, in like case, in regiment of his own realm.  
And if this can not sink into their heads, how is it, 
The Parliament yieldeth to ministers a principal part of Christ's priesthood, uz. power to remit sins.  that they consider not their very Communion book, where the Parliament (from whence that book hath his authority) giveth power to the minister, in some case to remit sins, than which, nothing is more proper to Christ, 
The Communion book in the visitation of the sick.  nothing more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nothing more nearly united to his divine person. And yet thus it is appointed there. Here shall the sick person make a special confession, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter: after which confession the priest, (that is, the minister) shall absolve him after this sort. And so followeth a very form of Absolution, borrowed from the use of our Catholic Church. Our Lord jesus Christ who hath least power to his Church to absolve all sinners which truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences. And by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.  
Wherefore, if either reason, or sense, or experience, or humanity, or divinity, prevail with M. W. he can not upon Christ's sempiternal priesthood, make any probable conjecture against the priesthood of the Church, or say, it derogateth from Christ. Contrariwise, if he will stand, either to his own writing, or to the judgement of his felow-zuinglians, Martyr, Bale, and Calvin, or to the proofs and testification of the lutherans his brethren (for so he calleth) them) Illyricus, wigandus, etc. or will admit the uniform consent of the fathers in the primitive Church, or the verity of Christ's promise, he must needs acknowledge, not only that in S. Augustine's time, but even from the Apostles time, priests properly so called, were pastors & rulers of the church, and have had their origine from Christ. And therefore as before, so here I tell him again, that in calling them Baalites & Antichristians, he calleth Christ Baal, he calleth our Saviour Antichrist. And therefore, if I thought my counsel might prevail with such profane ministers, 
Rom. 9  given over (I fear) into a reprobate sense, and vessels of damnation, I would say, as S. Peter said to Simon Magus, Repent thee of this thy wickedness, 
Act. 8. v. 22.  and pray to God, if perhaps this cogitation of thy heart may be remitted thee. For in this blasphemous sentence, most certainly he hath trodden the son of God under foot, 
Heb. 10.29.  and esteemed the blood of the Testament polluted, wherein he is sanctified, and hath done contumely to the spirit of grace.   

CHAP. V Of Penance, and the value of good wokes touching justification and life eternal.  
NEXT in place followeth Penance, wherein M.W. keepeth his accustomed, speaking so doubtfully and ambiguously, that he seemeth not fully resolved, what to affirm: yet in fine, as commonly his manner is, he yieldeth sufficient matter to overthrow himself. M. Martin here noteth him of two faults. one, that he iniurieth the fathers: the other, that he cotrarieth himself. the injury done to the fathers is this, that he affirmeth S. 
pag. 7.  Cyprian and other fathers, to have depraved the doctrine of penance.  
Before he come to justify this accusation, he falleth into a common place, common to all sorts of protestants, taking to himself supreme judgement over the fathers, & complaining of the Catholics, that so it fareth with them, 
pa. 7.  that except those things may prevail which in the fathers are most corrupt or vicious, 
●itiosifiima.  they are not able to maintain their cause. Whereunto I answer, that so it fareth with the protestants, that except they may be sovereign judges of fathers, Counsels, Church, and all, they must hold their peace, and say nothing. for this is as stale a trick, 
Every heretics particular heresy is that word of god, whereby they judge all fathers.  and currant amongst any sect, as any thing hitherto spoken of: to protest much reverence to the fathers, when they are not against the word of God, that is, against their conceived heresies. marry them, boldly to stand with the word against them, and say they were all beetle-blynd and saw nothing. for when, and wherein the fathers hold with them, then, & in such matters, they were worse than mad, & altogether void of common sense, if they would thus inveigh against them. In the last question, press them with the fathers and the primitive Church, 
Note these errors of the ancient Fathers.  touching external priesthood, and the sacrifice: it was their error, saith Calvin, Illyricus, Zuinglius, and Bale. 
concerning the Sacrifice. see before pa. 60.61.69.70 etc.  Press the sacrilegious vowbreakers, with the consent of the primitive Church, for condemnation of their unlawful marriages, 
P. Martyr. de votis. p. 524.  I know (saith Peter Martyr) and declared no less to my auditors in Oxford, that Epiphanius with many others of the fathers, 
The unlawful marriages of priests & votaries.  erred in that they held it a fin to break the vow of virginity, and they do ill to number it amongst the Apostolical traditions. Charge the English Puritans with the consent of Antiquity, for observation of feasts & holidays in honour of Christ and his Saints. M. T. C. answereth. 
T.C. pa. 122. in D. Whitg. pa. 547.  Whereas M. D. Whiteg. citeth Augustine and Hierom, to prove that in the churches in their times, there were holidays kept besides the lords day, 
The honour of saints.  he might have also cited Ignatius, and Tertullian, and Cyprian, which are of greater anciency, and would have made more for the credit of his cause. 
What memory of Christ will they reteyn who labour to abolish the day of his resurrection.  for it is not to be denied, but this keeping of holidays (especially of Easter, and Pentecost) is very ancient, and that these holidays for the remembrance of Martyrs were used of long tyme. but these abuses were no ancienter than other were, grosser also than this, and therefore I appeal from these examples, to the scriptures. Charge the Trinitarie Protestants, 
The B. Trinity.  the Arians of Polonia, & servetus, with the Council of Nice, and Crede of Athanasius: the Council of Nice (say they) was a congregation of Sophisters, 
Beza in episto. theolog. epist, 81. Cal. con. Sernetum pa. 82 ●91.  and the Crede of Athanasius may more justly be called the Crede of Sathanasius. the first Nicene fathers with Athanasius, invented this tripartite God. they were all blind Sophisters, Ministers of the Beast, slaves of Antichrist, and bewitched with his enchantments. (for that the Pope is Antichrist, in that, as in very many other points they are just of M.W. faith) In like sort dealeth the Lutheran Ubiquitary, 
The person of Christ.  against whose monstrous heresy, utterly destroying the mystery of Christ Incarnation, when Bullinger urged the consent of all the ancient fathers, Brentius presently gave this general answer. The fathers altogether (in this question) are of no weight or authority. 
Bulling. in fundam. fir. count Brenti. part 2. ca 7.  They were taught, not in the school of the holy Ghost, but in the school of Aristotle. they were deceived and blinded by Aristotle & humane reason. of celestial matters, they have childish imaginations, and gross dreams, & earthly fancies, and carnal conceits. Thus answered Brentius, and thus (saith Bullinger of him,) invenit compendium ad omnia veterum testimonia respondendi. A short compendious way hath he found, to solve all places of the fathers, & thus saith every heretic touching every controversy wherein the fathers stand against him. & the self same way hath M.W. taken. But because this way is either to large, 
Mat. 7. v. 13.  & therefore to dangerous, as lying wide open for every kind of heretic that hath been, is, or can be: or to strait, if M. W. will make it private to himself, and deny it to all others, let him therefore without this prejudicate condemnation, give reason why he offereth the father's this intolerable injury. for so it must be called until he prove the contrary. his reasons are these.  

Pag. 7.  Penance consisteth not in certain external penalties, or in a certain exquisite severity of discipline, which the Apostle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
l. 2. v. 23.  wherebie the body is chastised with certain voluntary punishments, but in internal dolour conceived through remembranco of out sins, and in amendment of life. and the fathers when they supposed, that by such grievous penalties, their sins should be acquitted and God pleased, they erred grievously, and somewhat diminished the force of Christ's death and blood, by which only, our sins are expiated. for pardon of sins is to be expected of nothing but of the blood of Christ. In which words three things I note, his description of penance, his reason proving the same, and the sequel or absurdity, which he inserreth thereof, wherein stood the ancient father's error. 
His description of penance.  His description of penance is partly affirmative, as that he requireth internal grief of heart and correction of life: partly is negative, as that he removeth from it all external chastisement or discipline. In the first we agree with him. in the second, we say he erreth, and understandeth not the scriptures. As without the first, 
External discipline and works of penance commended both in the old and new Testament. Mat. 11. v. 20.  the second is worth nothing, so join them both together, they greatly please God, & are highly commended in the Gospel. our Saviour when he denounced vae, to Corozain and Bethsaida saying, if the miracles wrought in thee, had been done in tire and Sidon, they had not only done penance long ago, but they had done it in beare-cloth & ashes, he showeth this external affliction to be very commendable, and to make the penance more available, and withal pointeth the jews to their Prophets, who willed them with such external humiliation to prostrate themselves before God, thereby the sooner to procure his mercy. 
joel. 2.  Convert ye to me (saith the Prophet joel) with all your heart, in fasting, and mourning, and lamentation, and rent your hearts and not your garments, saith our Lord omnipotent. In the later part of which sentence, as he disproveth external signs, without internal remorse, as being hypocritical & rejected of God by the Prophet isaiah, 
Esa. 1.  so in the first part coupling both toghether, he showeth, what is perfect penance, 
Mat. 6. v. 2.5.16.  as likewise doth our Saviour in S. Matthew, where he condemneth that Pharisaical error. but that wickedness being removed, the things in themselves he approveth, & calleth them the justice of Christians, 
Ibi. v. 1.4.6.18.  who for the same have their reward with God. and that M. W. reply not, this to have been a jewish ceremony, and therefore abrogated, he may learn, if he know not, or he may remember, if he have forgotten, that this is a duty moral, and therefore practised not only in the law but also out of the law, and before the law, and after the law, both in the time of nature and grace.  
Touching the law of nature, before the law of Moses, I refer him to S. 
Hiero. count jovin. lib. 2.  Jerome in his book against jovinian, partly because those examples are by him well set forth and urged against jovinian, partly because M.W. may withal find, that his opinion is not new, but was of old defended by that fleshly heretic.  
This moral duty grounded on the law of nature, God confirmed and established by his written law, 
Num. 30. v. 13.14. 2. Reg. 12. v. 16.  as we read in the book of Numbers. Thus, under the law the prophet David did penance. Thus, out of the law, 
jonae 2.  the Ninivites did penance, and God approved their doing. Thus, that wicked King Achab did penance, 
3. Reg. 22. v. 27.28.  & the scripture alloweth him therein. Thus in the time of grace S. Paul chastised himself, 
1. Co. 9 v. 27. 2. Cor. 2.6.  and enjoined penance to others. The Apostles usually enjoined fasts, before they ordered priests, as appeareth in the Acts. 
Act. 13. v. 2.3. & ca 14. v. 22.  This kind of fast and penance used Timothe, when, though otherwise weak & feeble, he altogether abstained from wine, so far forth, that the Apostle S. Paul thought it needful to appoint & require him to use a little wine, 
1. Tim. 5. v. 23.  because of his weak stomach and many infirmities. touching which place, were it not that M.W. hath already condemned the fathers as erring in this point, I could wish him, quietly and consideratlie to read S. Chrisostomes' notable homely, tom. 5. Homelia 1. add popul. Antioch: Finally in one word, that true Christians should thus do, that is, use prescript kind of fasting and discipline in the new testament, our Saviour evidently foretelleth, when he saith in excuse of his Apostles, because they fasted not, as did S. Ihons' disciples, Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, 
Mat. 9 v. 15.  as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast. which fast, must necessarily be understood of a fast differing from that which they observed with Christ. And so, neither can be understood of the fast from sin, for so Christ would not allow them to break their fast, neither of fast, as fast signifieth temperance in diet, for Christ never allowed them excess or intemperance, and briefly can signify no other fast, but such as the Church after Christ's departure unto these days, hath and yet doth observe.  

Colo. 2.23.  Against all this, M. W. allegeth two Greek words of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is (according to his sense) severity of discipline in punishing the body. the English Testament turneth it, sparing the body. whereunto the Apostle opposeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Bible 1577.  which in the same place is translated satisfying of the flesh. And what meaneth M.W. by this allegation? thinketh he that the Apostle discommendeth the first, and exhorteth men to the second? is he so very an Epicure, that he can but once imagine of S. Paul that he should wish men to pamper up their body, and employ themselves to satisfy the flesh? if he mean so, let him speak plainly, that men may see to what filthiness this new Gospel tendeth. If otherwise, why allegeth he those words in this place, and against fasting and penance? why at all allegeth he the bare words without a commentary? touching the sense, let the reader peruse the Annotation upon the same, in the Catholic English Testament, & he shall quickly see, what pith there is in M. W. greek citations, with which, I know not to what purpose he would seem to illuminate his writing. Very well and succinctly, 
Theodor. in hunc locum  Theodorete giveth the sense of that place otherwise obscure and hard. Oportet sua sponte abstinere, non tanquam ab abominandis, sed tanquam a suavissimis. The Apostle meant not to withdraw men from abstinence. they must abstain from meats and drinks, not as from things impure and abominable, for that is judaical, but as from things pleasant and delectable to the flesh, and this is Christian.  
His reason why he disliketh the former works of penance, 
The protestants common argument against works of penance.  is because they are injurious to Christ's passion and death, the only price and satisfaction for sins. This argument is all one with the last, of priesthood, and therefore in part is satisfied already. For a surplusage I add, that these and the like reasons, proceed rather of ignorance than ought else. & therefore if he would first learn, what is the meaning of the Catholic Church, and all Christians, he would never so idly trouble the world with such stuff, nor so wickedly control the learned ancient Bishops, and withal he might ease himself of some labour. Very divinely saith the holy Council. 
Conci. Trid. sess. 14. ca 8.  This satisfaction which we undertake for our sins, is not ours so, that it is not by Christ jesus. for we 
a 2. Cor. 3.  that of ourselves, as of ourselves, can do nothing, 
b philip. 4.  by his cooperation which strengtheneth us, can do all things. 
c 2. Cor. 2.  so man hath not whereof to glory, but 
d 2. Cor. 10. Gal. 6. Act. 17.  all his gloriation is in Christ, in whom we live, deserve and satisfy, 
e Mat. 3. & 4. Luc. 3.10.17.  doing fruits worthy of penance, which of Christ have force, by him are offered to the father, and by him are accepted of the father. Thus the Council▪ whose doctrine well understood, maketh far more for the honour of the Cross and blood of Christ, then doth our adversaries, without comparison.  
And surely, either our luck is evil in these our days, whose hap is to fall amongst such perverse adversaries, that whatsoever we can do, one way or other will gnaw at it, or else our adversaries lot is strange and marvelous, amongst whom, scant any one can frame an argument against us, but presently he hath a brother of his own, that is ready to pull him by the sleeve, and call him fool for his labour. M.W. reproveth the fathers, and in them, all catholics, for that by our works we pull from Christ, and diminish the virtue of his blood. contrarywise, 
jew. defence of the Apology, part. 4 ca 19.20. ¶ 1  that most grave and learned father john Brentius, (so M. jewel calleth him,) inveigheth against us, for that by our works we give to much to Christ, and magnify more than we ought, the virtue of his Cross. and in truth, if there were any fault in the doctrine of the Church, Brentius reason carrieth far more probability than M.W. Thus he reasoneth. jactat Sotus se Christo nihil detrahere, sed potius glorificare. 
Brentius in Apol. confess. Wirtem. ca de contriti.  sed contra verum est etc. Sotus braggeth, that he taketh nothing from Christ, but rather glorifieth him. but the contrary is true, that Christ by him and his fellows, is injuried with great contumely. 
Insigni contumelia afficitur.  For to attribute unto Christ, that not only he by his death hath deserved the expiation of our sins, 
The Catholics by the judgement of Brentius, honour Christ to much.  but also hath imparted that merit unto our good works, this is to attribute much more to Christ, than either he acknowledgeth, or the thing itself can suffer. and it is comtumelie, not only to detract from the glory due to any thing, but also to ascribe to much praise and glory to it. and the la of God manifestly signifieth, that in service of God it is a sin to decline, not only to much towards the left hand, but also to much towards the right. Thus he. howbeit Andrea's Fricius the King of Poles Secretary, a great learned and zealous Zwinglian, disprovinge both the one and the other, both M.W. the Zwinglian, and Brentius the Lutheran, giveth us testimony, that in this part our doctrine is sincere, and holdeth the just and golden mediocrity, and bendeth to much neither to the one hand, nor yet to the other. 
Andr. Fri. de eccles. lib. 4 ca 12.  for thus he writeth. Although Christ take not away all infirmity from such as be regenerate, yet renewing them by his spirit, and planting in them virtues of new life and imparting to them merit and his justice, most truly and with singular fruit he is said to live in them. 
Non obscuratur sed illustratur, non evacuatur  anh by this means the glory of Christ is not obscured, but clarified, the Cross of Christ is not evacuated, but made more copious, the price of the bloodshed for us, is not diminished but increased, 
sed f●cunda redditut, non minuitur sed augetur.  whereas that which by his own nature is not so great, by his goodness is accounted for such. so far he, truly and according to gods word. and therefore by your warrant I may not think otherwise, if a thousand Caluins, and thousands of any other protestants should strive to persuade me the contrary. much less can I be moved with such seely and pitiful sophisms as you shuffle together. for thus you go on. Atque hic insultas, etc. 
Pag. 8.  And here you triumph. S. Paul saith, our suffering with Christ is necessary to salvation, M.W. saith it is a derogation to Christ's suffering. who (M. Martin) may not wonder at your egregious subtlety? but I answer. 
Ro. 6.23.  heavenly life and glory, is the gift of God: ergo it is not gotten by our travails. and the Apostle calleth us heirs of God, & coheirs of Christ: ergo the kingdom cometh to us freely by inheritance and adoption in Christ. hereof it followeth, that our sufferings are not the efficient causes of salvation and glory, as you (M. Martin) foolishly reason, yet are they necessarily to be undertaken of us, except we will be excluded from grace and glory etc. if you could have distinguished the means, from the causes efficient, 
media.  you would never have reasoned thus. Certainly M. W. if some adversary would have made a book in mockery of your divinity, I think he could not possibly have more disgraced you, than you shame yourself. you heap up absurdities together, so gross and so thick one in the neck of an other, that whereas I should by appointment have gone through with this pamphlet in a few hours, I ween I shall not riddle my hands of it in many days.  
When Stancarus the arch-heretic of Polonia, 
Stancarus judgement of Calvin & other chief protestante-wryters.  began to break from Caluine in the article of the blessed Trinity, and Caluine either through malice or ignorance, fell into greater wickedness in that mystery than he, and amongst other railings and scornful reproaches objected to him his study in Peter Lombard the Master of the sentences, Stancarus after much spoken in the commendation of that writer, coming at length to Calvin, and the great Rabbins of your new Church, God (saith he) hath delivered you up into a reprobate sense, 
Stanc. in libro de Mediatore contra ●ulling. P. Mart. Calvin. & Genevenses, k. 5.  so as you say, teach, write and persuade others, such things as are naughty, wicked, and heretical. for I tell you, one Peter Lombard is more worth, than a hundred Luther's, them two hundred Melancthons', than three hundred bullinger's, than four hundred Peter Martyrs, than five hundred Caluins. 
qui omnes 〈◊〉 in mortario contunderentur non exprime retur una un cia verae the ologiae, presertim etc.  who all if they were pounded together in a mortar, there would not be beaten out of them one ounce of true divinity, especially in the articles of the Trinity, the incarnation, the Mediator, and the Sacraments. I will not apply this odious comparison, against the English writers of our tyme. but this I protest in my conscience touching you, that I suppose never man of any account, set pen to paper to publish a thing in print to the view of the world, who uttered such notorious ignorance, as every where appeareth in this your discourse: whether the fault be in me, that I have not hitherto so narrowly examined others, as I have now cause to examine you, or whether the thing in truth be so as I imagine, or whether you in your other writings utter more substantial matter, & in this through much haste have overshot yourself, as canis festinans caecos parit catulos, (& I see, 
pa, 1.  that much you covet to be counted a quick dispatcher of books) or whatsoever else may be the reason. for scarce any sentence have you given forth, which carrieth not with it some mark to the shame of the maker.  
In this paragraph you commit as many errors as lightly you may. For first, 
M.W. manifold oversights.  you understand not M. Martin. Secondarily, you understand not S. Paul alleged by him. thirdly, you understand not S. Paul alleged by yourself. fourthly, you understand not the state of the question of which you talk. And last of all, you understand not yourself, & the doctrine of your fellows.  
You understand not M. Martin, when you make him to conclude, that good works be the causes efficient of salvation, because they be necessary to salvation. M. Martin maketh no such argument, neither hath he in that place any cause to talk thereof. and so that distinction of causae efficientes & media, is pulled in by you, to make a show when it needeth not. 
Discor. pag. 205.206.  M. Martin's argument is this plainly. you say, good works are injurious to Christ's passion. he proveth they are not, because the scripture requireth them, and that, as necessary to salvation. And how can you be so blind, as not to see this argument. good works are necessary to salvation, therefore they derogate nothing from Christ's passion. for clear it is, if they derogate from Christ's passion, they set us forwards to damnation, & help us nothing towards salvation.  
You understand not Saint Paul alleged by M. Martin, when you make sport with the argument drawn from the Apostles words, and would seem to shake it of so lightly. for though M. Martin, not talking of that question, 
Life eternal the effect of good works & good works the efficient cause of eternal life. Rom, 8, v, 17  which you for ostentation of a little skill now hale in, urged not the place so far as to prove works the causes efficient of salvation, yet the place proveth it invincibly. for when S. Paul saith, we are coheirs with Christ, yet conditionally, that is, if we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified with him, he showeth the excellent dignity, which in Christ we are called unto being graffed into that vine, 
joan. 15. v. 5: Rom, 6, 2. 1 Cor. 12.27 2 Pet. 1. v. 4. joan. 17. v. 11.  and made members of his body, and partakers of the divine nature. he doth show and deduce this, that as Christ our head suffered first, and those his sufferings were not only media, means, but also causes efficient of his glorification in some respect, so from him, the like virtue is derived unto us his members. for as it behoved Christ to suffer, and so to enter into his glory, 
Luc. 24. v. 26  as he humbled himself to the death of the cross, propter quod, 
Philip. 2 v. 9  for which cause God exalted him, 
Act. 14. v. 21.  so his members by tribulations, follow where he is gone before, and not by faith only, but also by patient suffering, 
Heb. 6. v. 12.  inherit the promises. and such sufferings & works of charity, are semen and fundamentum, 
2. Cor. 9 v. 6. 1. Timot. 6. v. 19  the very foundation and seed growing to life everlasting, as the Apostle calleth them. And in this comparison, 
Heb. 12. a.  consists the dignity of our Christianity, as in S. Paul every where appeareth. for whom he hath foreknowen, 
Rom. 8.29.  he hath also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his son, that he might be the first borne in many brethren. And albeit the sufferings of this life weighed in themselves, are short and transitory, 
Rom. 8.18.  and therefore can not be condign to the glory to come which shall be revealed in us, yet being weighed as rising and wrought in us by the spirit of God, sanctified in the blood of our Saviour, 
2. Cor. 4.17.  and applied to his honour, so this our tribulation which presently is momentany and light, worketh above measure exceedingly, an eternal weight of glory in us. And S. Paul elsewhere most divinely conjoineth both these in one, so as a man can not deny this effect to Christian men's works, but first he must deny the same to the works of Christ. 
Heb. 2. v. 9  we see jesus (saith the Apostle) because of the passion of death, crowned with glory and honour, that through the grace of God, he might taste death for all. for it became him, for whom all things, and by whom all things, that had brought many children into glory, to consummate the author of their salvation, by his passion. for be that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified, all of one. for the which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren. In this divine discourse, S. Paul compriseth the manner of Christ's glorification, and of Christians: of him as the head, of us as the members, of him as the root, first begotten brother, principal, anointed with oil of exultation prae participibus, above his fellows: us as branches, 
Heb. 1. v. 9  
joan. 1. v. 16  second brethren, inferior, receiving of his fullness. yet so, that we always continue in the same race and course, according to our measure and proportion, and so are made conforms, conformable to our head, 
Rom. 8.29.  who is the first borne amongst many brethren. The sum of all is this, that as in the place cited by M. Martin, glorification in Christ, showeth his works to have been the causes efficient thereof, and in Christ, passion and glorification are so compared together, as the cause and the effect, and one inferreth the other: so in us Christians his members, compassion in the Apostles sense, and conglorification, proveth like cause and effect, and one is concluded of the other. and this shall appear more plainly, by that which ensueth.  
You understand not S. Paul alleged by yourself, when of his words Donum Dei vita aeterna, 
Rom. 6.23.  eternal life is the gift of God, 
Grace taketh away the merit of work, no more than merit of work taketh away necessity & cooperation of grace.  you conclude: ergo it is not gotten by our travails. for the Apostle meant nothing less than any such illation, which in so many places he refelleth. And if these two, grace and works, be so opposite in Christians, that one must destroy the other, then consider I pray you the force of these arguments. In fear and trembling work your salvation, saith S. 
Phil. 2.12.  Paul. ergo our salvation is of works, and therefore not of grace. our afflictions and calamities sustained patiently work our glory. 
1. Cor. 4.17.  ergo it is not of grace. he that soweth sparingly, 
2. Cor. 9 v. 6.  sparingly also shall reap. and he that soweth in blessings, of blessings also shall reap. that is, he that giveth alms abundantly, shall have in heaven abundant reward. and he that giveth less, shall have his reward proportionable. ergo heaven is not of grace. 
Mat. 25. d.  Come ye blessed (saith our saviour) receive my Kingdom. why so? for what cause? for because you have done the works of charity, you have fed the hungry, harboured the stranger, visited the sick, succoured the diseased &c. ergo heaven is not of grace. he that is not a hearer, but a doer of the la, 
jac. 1.29.  shall be blessed, in, or for his work. ergo not by God's grace and mercy: and so forth, infinite such arguments might be made after the pattern of M. Whit. and prove as well. and yet notwithstanding, how many so ever they be, be they a carte-loade, they are all wicked, and not worth a straw, and no more is his. And the Apostle intended nothing else in so saying, but to commend the grace of Christ, which is the true cause of merit or good works, and not to deny the value of good works, as he might have learned of S. Austin noted upon that place in the new testament, were it not that he disdaineth him, 
See after in the last chapter towards the end.  and plainly accounteth him a superstitious and Sorbonical papist, for giving that sense and interpretation.  
And upon these his good arguments, fourthly I say M. Whit. understandeth not the state of the question where of he writeth. for if he had, he would never (talking of Christians regenerate by the spirit of God) have imagined a contrariety, between grace and works, mercy and justice, inheritance and purchase: which, although perhaps it is not so easily conceived, in buying a piece of land, yet is it not hard to be conceived, in buying or procuring heaven: no harder, than it is to believe, that we shall enjoy heaven, by God's infinite grace and mercy, & yet for all that, by right and justice, because Christ our saviour hath truly and fully paid for it. and S. Paul, and S. Austin, of old have many times notified unto us, the reconciliation of these two, which to ignorant men seem so opposite.  
That heaven is of grace, S. Paul cited by M. 
Eternal life is both of grace & works, mercy & justice.  W. proveth. that it is of works, any one of those places showeth, which last of all I noted, and in the same epistle whence M. W. taketh his argument, the same S. Paul most evidently declareth, where he saith. In the just judgement, 
Rom. 2.  God will render to every man according to his works. to them truly that according to patience in good works seek glory, honour and incorruption, life eternal: but to them that are of contention, and that obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the jew first, and of the Gentil. but glory, honour and peace to every one that worketh good, to the jew first, & to the Gentil. for there is no acception of persons with God. by which words also, he clearly refuteth that distinction of media and causes efficient, wherein M. whit. seemeth well to please himself, and twiteth M. Martin with ignorance thereof. for when he layeth in indifferent balance good works and evil, and so maketh one the cause of heaven, as the other is the cause of hell, to which effect the place is flat and evident, M. W. must be content to give over that invention, how dearly soever he esteem it: except he will say, that sins are the means, 
media  but not the cause efficient of damnation.  
That heaven cometh of mercy, S. 
Eph. 1. et 2.  Paul showeth at large in the first and second chapter to the Ephesians. that it cometh of justice, the same S. 
2. Tim. 4.8.  Paul showeth, when he saith. There is laid up for me a crown of justice, which our lord will render to me in that day, a just judge: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming. when he saith, 
Rom. 2. v. 5.  in just judgement God will render to every man according to his works. and justice requireth, that as God should punish the wicked, 
2, Thessal. 1. v. 6.7. Heb. 6. v. 10.  so he should reward the good, & it were injustice to do otherwise, as he saith to the hebrews.  
That heaven cometh by adoption and of inheritance, M.W. saith it, and though he prove it not, we believe it, because it is true. but that it is not gotten by works and travails, this we deny, because it is false, and S. Paul refuteth, when he compareth the crown of heaven, 
1. Cor. 9.24. bravium.  to a price or garland, which is proposed to wrestlers, runners, or such like, thereby declaring thus much, that as the first is gotten by running and labouring, so is the second, by pain and well working. and the same, our Saviour signified, 
Mat. 11. v. 12  when he said. The kingdom of God suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away. 
Mat. 5.12. Ibid. ca 6.1. ca 10.41. 1. Cor. 3.8. Apo 11.18 Ibid. 22.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The scriptures teach that heaven is the repay or reward for good works, as hell is for evil.  The same is proved by that ordinary phrase, wherein heaven is called merces operum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hire, payment, wages, stipend or price of works. The same is proved by S. Paul, whereas though the word properly sound in the better part, yet for truth of doctrine, he useth it indifferently, as well for the payment of eternal damnation, which sinners receive for their iniquities in hell, as the contrary payment of eternal salvation, which good men receive for their holiness in heaven. So he saith in the epistle to the hebrews: 
Heb. 2. v. 3.  that all prevarication and disobedience hath received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, just retribution and payment, as afterward in the same epistle, that Abraham, Isaac, jacob, and Moses, for Christ's love sustained all affliction, hoping for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ibid. c. 11.26  just retribution or payment. and in the same chapter, he putteth the belief of this point, as a first principle in Christian religion. for so he speaketh: 
Heb. 11. v. 6.  He that cometh to God, must believe that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that will repay men for their good works. which point sith you have not yet learned, it followeth that you are very green, and a mere novice in Christian religion.  
And S. Austin (whose judgement agreeing with S. Paul, I trust you will esteem as well, as before you did Luther's) in sundry places expounding these words of S. Paul, 2. Timoth. 4. 
2. Tim. 4.7.  My resolution is at hand, I have fought a good fight, I have consummate my course, I have kept the faith. concerning the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which our lord will render unto me in that day, a just judge, never maketh doubt of this verity. He will render (saith S. Austin) being a just judge. 
Aug. inter hom. 50. ho. 24.  for he can not deny the reward when he seethe the work. I have fought a good fight, that is a work: I have consummate my course, that is a work: I have kept the faith, that is a work: there remaineth to me a crown of justice, this is the reward. but in the reward, thou dost nothing, in the work thou art a doer, but not alone. the crown cometh to thee from him, the work from thyself, but not without his help. 
Aug. in ps. 100  And again: Why will God render to me a crown of justice? because he is a just judge. Why a just judge? because I have fought a good fight, I have consummate my course, I have kept the faith. therefore being just, he can not but crown these things. By these virtues (saith the same doctor) imparted to us from God, 
Idem epist. 52. in fine.  a good life is led in this world, and life eternal the reward thereof, is repaid in the next. for here these virtues are in act, there in effect, here in work, there in reward, here in office, there in end. And he doubteth not to call them the very price, 
Idem in ps. 49. circa medium. et ad Dulc. qu. 4.  whereby (as I may say) we buy heaven, with which word you are so much offended.  
And that this justice nothing diminisheth gods mercy, or this purchase our adoption, as you very simply imagine, the same doctor in very many places teacheth. To note one for all, explicating the place of Timothee before touched. 
Aug. in psal. 100  God will render to me (saith he) a crown at that day, a just judge. He said not, he will give, but he will render. when he gave, he was merciful, when he shall render, he will be a judge. because mercy and judgement shall I sing to thee o Lord. but forgiving our offences, he made himself a debtor of a crown. there I obtained mercy. our lord therefore is merciful first, but afterwards he will render a crown of justice. Is not a crown (saith he elsewhere, 
Aug. de gra. et lib. arbit. ca 6. 9·8.  disputing this matter more at large) rendered as due to good works? yet because God worketh those good works in us, therefore he crowneth us in mercy etc. This may serve to inform you a little in the state of this question. and for your further satisfaction, I refer you to the Catholic new Testament in English, especially those places, whence you commonly fetch your arguments against this necessary part of Christian life and faith.  
Finally, I say you understand not yourself and your own doctrine, when you writ, that such works, though they be not causes efficient of salvation, 
necessario subeundae  yet are they necessarily to be done, except we will be excluded from grace and glory. For how standeth this with your doctrine of only faith? 
By making works necessary to salvation. M.W. overthroweth the Protest. doctrine of only faith.  how will that alone serve the turn, if now of necessity good works must come to help forth the matter? Think you, that impertinent distinction of causa efficiens, & medium can serve you, the whole course of your doctrine, whole books and commentaries of your masters & brethren, being against you? some there are (saith Flacius Illyricus) who drousely weighing the matter, 

Illyr. praefa. ad Rom. pa. 636.  
Quidam somnolentius rem expendentes.   think this to be the controversy properly between us & the papists, whether good works justify, or be the merit & cause efficient of justice & life, and not whether they be in any respect, necessary to salvation. which in deed is, (or was, when you first began) the very point of the controversy. which he therefore defendeth, vz, that they are in no respect necessary, by 26. most firm and strong demonstrations, as he calleth them, and reckoneth this your doctrine for a papistical error, and calleth you a new papist for putting the question as you do. 
Ibidem. pa. 634.635.  These are his words. Hitherto touching the papists corruption of this doctrine. now I come to the doctrine of the new papists, which is as pernicious as the old. 
Neopapistae  they say, that the Apostle meant to exclude good works from justification, non simpliciter & ratione debiti, not simply and as due, but only as meritorious & causes efficient. whereupon these doctors or rather seducers, do divers ways elude that proposition of S. Paul: we are justified by faith, gratis, without works, each one according to his own head, and as his private spirit suggesteth to him: and most of them covet diligently to mingle works, as a certain harmful leaven with justification & the lamb of God. And there he reckoneth twelve such corruptions, the last where of is yours, the very self same which here you defend. against which he setteth down the protestants faith thus. But the true sense of Paul's words is, that without all merit, condition, 
Ibid.  or necessity of our works, by only faith in Christ, we are justified before Christ & saved, so as our salvation doth in no sort depend of our works, neither be they any way necessary to salvation, etc. Scripture, Luther, 
M. Whitak. doctrine concerning necessity of good works condemned as papistical by the Protestant divines.  and all doctors of sound judgement think thus, of which doctrine, these be most firm demonstrations, etc. and in fine he saith, Iste ipse error, est omnino papistica corruptela articuli iustificationis. This very error is altogether a papistical corruption of the article of justification.  
And if you can recall to memory, the common arguments gathered to your hand by every heretic, that hath written upon the epistle to the Romans, namely the fourth chapter, you shall soon perceive, 
Arguments of the protestāns, proving good works to be necessary to salvation in no respect.  that your opinion and their commentaries can never match together. out of the main heap, I will note one or two, such as are most common to every preacher, and found in every book. whereby you shall see, how by this assertion, you overthrow your whole doctrine. 
Illyr. ubi supra.  S. Paul excludeth all our boasting from justice and salvation, and that in Abraham a man most holy. ergo works are by no means, so much as causa sine qua non, of salvation. otherwise, we should have some occasion of boasting. 
gloriatio  Again, Paul himself separateth his works and justices so far from his salvation, that he accounteth them for trash and hindrances of salvation. If such an Apostle, who for Christ and the Gospel laboured more than all the rest, be constrained to cast away his innumerable most excellent works, as trash and hindrances to salvation, how madly do we say, that our works are necessary. Again, all our justices (saith isaiah ca 64.) are as foul stained clothes. & how can a thing so filthy and disallowed of God, do any thing, or be necessary to justice before God. Out of which, M.W. may of two conclusions, choose one which shall like him best, either that his principal doctors interpret S. Paul perversely and wickedly, when in S. 
Ro. 4. et 10. Philip. 3.  Paul's epistles they interpret the works of the la our justice, legal justice, I esteemed my works dung & dirt that I might obtain the justice of Christ, when I say they still expound these places of the works of Christian men, done by the grace and spirit of God: or else that his assertion is against all sense and reason, to make that necessary to salvation, which the Prophets & Apostles do so abase, so condemn, & make so filthy in the sight of God. & of these two which he will choose, I know not: but because I think he will rather condemn them, then deny himself (for so long as he may be his own judge, the word of God shall be clear on his side) I finally oppose against him, as in this self same question the zealous Lutherans opposed against the cold Melanchthonistes, in the Council of Altemburg, 

Col. Altem. collat. 4. fo. 75.76.  
They note one special print, because they suppose other prints to be corrupt.   after manifold arguments brought for only faith against any necessity of works. After all this (say they) we conclude with that worthy saying of Luther in his first tome printed at Wittenberg. if works be necessary to salvation, than salvation can not be had without works, and then we are not saved by only faith. And thus you see how well you have disproved M. Martin's saying, and approved your own, so well, that by verdict of your great writers, in fine you have marred the top and crown of your Kingdom, your solifidian justification, and by them for your pains are judged to be a Papist, which I wish were true for your own sake.   

CHAP. VI How unreasonably M. W. behaveth himself, in reproving and approving the ancient fathers, for their doctrine touching good works.  
NOw come I to the third part, that is, your accusation of the fathers, wherein also M. Martin noteth you of contradiction to yourself. for with what reason could you call them most holy, sanctissimos, when in the self same place you defaced them as most injurious to the blood & passion or Christ. you answer, 
Pag. 7. a little.  smoothing so much as you may the matter, and say, that they erred a little, (and yet within five lines before, you say, 
grievously  they erred grievously and diminished not a little the force of Christ's death & passion) and there error proceeded rather of lack of wit, then of malice. and though we grant that herein they erred a little, yet in respect of yours, their errors seem either light, or none at all. Here of you conclude that well you might call them most holy, 
pag. 9  although they erred once, or were not so wise as they might have been. This is that, which in the beginning I told you, that you speak doubtfully, and stammer, & falter in your tale, & know not well what to say. for to let pass that in one page you make it a grievous error, 
pag. 7.  and in the next, either none at all, 
pag. 8. & 9  or a very light one, compare your cruel and bloody words, whereof riseth M. Martin's reproof, with this second modification, & then let every man judge, what a miserable defender you are. you say there, 
Discou. pag. 205.  that the father's thought by their external works of penance, to pay the pains due for sins, and to satisfy God's justice, and to procure to themselves assured impunity, remission, & justice. that thereby they derogated, 
not a little  not a little from Christ's death, attributed to much to their own inventions, and finally depraved repentance. Here you say, it was a little error, a small oversight, they slipped a little, 
a little  and that they were not withstanding, most holymen. You a Christian M.W. & dare thus to write? you a refuter of errors, & make this a light one? had you any part either of the spirit of S. Paul, S. Cyprian, S. Austin, or such Saints of the Catholic Church, or some zeal and sense of your own Gospel and religion, how could this ever have slipped out of your pen? to call them most holy, who by your doctrine, were as far from all true holiness, as ever was Scribe or Pharisee. to call them most holy, who had not in them the first step or degree where holiness beginneth. for, whereas to holiness, first of all and principally is required faith in the death and passion of Christ, then, zeal and fervour in good works, to call a man holy without the first, is to commend for strength and valour, a man that hath never a sound joint, or to praise for eloquence such a one, whose tongue is cut out of his head.  

No good works, no martyrdom profiteth any man to salvation, out of the Cath. church.  In the number of Christians, & professors of Christianity, there have been from the beginning many, that have lived very hard & severe lives, that have bestowed their goods among the poor, that after many labours, and travails, & rare works of extraordinary zeal, have at length suffered death for the testimony of Christ. And this oftentimes chanced in the primitive Church, within the time of the first persecutions before Constantinus Magnus. 
Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 15. Niceph. li. 4. cap. 23.  yet if such men lived and died schismatics, that is not believing rightly in the church, did ever any true Christian hold them for good & holy? If I spoke with the tongue of men and angels, saith the Apostle, 
1. Cor. 13.  and knew all mysteries, and could move mountains, if I bestowed all my goods upon the poor, and my body to the fire, for the testimony of Christ, yet wanting the charity of my brethren, 
1 joan. 3. & 4  being without ecclesiastical unity, it profiteth me nothing. whereupon S. Cyprian: 
Cyprian. de unit. Eccles.  They cannot devil with God, that be not in unity with the Church. 
Examine by this certain & sure rule the martyrdoms & martyrologes of Lutherans Zwinglians anabaptists &c. set forth by M. Fox, Crispin Hamstedius and others. Aug. epi. 252  though they burn amidst the flames & being delivered to the fire or cast to wild beasts, so yield their lives, yet that shall not be to them a crown of faith, but a punishment of infidelity. such a one may be slain, he can not be crowned. he professeth himself such a Christian, as the devil many times pretendeth himself to be Christ. For (as S. Austin saith) whosoever is separated from this Catholic Church, though he think himself to live very commendably, yet by reason of this only offence, that he is divided from the unity of Christ, (in his Catholic Church) he shall not have life (eternal) but the wrath of God remaineth upon him.  
And is all this true of men, Christians by profession, believing rightly in every other article of faith, & only erring in a secondary point, against the visible church, and is it not much more true, when the error runneth so grossly against the first, and chief, and capital article of Christianity, and that proper and peculiar part, whence Christianity hath his name, the death and passion of our saviour, the very heart, life, and soul of our religion? can a fault against the body, so pollute and contaminate a man, that he becometh with all his supposed holiness, an infidel, wicked, profane, an enemy of God, and a damnable creature: and can such sacrilege against the head be so light and contemptible, that the offender remaineth notwithstanding, faithful, a good Christian, and most holy? 
The fowl grossness of that error, with which M.W. chargeth the ancient fathers.  S. Paul in the beginning, when the law of Moses was not yet quite abolished, nor the gospel so universally and clearly published, said of the Galatians, who would have joined the law with the gospel: O ye senseless Galatians, 
Galat. 3.  who hath bewitched you not to obey the truth? 
Ibi. ca 5. v. 2.  Behold I Paul tell you that if you be circumcided, Christ shall profit you nothing, and though an Angel of heaven teach you so, that is, 
Gal. 1. v. 8.  preach you works, whereby you should be withdrawn from Christ, anathema be he, that is, the curse of God light upon him. how then may a Christian, that either loveth or feareth Christ, thus extenuate the father's error, being by M. W. declaration, in substance, the self same, by reason of circumstance, far more heinous, the light of the gospel spread more largely, the truth of doctrine more deeply rooted, the law more undoubtedly abolished, and every part of Christian religion more clearly acknowledged and professed. wherefore in this, I take M. Whit. inexcusablie, rather for a pagan then for a Christian, when he saith, The fathers by their penitential works derogated from Christ, and thrusting themselves into his room, ascribed to their own inventions, the satisfying of God's wrath, and remission of their sins, and yet for all this calleth them sanctissimas, most holy. whereas this being true▪ they were the most impious and detestable men, that ever the sun saw.  
Luther in his book adversusfalsò nominatum ordinem episcoporum, describing his iustifiing faith, writeth thus, although wickedly, yet agreeably to his own doctrine, and the common doctrine of the protestants. 
Luth. To. 2. fol. 322.  Mark me (saith he) what is Christian faith. Christian faith is to believe, that by no works, but by only faith in Christ as thy mediator, and by mercy in him given thee freely, thou art justified and saved. Gal. 1. so as a man despair of all his own strength, works, and endeavours, and depend altogether of an other man's merits, and an other man's justice. judaical faith is to intend to be justified, to blot out thy sins, and be saved by thy own strength and merits. Rom. 10. by this, Christ is cast away. To like effect he writeth in his second commentary upon the Galatians, 
Luth. To. 5. in Gal. ca 4. fol. 382.  expounding these words. his qui natura non sunt dii seruiebatis, ye served them, which by nature were not gods, upon these words, he maketh this question, and thus solueth it. is it all one in S. Paul, to departed from the promise to the la, from faith to works, and to serve gods, which by nature are not gods? I answer, whosoever falleth from the article of justification, he becometh ignorant of God, and is an idolater. And therefore it is all one whether he return to the la, or to the worshipping of idols. all is one, whether he be a monk, a Turk, a jew, or Anabaptist. for this article once taken away, there remaineth nothing, but mere error, hypocrisy, impiety, idolatry, although in show there appear excellent truth, worship of God, holiness etc. Yea speaking expressly of the ancient fathers, and in respect of this special matter, he most wickedly, but most plainly, adjudgeth them to hell fire, for their wicked faith in this very cause. I speak not (saith he) against the papists for their life, but for their faith, because they will not come to God by only faith, but by faith and works, and therefore if the fathers those old papists lived now, I would speak unto them as I do to these new papists. 
Ibid. ca 4. fol. 400.  thus stand his words. Si illa facies veteris papatus, etc. if that face and form of old papistry stood now, if that discipline were observed now with so much severity & rigour, 
S. Hierom. S Gregory & S. Austin old papists by Luther's verdict.  as the hermits, as Jerome, Austin, Gregory, Bernard, Francis, Dominike, & many others observed it, little perhaps should I profit by my doctrine of faith, against that (state of papistry.) yet nevertheless after the example of Paul inveighing against the false Apostles, in appearance most holy and good men, I ought to fight against such justice workers of the papistical Kingdom, 
Iustitia●ios papistici re●ni.  and say: though you live a chaste life, and weary your bodies with much exercise, yea though ye walk in the humility and religion of Angels, yet are ye bondmen of the la, of sin, and the devil, ye are to be cast out of the house, because you seek for justice and salvation, by your works, and not by Christ. Thus Luther. and this being the general doctrine of the Protestants, in all their treatises of justification, and M. W. pretending to be of the number, supposing the fault to be true which he layeth to the fathers, if he followed the judgement of S. Paul, S. Cyprian, S. Augustine, & all Catholic Christians, he must needs account them adversaries of Christ, profane and wicked, & cast out eternally from the face of God: if he followed the universal sway of his own doctrine, 
The ancient fathers called by Luther, jews, idolaters, bondmen of sin & the devil, for their doctrine of works against only faith.  teaching only faith, and justification thereby, he could not but with Luther hold them for impious, hypocrites, bondm●n of sin and the devil, idolaters, without knowledge of God, as ill as any monk, Turk, jew, or Anabaptist. And certainly no monk (except perhaps some Apostates, as Luther himself, Bucer, P. Martyr, or such founders of this new Gospel) living in his order, thought ever so ethnicallie of Christ's passion, as by M.W. judgement S. Cyprian and those fathers did. And therefore I see not how he so excusing the fathers in this point, and calling it a light error, or none at all, can himself be excused from plain Atheism, whether he be arraigned before his lawful judges, S. Paul, S. Cyprian, S. Austin, and their successors Catholic Bishops, 
Contra Campian. pa. 198  or before Luther that Apostata, whom he honoureth for his father, & the rest of that confraternitie. except perhaps he will plead in his defence, that he knew not this, which is so commonly known to all, and so to quit himself of so foul impiety, will condemn himself of notorious ignorance. But howsoever he shift the matter, M. Martin's charge standeth undischarged, that, to say, that the fathers took from Christ, & ascribed to themselves the office of his mediatorship, satisfaction and remission of sins, and justice before God, and yet to call them most holy, 
An evident contradiction.  is as plain a contradiction, as to say, such a man seethe most sharply, yet both his eyes are out of his head. he giveth counsel excellent well in any controversy of law, marry his head for all that, is a mile of from his shoulders.  
And yet, to mend the matter, presently and fast upon the former, talking of the same thing, he stumbleth in to an other contradiction as gross as the other. For labouring to make our faults more odious, and to sever us as far as may be from the fathers, thus he writeth. 
Ibid. pag. 8.  the fathers write sometimes, that it is our part to do satisfaction unto God, that God is pacified with our satisfaction, that thereby we promerite him, and redeem our sins: which albeit they are not very conveniently spoken, 
Note this interpretation.  yet by these, they would have no other thing understood or signified, than that pardon of sins and God's grace, was to be requested and craved of us, using also those external actions of penance, tears, fasts, watchings, alms: which thing may appear by Cyprian alone, in many places. most evidently in his 55. epistle, in his book against Demetrian, and in his sermon de lapsis. what sense you devise and frame to yourself, 
S. Cyprian'S words touching works of penance, & the merit thereof, in the places noted by M. W. Epist. 55. et sermon. de lapsis.  I know not, neither skilleth it greatly. but surely the discourse of S. Cyprian, and his words, be as much against you, as possibly may be devised: and especially in the places by you quoted. to give the reader a taste of your sincerity, thus he there writeth. By satisfaction and just mourning our sins are redeemed, and our wounds by tears are cleansed. our lord is to be prayed unto, our lord is to be pacified by our satisfaction. let every man confess his sins, while his confession may be admitted, while satisfaction and pardon given by the priests, is acceptable before God. let our soul prostrate herself before god, and satisfy him by sorowfulnes. let us pacify gods wrath and indignation, by fasting, lamentation, & mourning, as he himself hath warned us. The prophet Daniel by fasting endeavoured to deserve gods favour, and the like have done all humble, well-meaning, and innocent men. Thinkest thou that God is so easily pacified, whom wickedly thou hast denied? Thou must pray and entreat him earnestly, thou must spend the day in mourning, the night in watching & lamentations. prostrate on the ground in ashes and hearecloth, thou must employ thyself upon just works, 
the doctrine of the Christians in the Apostles times, & of the Cathol. Church in our time is all one concerning works of penance.  by which sins are purged, thou must give much alms by which souls are delivered from death. In this sort, the faith flourished in the Apostles tyme. in this sort the first faithful Christians kept Christ's commandments. & to be short (for a great part of that treatise de lapsis runneth after this manner) thus he endeth the same. he that thus shall do satisfaction to God etc. being heard and helped of God, shall not only deserve pardon of him, but also a crown in heaven. Thus S. Cyprian. which how it should most clearly make against satisfaction and works satisfactory, M.W. knoweth belike, for I, gladly profess myself therein to understand nothing.  

A manifest and gross contradiction.  But grant we the conclusion. let S. Cyprian speak & mean as you would have him. look a little back, & consider how palpably you contradict yourself. for if it be most evident that S. Cyprian meant well, though he spoke not so conveniently, if he understood nothing else, but that we ought to request pardon for our sins at God's hand, and crave his grace, using withal these external actions of penance, fasting, watching, 
pag 7.  alms, why said you immediately before, that Cyprian with the other fathers, corrupted the doctrine of penance? why said you, that they grievously erred, & somewhat diminished the force of the death and blood of Christ, by which only our sins are expiated? 
Strange and wonderful divinity.  how is it not a sensible lie, when you say, that by their penitential works, they derogated not a little from Christ's death, & attributed to much to their own inventions? when you have quitted them of that superstitious opinion of merit & satisfaction, which commonly you object to them, how can the actions seem any way reprovable to any man, except he be worse than Epicurus or Diagoras? do these holy actions being done with a good mind and intent, such as you now grant to the fathers, corrupt the doctrine of repentance? doth fasting in itself, derogate from Christ's death? doth watching detract from his passion? do almsdeeds diminish the virtue & force of his blood? Who ever heard such stuff? 
Libertinisme. the end of justification by only faith.  now doubtless I think ye wrote this in a dream. or if ye wrote it waking, and advisedly, then are you proceeded from a common Protestant, and a Puritan, & become a Familiane, or mere Libertine, though I can easily be induced to believe, that this is the end, and so will prove, of your common solifidian justification, that for a man to bewail his sins, to watch, to fast, to pray, to give alms, shall be deemed papistical, and derogatory to Christ, and therefore in all respects quite abandoned.  
Yea yourself prove this by as sound an argument, 
Whit. in. li. contra Saunder. pa. 297.  as any you have to prove the Pope, Antichrist. for thus you dispute in your academical oration, Anno 1582. Quid Christo integrum relinquunt? s● est Christus noster sacerdos, et sunt huius sacer dotii duae parts. altera, ut sese pro nobis in unicum perpetuúmque sacrificium offerat, altera, ut preces pro nobis faciat, quid est quod pontificii Christum quotidie offerune etc. what leave the papists entier to Christ? if Christ be our priest, and of this priesthood there are two parts, one, that for us he offer himself an only and perpetual sacrifice, the other, that he pray for us, why then do the papists offer Christ daily? by which profound demonstration, as you make us Antichristes for hearing or saying mass, so you make yourself (if you be a minister) and your fellow-ministers, as very Antichristes, for preaching sermons, or saying Communion. for in them, I think you do not always rail at the Pope and Catholics, but sometimes pray, though to small purpose. Then, whereas there be two parts of Christ's priesthood, to sacrifice, & pray, they that pray, be injurious to his priesthood, and rob Christ of that which by your divinity is proper to his person and office of mediation. and so if we be Antichristes for doing the first, needs must you and your comministers be Antichristes for doing the second. and in deed, one is as true as the other. To avoid which mischief, what way is there, but either to allow both, and so to return to the Church (which to do our Lord send you grace) or with sacrifice, to abandon prayer also, and all other works of charity, which without question (as I have said) is the meaning and extreme scope of that paradox, we are justified by only faith, that is by only fancy and imagination. for that being so, what need or use is there of fasting, prayer, and such superfluous & unnecessary works, injurious to Christ and derogatory to his priesthood, and without which, you are most assured of eternal life, by the omnipotent power of your only faith.   

CHAP. VII. Of M. jewels challenge renewed by M.W. and the vanity and falsehood thereof.  
HAVING so well acquitted yourself against the ancient fathers in the matter of penance, in the conclusion thereof, upon small occasion you renew M. jewels old challenge, & very fiercely provoke M. Martin to oppugn it if he dare. 
pa. 9  thus you say: Touching the principal parts of religion, most true it is, that I have written, 
in nostris ecclesiis.  that the same faith is taught and preached in our Churches, (that is, Zwinglian not Lutheran) which the most ancient fathers held. neither fear I to renew that challenge of the most learned M. jewel, which you have mentioned, if you daere take it. They are in number 27 articles, wherein consisteth the chiefest force of papistry. of all these articles choose which you will, I protest myself your adversary in the cause so long as I live. To perform so much as you say, though of your ability I doubt greatly, yet of your good will, I doubt not a whit. for I see you stick at nothing, neither care what you say, or unsay, deny or affirm, be it right, be it wrong, true of false, nothing cometh amiss. and many times you show this skill, within the compass of one page. And to go about to prove to one, who after so long time, 
S. Peter's being at Rome denied by M. W. most absurdly, & against all antiquity.  and so many, & evident, and invincible proofs of a matter historical, which of itself was among sober men never doubted of (I mean, S. Peter's being at Rome, and founding the Church there) yet now denieth the same: to one, that had read in D. Sanders, the same confirmed by all manner testimonies whereby such a matter may be confirmed, 
Saunder. Monarch. lib. 6. ca 10. these are in that chapter besides many more in other places  by those that then lived & from time to time ensued, by Papias S. John the evangelists scholar, by Hegesippus, by Caius, by Dionysius bishop of Corinth, by S. Ireneus, by Tertullian, by S. Cyprian, all these most ancient, and living not long after (for S. Cyprian the youngest is almost of 1400. years antiquity) by S. Athanasius, S. Jerome, S. Optatus, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Epiphanius, S. Leo the great, S. 
What proofs will content our adversaries, if these will not?  Augustine, S. Gregory, by Eusebius, Lactantius, Dorotheus, Orosius, Maximus Taurinensis, Sulpitius Severus, Prosper, Theodoretus, Gregorius Turonensis, these all (saving S. Gregory the great and Turonensis) being within the first 100L. years: some of them also grounding themselves upon the very words of scripture, as Papias, Tertullian, Eusebius, and S. Jerome, the question also being a matter of story and fact, which can not possibly be known, but by the narration of such writers as then lived, and received it from their elders, so that herein M.W. hath not that liberty to cavil, by comparing together phrases, & expounding literal speeches by mystical Allegories, as in the sacrament and other controversies of religion their manner is, the thing also until our age being never denied by any writer of credit or estimation, and in our age confessed and proved by protestants themselves of greatest learning and knowledge: 
See Bullinger in serie temporum et rerum as. Luca in Act. tradit. ca 17  to go about (I say) to prove, that Christ is really in the B. Sacrament (a matter more hard and intricate) to a man who knoweth this of S. Peter (a thing most plain & evident) and yet after all this, and much more, saith notwithstanding obstinately, that Peter was at Rome, 
Whit. cont. Sad. pa. 203.  and there, with Paul laid the foundation of that church, no papist could ever yet show & prove: to me it seemeth labour as madly employed, 
Horace.  ut si quis asellum in campo doceat parentem currerefraenis, or if to Anaxagoras affirming stoutly that the snow is black, 
nivem esse atramentum. Lactantius lib. 5. ca 3.  one would with sage reasons labour to persuade that the snow is white. and perhaps it is not greater stupidity (how shall I call it) unsensibleness, in him to avouch the first, than it were folly in an other, to labour about proof of the second.  
Wherefore leaving that thing to M. Martin himself, as being fit for a dead man to handle then a living, especially having to deal against you M. 
Of M jewels challenge.  W. who in this point seem as dead and senseless as he, I will for the reader's instruction speak a little of M. jewels challenge which you so magnify. which albeit it hath been examined sufficiently, and so, as no one thing in my opinion, hath brought either more shame to the author, or hindrance to your Gospel, though at the first for a while it astonished many, as a thing bearing great countenance of learning, until in time by learned men the vizard was pulled from it: yet seeing you proclaim it again so courageously, I will in few words touch the substance and meaning of it. It containeth in effect 2. or 3. heretical articles, which M. jewel dilated and parted into a great number, as it were some poor rag cut out into many shriddes, partly of pride and bravery to win among the simple an opinion of learning, partly of spite and malice against the Catholic church, which he sought specially to disgrace, and which by nothing could be disgraced more, then if she held and maintained 27. 
M. jewel in his sermon at Paul's cross, the year 1560. when first he put forth his challenge.  articles the highest mysteries and greatest keys of her religion (as he termeth them) without any authority, example, clause, or sentence, of either scripture, father, Council, or writer, that lived within the first 600. years of the primitive church.  
The insolent vanity of which brag, to my seeming, is much like to that, 
●iui. ●eca. 4. lib. 5.  which T. Quintius the Roman Consul, noted in the Ambassadors of King Antiochus. who coming into Grece to persuade that people to take part with Antiochus against the Romans, they magnifying the force of Antiochus their master, advanced infinitely the great hosts which he would bring, 
The true pattern and image of M. jewels challenge.  and terrified the simple Grecians, with strange names of men never heard of before. he will bring (said they) into the field, Dahas, & M●dos, and E●imaeos, and Cadusios. and touching his navy, so great as no port of Grece is able to receive, the one part thereof is guided by Sidonians and Tyrians, the other, by Aradians and Side●ians of Pamphilia, nations that have no peer in the world, for skilfulness in war by sea. Here unto T. Quintius replying, this king (quoth he) by these his ambassadors vaunteth of clouds of horsemen and footmen, and covereth the seas with his navy. but all the matter is very like to a feast, which once mine host at Chalcis made me. of whom being entertained at a certain time, when I marveled at so great provision, and demanded, how so suddenly he came by such variety and store of venison, he not so glorious as these men, smiling answered, that all was but the art of his cook, and divers dressing of the same thing. for otherwise touching the substance of the feast, tota illa varietas et species ferinae carnis, ere at ex sue mansueto facta. all that variety and show of venison, was made of a tame sow: so it is of these strange and terrible names, Dahae, Medi, Aradians, and Sidonians. for all these are but Syrians, touching any valour that is in them, more fit to make slaves, than soldiers.  
The self same, may be truly verified of M. jewels so many and so great articles. for all that strange variety and multiplication of particulars, is made but, as it were ex mansueto sue, of two or three heretical propositions, through his skill in that kind of varying, so drawn forth and minced, that it mustereth in the eye of the ignorant, as though it had great store of new matter. for granting to him one, and the same no general but a particular heresy, that the Zwinglian opinion is true touching the Sacrament, that there is no real presence, which is his fift article, thereof followeth directly the 6. that the body of Christ, is not in a 1000 places. the 8. that no divine honour is due to it. the 10. that bread and wine remain as well after consecration as before. the first, and 13. that there could not be any private or many private masses said, whereas there was no mass at al. the 17. that Christ could not possibly be offered in sacrifice, whereas there was not any such sacrifice, nor the substance thereof, in rerum natura. the 21. that Christian men could not call that, lord or God, which was nothing but bread & wine. and so forth many other, which a man of mean skill, may see to be as plainly included in that one, as many less numbers are included in a greater, or many parts and qualities are necessarily consequent to a perfect body. as on the contrary side, put the Catholic opinion to be true, which he denieth in the tenth article, than all, or most of the same articles follow as clearly. uz. Article 5 That the body of Christ is really, substantially, etc. in the sacrament. Article 6 That Christ's body is & may be in a thousand places or more at once. Article 8 That divine honour is due unto it. Article 22 That a man may call it his Lord and God, etc. and likewise many of the rest. So that in deed, that glorious challenge is altogether such, as if Martion in ancient time, 
Supra cap 2.  or some of your brethren (who in this point seem as very heretics as he) should have provoked the Catholics to defend S. Luke's Gospel after this sort.  
If any learned man of my adversaries, or if all the learned men alive be able to prove, that S. Luke's Gospel is canonical scripture.  
Or that the first chapter is canonical scripture.  
Or that the second chapter is canonical scripture.  
Or that the third chapter is canonical scripture.  
Or that the story of Marie Magdalene cap. 7. is canonical scripture.  
Or the tale of Lazarus and the rich man cap. 16.  
Or that wicked doctrine touching the real presence in the 22. chapter, etc. 
Of this see after chapter 10.  I am content to yield and subscribe.  
For as here, one article agreed on draweth the rest, & one denied denieth the rest, so is it in the devise of M. jewel. & therefore as Martion, the more particulars he had uttered, if he had run into as many ORSEOLO, as there be chap. or stories, or verses, in S. Luke (which well he might have done by M. jewels example) the farther he had run in that vain, the more notably he had laid open to the world, his own ambitious itching folly, pride, and arrogancy: the very self same is to be deemed of this conceit of M. jewel, touching the far greater number of his articles. Three he hath of weight, and more principal than all the rest. the primacy of the Sea Apostolic, the real presence, and the sacrifice. unto these 3. let us apply his challenge, and see (now he is gone) how well you can supply the office of his champion to maintain it.  

M jewel in his sermon as before.  O Gregory (saith he) O Austin, O Hierom, O Chrisostome, O Leo, O Dionise, O Anacletus, O Xistus, O Paul, O Christo if we be deceived, you have deceived us. you taught us these heresies. thus ye ordered the holy Communion in your time, the same we received at your hands, etc. None of our adversaries that stand against us, are able or ever shallbe able to prove against us any one of all these points either by scripture, or by the example of the primitive Church, or by the old Doctors, or by the ancient general Counsels. and if any man alive be able to prove any of these articles by any one clear or plain clause, or sentence, either of scriptures, or of the old Doctors, or of any old general Council, or by any example of the primitive Church within 600. years after Christ, I promise to give over and subscribe unto him.  
Thus M. jewel promised, and do you promise as much? what else and so long as you have a day to live, you will stand in defence here of. But how dare you say so? whereas little know you what all the doctors have written, and much less know you, what books of theirs hereafter may be found. and yourselves (if you remember) not long sithence in your own wasted libraries, 
Printed by john Day.  found out certain strange sermons in the Saxon tongue, against some known and confessed parts of religion, as you would pretend. And how can you so confidently hazard your faith (if you have any) upon one sentence or clause of those men, of whom sundry times you profess, that they wrote clauses, sentences, chapters, and books, in defence of as gross errors as these. Remember your stomach against them, in this same book. thus you writ. Al our faith and religion (you mean I suppose, 
Cont, Sand pa. 21.  so far as it is allowed by act of Parliament and practised within the Q. dominions, for other ye defend not) is grounded not upon human, but upon divine authority. 
a Yet M. Carterwrighte holdeth the contrary and hath proved it in many books  Therefore if you bring against it, what some one father hath believed, or what the fathers all together have delivered, 
Patres etiam simul universi.  except the same be proved by testimonies of scripture it waygheth nothing, it proveth nothing, it concludeth nothing. for the fathers are such witnesses, that they also have need of scriptures to be their witnesses. if deceived by error, they have said aught differing from the scriptures, how soever they may be pardoned erring through want of wit, we can not be pardoned, if because they erred, we also will err with them. Being thus persuaded touching them all, how dare you venture your faith, upon a clause or sentence of any one? It is a piece of faith, far more sure by all antiquity, and more surely grounded in the heart of any catholic, that Christ is perfect God consubstantial and equal to his father, than any of these paradoxes can be possibly settled in your opinions, and we honour the fathers much more than you do. yet was there ever any Catholic, so frantic & mad, that would promise to subscribe to Arianisme, if out of any father greek or latin, within 600. years, any one clause or sentence might be brought against the catholic belief? wherefore this very assertion is a most sure argument, that you have no kind of faith. no faith (I say) at all neither divine nor human. not divine, because you would never so lightly esteem it, nor upon so small warrant hazard it: not human, because it well appeareth, that neither you, neither master jewel ever meant to stand to that, which to the world in public writing ye have so solemnly promised.  
Wherefore albeit touching you affected as you are, I account this labour as clearly lost, as if I should water a fruitless tree, 
judas. v. 18.  twice dead and plucked up by the roots, yet for the reader's commodity, that he may perceive, how ignorant, and foolish, and proud, and fantastical, that vaunt of M. jewels was, and how like it is that you who know much less (yet commonly who more bold than such?) can maintain the quarrel, and wade through that mire, wherein M. jew. himself stuck fast, I will speak a few words of these his principal questions. And because I covet (so far as may be) to cut of all occasion of cavilling, I will not run to any other doctors (lest you take exception against them) than those who are named here of M. jewel, as his pretended masters in these heresies. and again out of them I will bring nothing, but that only which I have learned of your own writers, and read in your own books. and that again, in such sense, without any alteration, as yourselves allege them. So that your heroical courage in answering, shall first be exercised upon these your own brethren, and what so ever blunted darts you shall cast against me, they shall not reach unto me, but through their sides.  
I will pass over Christ and S. Paul▪ who taught M. jewel these heresies, as he saith, which is not very likely▪ whether he mean in jest, or in earnest: seeing S. Paul willeth us so to detest any kind of heretic, that after one or two warnings, we should let him alone, and suffer him to perish in his sin, 
Tit. 3.10.  knowing that he is damned in his own judgement: 
Mat. 18.17.  our saviour chargeth us to hold them for no better than ethniks and publicans, who shall oppose themselves unto his church and therefore i● can not be that either of those should teach you that, for which, 
The primacy of the Rom. church confirmed manifestly by those fathers whom M. jew. calleth his masters to the contrary.  before hand they threaten and assure you of damnation. But Anacletus and Xistus old bishops of the Roman church before that Sea grew to this usurped primacy, they perhaps taught you this heresy, that the bishop of Rome hath no sovereignty over the rest of bishops, and that such claim is altogether Antichristian. If that be so, then egregious liars are your brethren the makers of the Centuries, who tell us the clean contrary. 
Magdebur. Centur. 2. c. 7. col. 139.  Anacletus (say they) in the epistles which bear his name, in the general regiment of churches, so joineth them together, that to the Roman church, he attributeth primacy and excellency of power over all churches, and over the whole flock of the Christian people, and that, by the authority of Christ saying to Peter, thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my church etc. 
This order was approved in the Council of Nice cap ●.  the second sea after that, he maketh the church of Alexandria, by reason of S. mark scholar of S. Peter. The third, Antioch, because S. Peter abode there, before he came to Rome. degrees of Bishops he maketh thus. The bishop of Rome is placed first, as the supreme head of the church: who though he err yet will he not have him to be judged of others, 
So say the rathers in Conc. Sin●essano.  but to be tolerated. the second place have patriarchs or primates, the third, metropolitans, the fourth, Archbishops, and afterwards bishops. he saith also, that certain cities received primates from the blessed apostles, and from S. Clement. epist. 3.1. Tom. Conciliorum pa. 63. The same Anacletus, appointing how controversies in particular churches should be taken up & ended, after the order of S. Paul. 1. Cor. 5. willeth that great matters should be referred to the higher bishops and primates, 
Ibid. see the same in the Council of Cart. & Mileu. in S. Aug. epis. 90.91.92.93  but if greater difficulties arise, or causes fall out among the bishops & primates themselves, let them be brought to the Sea Apostolic, if such appealt be made. for so the Apostles ordained by the apoinment of our Saviour, that the greater and harder questions should always be brought to the Apostolic Sea, upon which Christ built his universal church. Mat. 16. And Xistus (who succeeded not long after Anacletus) in his 2. 
Cent. ●. ubi supra.  epistle, nameth himself, the bishop of the universal Apostolic church. and willeth others to appeal to the Apostolic Sea, as to the head.  
These are the first and most ancient that M. jewel findeth, of whom he learned his heresy against the primacy of the Roman church. and very ancient they are in deed, the one being the fourth, the other the eight, in order from S. Peter. But (Christian reader,) was he not a good scholar, that of these masters could gather such doctrine? of such flowers, could suck out such poison? or can we marvel, if they have a feat to pervert any thing be it never so plainly and truly spoken, who can cry out upon such father's speaking so roundly, & say, O Xistus, O Anacletus, you taught us these heresies, you taught us that the bishop of Rome for challenging primacy over the church, is the precursor of Antichrist?  
But you will answer, as M. jewel teacheth you, that these epistles be not the epistles of Anacletus or Xistus, 
An objection answered.  but counterfeit, and set forth by some other in their names. But what uncredible perversity, and contradiction, and impudency is this? or how can he so say? for saw he ever any other books of theirs, besides these epistles? could he for himself, or you for him, pretend any such knowledge? most certain it is, you can not. and therefore learning aught against the Roman Sea, from Xistus and Anacletus, he must needs learn it hence. and so, either this maketh against the Roman Sea, which thing by Illyricus and other your own writers is at large refuted (and who having the forehead of a man can say otherwise?) or M. jewel in naming these two Popes at Paul's cross for his masters in that heresy, may be an example of a more dissolute man, and more reckless in lying and abusing his audience, than ever before, or perhaps ever sithence occupied that place.  
Let us try some other of his masters, S. Gregory and S. Leo, upon whom first, in like manner he exclaimeth. and the protestants themselves, those that be farthest gone in bold denial of any thing, yet deny not but the books and epistles extant in their names, were truly made and left unto us by them. And did they (trow you) teach him these heresies? let us hear what they say, 
The primacy of the Roman Sea over all churches of Chistendom within the first 500 years, confessed & proved by the more famous and learned protestants. Cent. 5. ca 7 col. 774  and that in no other words and sense, than those forenamed your own doctors make them to speak, and point you to the books, epistles, and chapters, where you shall find that which they write. The bishops of Rome that lived in this fift age (within 500 years after Christ) affirm, that the Roman church is chief of all others. so doth Leo in his sermon de anniversario assumptionis, et epistola 89. ad episcopos per provinciam Viennensem. The bishops that governed the Roman church in that age, required of other Archbishops, that they should make relation to them, if there fell any matter of controversy. so Leo writeth in his 46. epistle to Anatolius Archbishop of Constantinople: 
Ibi. col. 776  If there be any thing that doth require consultation, with speed let relation thereof be made unto me, that after I have examined the matter, my diligence may appoint what is to be done. Again, epist. 62. he requireth of Maximus Archbishop of Antioch, that he acknowledge the privileges of the third Sea, and often times write to the Sea Apostolic, how the churches there increase. Also they took to them this authority, to reprove other bishops, if they did aught amiss. they prescribed unto them what they should do, and appointed them orders in ceremonies. so Leo epist. 86. reprehendeth Nicetas (patriarch) of Aquileia, because he received to communion the Pelagians, before they had condemned their error. He reprehendeth also the African bishops in the province of Mauritania Caesariensis, for making bishops, certain people unlawfully. epist. 87. and he rebuketh the bishops of Germany & France, for contemning the order of their felowbishops. epis. 88 And whereas Anatolius bishop of Constantinople seemed not to believe rightly of the incarnation of the son of God, Leo chargeth him to put his faith in writing, 
Leos authority over the bishop of Constantinople.  and send it to the bishop of Rome, and therein to protest openly, that he will excommunicate that man, who so ever believeth or teacheth of the incarnation of Christ, otherwise then is the profession of the Catholics, and of the bishop of Rome. epist. 33. So Proterius Archbishop of Alexandria, is reported to have sent letters touching his faith to Leo. epist. 68 And Leo, epist. 69. signifieth to the Emperor Marcianus, that Proterius is a Catholic. 
Ibi. col. 778.  They also confirmed bishops in their bishoprics. so Leo confirmed Maximus patriarch of Antioch in his bishopric, though he were made in the Council of Ephesus, of which Council all other acts were abrogated. act. 7. Concil. Chalced. and that the same Leo confirmed to Proterius bishop of Alexandria, the old rights of that Sea according to the Canons and (ancient) privileges, it is noted epist. 68 Leonis ad julianum et 69. ad Imperatorem Marcianum. Leo in his 33. epistle to Theodosius, requireth that he take order, that the bishop of Constantinople send to him a writing, wherein he profess to embrace the true doctrine, and to condemn all that descent from the same. Also they sent abroad legates, 
Ibi. co. 779.  who in far distant provinces, took notice of the errors of heretics, and corrected them. so Leo sent his legates to Constantinople to withdraw Eutiches from his error, as appeareth epist. 11. ca 6. ad Flavianum. so he sent legates to the Emperor, epist. 34. & to Ephesus, that they taking unto them the Archbishop of Constantinople should absolve those that had been deceived by Dioscorus, and were now content to do penance. epist. 44. & 46. In like manner epist. 87. sending legates in to Africa, he commandeth that Donatus a Novatian be received (to communion) if he send to Rome, a writing touching the condemnation of that error. They required also of Archbishops, 
Hard questions rising in far distant provinces, referred to the Sea of Rome.  that if of themselves they could not determine any thing, they should send it to the Sea Apostolic, & withal they charged them to receive and observe their decrees made against heretics. so Leo epist. 84. cap. 7. prescribeth this order to the bishop of Thessalonica in Thracia, that two provincial Counsels be held every year. & if there fall out any hard matter, and it be not decided by the judgement of the bishop of Thessalonica, that it be referred to the bishop of Rome. and cap. 11. he willeth that the contentions rising among the bishops, be referred to him, with a declaration of things done in such matters. The same Leo commandeth Nicetas patriarch of Aquileia, that he cause all his bishops, priests, & clerks openly to condemn certain heresies and their authors, and to approve all synodal decrees, which the authority of the Apostolic Sea had confirmed for the rooting out of heresy, & that they testify so much by their subscriptions. epist. 86.  
Many things (Christian reader) of good weight & importance I pass over, because I covet to be short, and these matters are now so clear and manifest to men never so little exercised in these questions, that I do rather marvel & wonder at the dullness and passing either ignorance or shamlesnes of our adversaries, then greatly take care how to refute so sensible and known a falsehood. Yet one thing I may not pretermit, which the foresaid historiographers most evidently affirm, and by plain demonstration prove, and wherein the primacy of the Roman Church shineth as bright, 
Supremacy of the Rom. Sea in general Counsels, as before confessed & proved.  as the sun at noon in a summer's day, that is, the demeanour of the bishop of Rome in general Counsels. in which the whole church being gathered together, if at any time or place, then, and there, this power is principally to be considered. And have we any thing there, for our purpose? Is it possible that within the first 500 years, in the ancient general Counsels, aught should be found for proof of this supreme authority, 
jewel in his defence of the apollo. par. 2. cap. 4. & 1.  which is plainly contrary to the ancient Counsels, & invaded the church under Phocas, many years after the time we speak of, except the Apology of the English Church, and the Protestants in their writings lie to notoriously? 
Luth. Tom. 7. lib. contta Papatum pag. 455.  It is very true (saith Luther) and the Pope himself knoweth it well enough, and nothing is more manifest by all the decrees of the old Counsels, 
The facing of a lie.  and all writings and stories of all holy fathers which were before the first Pope by name Bonifacius 3. 
Anno Domini 605.  that the bishop of Rome's authority was no greater than the authority of other bishops.  
How the honour of that Apology & Luther may be saved, I leave it to M. W. but otherwise then as of an incredible fowl lie I can not judge of that assertion, except I would discredit these other writers, who affirm the contrary, and prove the contrary, & that out of most authentical records, and that by this very Leo magnus, in M. jewels judgement, so great an enemy of this supremacy. For continuing there narration of the same Popes, 
Vbi sup. col 781.782.  They summoned general Counsels (say these writers) they were the Precedents in general Counsels, they confirmed general Counsels, and sometimes in part, sometimes wholly, they disannulled general Counsels. and this is manifest in Leo his epistles and the general Counsels themselves kept under him. Epist. 93. ca 17. we have sent letters (saith he) to our brethren and felowbishops of Tarraco in Spain, of Carthage in Africa, of Portugal and France, and have summoned them to meet at a general Council. and Leo sent Paschasinus bishop of Sicilia to be Precedent in the Council of Chalcedon: which is manifest in the Acts of that Council. 
No lawful Council with out approbation of the Roman Sea.  And the same Paschasinus the Pope's vicar condemned Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, for this reason, because he durst hold a Council without the authority of the Sea Apostolic. and Cecropius bishop of Sebastopolis, saith in the same place, we may not call the second Council of Ephesus, by the name of a Council, because it was neither gathered together by the Apostolic authority, neither proceeded it orderly. in acts Concilii Chalcedonensis. See Leo epist. 10. ad Flavianum, and 12. add Theodosium. Thus Leo condemned the second Council of Ephesus, and required an other to be gathered, epist. 24.25.28.30.31.32. and whereas Anatolius bishop of Constantinople, would have set himself before the churches of Alexandria and Antioch, Leo epist. 53. writeth unto him most vehemently, and showeth that to be against the canons of the Nicene Council, and that he will not permit those churches to lose their old prerogatives: which thing he avoucheth also in his epistle to Pulcheria. and there again he rebuketh the ambition or insolency of that Anatolius, and signifieth expressly, that he doth abrogate and disannul all the decrees of the bishops there gathered together, so many as were contrary to the rules of the Nicene Council. And the Council of Chalcedon (of 630. bishops assembled out of all the world) thus writeth to Leo. we beseech you, that you will honour our judgement with your approbation, and as we of zeal have put our consent to these good decrees, 
Summitas tua filiis. Vbi sup. ca 10. col, 1262  so let your Supremacy fulfil to us your children, that which is convenient. Finally, this principality of the Roman church, Leo laboureth to persuade in most of his epistles, as in his epistles to Anastasius bishop of Thessalonica, to the bishops of Germany and France, to Anatolius bishop of Constantinople, & in sundry other, where very painfully he goeth about to prove, that singular pre-eminence was given to Peter above the other Apostles, and that thence rose the distinction of bishops, and especially the primacy of the Roman church, and that therefore he is bound to take the care of all churches. Thus far they. whereby we see, that S. Leo thought this primacy due to the church of Rome, not by decree of Emperors or Counsels, but by the express ordinance of Christ himself in the Gospel.  
And in all this, can M. W. find never a sentence, clause, or example, for the Supremacy? thinketh he that M. jewels grammatical divinity of comparing words and phrases, tempered together with a huge heap of corruptions & lies, will serve, in the judgement of any reasonable man, against such a troop of sensible demonstrations, gathered & urged to this purpose by his own brethren? when as the great general Counsels acknowledge such authority, the greatest patriarches of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, submit themselves to such authority, the bishop of Rome, a man of such excellency for learning, wisdom, and godliness, as Leo was, exerciseth upon them such authority, prescribeth to them laws, Canons, and decrees, governeth in their provinces, and in all other, in Africa, in Mauritania, in Egypt, in Syria, in Asia, in Grece, in Spain, in France, in Germany, in all parts of the Christian world? 

Confess. Geneu. cap. 7. ¶. 12.  
Leo so magnified by M. jewel, is a very Antichrist to Beza and the church of Geneva.   Remembreth he not that Theodore Beza and the church of Geneva answer these places, by calling him plain Antichrist for using this authority? Constat Leonem in epistolis, Romanae Sedis Antichristianae arrogantiam planè spirasse. It is manifest (say they) that Leo in his epistles doth clearly breathe forth the arrogancy of that Antichristian Roman Sea. & yet S. Leo in Geneva a very Antichrist for his writing & behaviour about the Supremacy, for the self same matter, in England is a pure protestant. He taught M. jewel that the authority of the bishop of Rome, was no greater than the authority of any other bishop, & of thee o Leo, he learned this heresy. & if he were deceived, thou Leo deceavedst him. Surely it was an oversight, that he forgot to put in the roll, S. Bernard, the bishop of Rochester, and Sir Thomas More. For of them in this case he learned as much as of S. Leo, or of S. Gregory, who notwithstanding is an other of his masters. But what a froward and overthwart scholar he was, who here again so blindly mistook his master, I think few of his scholefelowes are ignorant, and it is so clear, that in truth it grieveth me to spend time therein. and therefore I refer the reader to the same story, where he shall see a good and large treatise, abundantly proving the same of S. Gregory, which now hath been showed of S. 
Centuria 6.6.7. col. 425.  Leo. he shall find there confessed by those Protestants who hated the Sea of Rome as deeply, as did either M.W. or M. jewel, but were not so extremely hardened in face and forehead as M. jewel was, and as M.W. must be, if he take upon him the others quarrel, he shall find (I say) confessed by them and proved in like manner, that this S. Gregory taught, that Apostolica sedes est omnium Ecclesiarum caput. 
The church of Constantinople subject to the Sea of Rome before Phocas or Bonifacius 3.  the Apostolic Sea (of Rome) is head of all churches. lib. 11. epist. 54. Indict. 6. that both the Emperor and Eusebius his felowbishop, professed that the church of Constantinople was subject unto that Sea. li. 7. epis. 63. indict. 2. that he cited Maximus bishop of Salona in Dalmatia to come to Rome, there to render account how he came by that bishopric. lib. 5. indict. 14. epist. 25. he appointed the bishop of Siracusa to be judge over the bishop of Constantinople. lib. 7. indict. 2. epis. 64. he sent into Spain, one who should restore januarius deposed from his bishopric unjustly. lib. 11. indict. 6. epist. 50. & 54. he appointeth the bishops of France, how they should call a synod for the rooting out of simony and avarice. lib. 9 indict. 4. epist. 49. & sequentibus. and those things which in the synod they should agree on, he willeth should be sent to him, & straightly chargeth them, that at the lest once in the year they keep a synod, according to the canonical decrees. lib. 7. epist. 110. number. 2. And Virgilius bishop of Arelatum or Arles, whom in the French church he made his Vicar and Legate, and preferred before all other bishops, he willeth to send to him, all harder controversies. li. 4. ind. 14. epi. 52. The like privilege he granteth to Maximianus bishop of Siracusa in Sicilia, to be supreme overseer of those churches, and to end lesser controversies and send the greater to him. which privilege for all that, he giveth to the person, not to the place. lib. 2. epist. 4. indict. 10. Isychius bishop of jerusalem, he biddeth to exterminate from his churches the Simoniacal heresy. lib. 9 indict. 4. epist. 40. To Columbus bishop of Numidia and the primate of that province he enjoineth, that he with other examine the cause of Donadeus deposed by Victor his bishop. and if he be guilty, to bind him to penance, if he be guiltless, that they rebuke Victor, that he may know how unjustly he hath dealt. lib. 10. indict. 5. epist. 8. when the bishop of Constantinople had condemned a priest of Chalcedon, Gregory retracteth that sentence, and commandeth him being innocent to be absolved. lib 5. indict. 14. epist. 15.16.17. Finally he affirmeth again and proveth by scripture, that the Roman church is head of all churches, caput omnium Ecclesiarum. Greg. in 4. Psal. penitentialem, & lib. 12. indict. 7. epist. 32. and so forth, for what should I stand upon particulars, which are in manner innumerable there rehearsed. and by these writers it seemeth (and true it is) that his 12. 
Vide ibi ca 7. pag. 425.426.427.428.429.430 etc. until the pag. 439.  books of epistles contain in effect nothing else, but the exercise of such universal jurisdiction, practised by Gregory the first in all Christian churches, from East to West, from North to South, in far more ample manner, & with more show of authority, then appeareth now in Gregory the thirteenth his successor. These things I say and very many other of this quality, did S. Gregory the first, 
Calvin. Institut. lib. 4. ca 7. ¶. 12.13  a man for humility commended of Calvin singularly, of Luther (who seldom spoke good of any Pope) acknowledged for a good & holy bishop. 
Luth. Tom. 7. adversus Papatum fol. 455.  And Bale sometime an Irish prelate (though afterward a common minister) who raileth foully at the most glorious martyrs and confessors Popes of that Sea before S. Gregory, yet speaking of him, attributeth this unto him, that he was the best for life and learning, that ever sat in that place. 
Balaeus de script. Britan. cent. 1. p. 45.  Gregorius omnium Romanorum pontificum doctrina & vita prestantissimus.  
But against all these examples, consisting not only in plain words, but much more in manifest deeds, facts, judgements, corrections, jurisdictions, appellations, excommunications, all evident practices of sovereign principality, M. jewel hath a number of words, and they all depending of one only word, that is, the name universal, 
universalis.  which S. Gregory doth so condemn, as he accounteth him for Antichrist, that would be called universal bishop. and here what a stir he keepeth, Paul's cross, his reply against D. Cole and D. Harding, the English Apology and the defence of the Apology witness abundantly. For this is a common storebox, when so ever the Pope cometh in the way, so far forth, that in one side of a leaf he quoteth S. 
Reply against D. Harding pa. 226.  Gregory against this name, no less than 19 times. and M. W. with his fellows, at this day singeth that song as freshly, as though it never had been heard before. But if either he or they regarded the searching out of the truth, and sought not continual wrangling about words, they would never so blindly have snatched at one word, against so many facts and examples of continual custom, so many ways testified and expressed by word and deed. But the answer is easy, and often times given by S. Gregory, often times repeated & proposed by the late catholic writers. but because M. W. hath nor perhaps seen the one, and not greatly considered the other, I will give him the same, and the true sense of such words, out of one of his own fellows.  

M. jewels & other protestants common objection taken out of S. Gregory against the supremacy, answered truly by one of their own sect.  Andrea's Fricius of Polonia, a man though bearing deadly hatred to the Pope of Rome, yet one that could be content well enough to have the like office among his evangelical churches to keep them in unity, which he thinketh otherwise will never be, handling that matter and laying against himself this old ancient objection of the Protestants, 
Andrea's Fricius de ecclesia. lib. 2. cap. 10. pag. 570.  thus answereth it, & that truly. Some there be (saith this writer) that against this office (of universal superintendant) object the authority of Gregory, who saith, that such a title appertaineth to the precursor of Antichrist. But the reason of Gregory is to be known. & it may be gathered of his words, which he repeateth in many epistles, that the title of universal bishop is contrary, & doth gainsay the grace which is commonly poured upon all bishops. 
Universal bishop, how & in what sense denied by S. Gregory.  He therefore that should call himself universal bishop, calleth himself the only bishop, and taketh bishoply power from the rest. Wherefore this title he would have to be rejected, which is usurped with the injury of other bishops. Such sentences to this purpose are oftentimes repeated by S. 
Saepe eiusmodi sententiae iterantur a Gregorio.  Gregory in many epistles etc. this title he doth abhor both in himself, and in all other. so far of is he from granting the same to the bishop of Constantinople. and why so? because bishoply grace is generally bestowed (from god) upon all bishops. and it is no reason that any one should take to himself, that which by equal right agreeth to al. This being the true meaning of such places, and this being very often times given by S. Gregory himself, saepe et in multis epistolis, you see how justly we accuse both M. jewel & you, of wilfulness and blindness. how justly we object unto you a verbal and talkative divinity, who could not, or would not see that is which so commonly repeated again and again in so many epistles.  

Though S. Greg. disliked the name Universal, yet he approved the Supremacy as agreeable to the express word of god.  But maketh S. Gregory either in this word, or in all his words or works, aught against the primacy of that church? This writer proceedeth on thus. Verumtamen ex aliis constat etc. notwithstanding by other places it is evident, that Gregory thought, that the charge and principality of the whole church, was committed to Peter by the voice of our Lord. And thus much he written plainly, & almost word for word lib. 4. epistola. 32. to the emperor Maurice, and confirmed it by testimony of scripture. It is manifest (saith Gregory) to all men that know the gospel, that by the voice of our Lord, the care of the whole church was committed to holy S. Peter Prince of all the Apostles. For to him it is said, feed my sheep. john. 21. To him it is said, I have prayed for the, that thy faith fail not. Luc. 22. To him it is said: thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church etc. 
If charge of the universal church make the Pope Antichrist, than our Saviour made S. Peter Antichrist.  Mat. 16. Behold he receiveth the keys of the kingdom of heaven, power to bind and loose is given to him, to him is committed the charge & principality of the whole church. And yet for this cause Gregory thought not that Peter was the forerunner of Antichrist. Thus he, proving both by scripture & by reason, that S. Gregory, though he disliked and condemned that proud name of universal bishop, both in himself and others (as doth also Pope Gregory the 13. at this day) yet he neither disliked, nor condemned the supreme charge and government of the church for Antichristian, which himself exercised. neither could he so do, except he first condemned for Antichristian, S. Peter the Apostle who received it, and Christ our Saviour who gave it. So tha● M. jew. hath hitherto showed small wit, learning, faith, or honesty, in making these men, S. Gregory, Leo, Xistus, Anacletus his masters in that heresy against the supremacy, who have not only no one word or syllable against it, but contrariwise have whole and long epistles, chapters, discourses, examples, and facts, arguments, reasons & scriptures to prove it. And here the reader may guess, how like I were to cloy him with abundance and store, if I would in like sort go through with the other articles, which I might do as well, and with as great advantage. But I will not cast more water into the sea, and therefore neither will prosecute in this order the other two questions, but only touch them in a word, and so proceed to other matter.  
As here against the Pope, so against the real presence, for the zwinglian imagination, M. jewel likewise challengeth all the fathers unto him, namely those above rehearsed, S. Gregory S. Leo etc. and beside, S. Austin, S. Hierom, and S. Chrisostome, than which I think he could not have picked out amongst all the fathers, more heavy and deadly enemies to him, touching any part of his false faith, and those two parts of the real presence and sacrifice especially. For was there ever besides this wicked man, any Luther, or Bucer, or who so ever was worse than other, 
S. Gregory a priest, without all reason made a minister by M. jewel.  so desperate in lying, that would say S. Gregory was a minister, and ministered the holy communion as now is the fashion in England? when his books in so many places, show him to have been a priest, and a priest to celebrate mass, and not to minister communion? unto whom other protestants commonly attribute the framing of the mass, 
Bibliand. in praefat. epistolarum Zuinglii & Oecolampadii. Melanct. li. 4 Chronic. in Henric. 4. fol. 186.187.  because of two or three rites which he ordained therein? Whom for this cause, Theodorus Bibliander scornfully nameth patriarcham caeremoniarum, the Patriarch of ceremonies: Melanchthon, that he horribly profaned the Communion, allowing by public authority the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, not only for the living but also for the dead: Flacius Illyricus, that by miracle he converted a faithless woman who believed not that the body of Christ was substantially in the Sacrament. 
Centu. 6. ca 10. col. 678.679.682. ibi. ca 13. col. 817.819.  ex Paulo Diacono. lib. 2. cap. 41.42. and that every where be doth inculcate sacrifices and mass, and by divers miracles confirmeth the same: against whom Petrus Paulus Vergerius, for authority, place and estimation, as great a Protestant as any in our days, hath written a whole book, entitled de nugis & fabulis Papae Gregorii primi: 
P. Paulus Vergeri. contra Grego. 1.  and finally (to pass by many others) when your own English writers protest him to have been a perfit and absolute Papist, & that therefore your first Apostles and Evangelists in bringing in this your Gospel, did directly oppose themselves unto him, and rooted out that which he and his Legate our Apostle S. Austin had planted? Gregory the first (saith your Chronicler john Bale) the year of our lord 596. 
Bale. cent. 1. pag. 66.72. & centur. 8. pa. 678.  sent Austin the monk to plant in our churches his Roman religion. But Latimer is much more worthy to be called our Apostle then Austin. For Austin brought nothing but man's traditions, 
Mark this confession. Our first Apostles were Papists.  mass, Crosses, litanies etc. whereas Latimer with the hook of truth cut of those superstitions which he had planted, and cast them out of the Lords vineyard. And doth not M. Horn the late called bishop of Winchester, in plain terms revile this glorious Apostle, and name him most ethnically a blind buzzard, 
M. Horn against M. Feknam. pa. 58.  because he was ignorant of your Alcoran, and knew nothing else, and therefore induced our forefathers to no other Gospel, then to the ancient Gospel of Christ and religion Catholic?  
And doth the other S. Austin make more for you in this point of your unbelief, then doth this later S. Austin, or S. Gregory? I know you allege him much more, but with what honesty, I had rather you should hear of your own father Luther, then of me. In my judgement (saith Luther) after the Apostles, 
Luth. Tom. 7. defensio verborum coenae fol. 405.  the church hath not had a better doctor than was S. Austin. And that holy man how filthily & how spitefully is he mangled and disfigured by the Sacramentaries, 
S. Austin intolerably abused and corrupted by the Sacramentaries.  that he may become a defender & patron of their venomous, blasphemous and erroneous heresy? Verily as much as in me lieth, so long as I have breath in my body, I will withstand them, and protest that they do him injury. which thing any man may do with an assured and confident mind, because the Sacramentaries only pull & tear his words into their own sense, proving their application by no reason, but only by vain boasting of their most certain truth. And concerning the rest of the fathers, whereas M. jewel affirmeth, that they all taught as he did, against the real presence, Luther contrariwise affirmeth, that no one ever so taught, but every one taught the contrary. Thus he writeth in the same book. This truly is marvelous, 
Ibid. fo. 391. Nullus Nemo.  that no one of the fathers, whereof the number is infinite, ever spoke of the Sacrament, as do the Sacramentaries. 
No one father was of M. jewels opinion touching the Sacrament.  For none of them useth such words, there is only bread and wine: or, the body & blood of Christ is not there. Surely it is not credible, nay it is not possible, where as they talk again and again of these things, but at some time, at the lest once, these words would have slipped out of their pen: it is only bread, 
Concords & constantes uno ore.  or the body of Christ is not there corporally, or such like. But they all speak so precisely, as though none doubted, but that there were present the body & blood of Christ. They all agreeably and constantly with one mouth avouch the affirmative, that it is there. But our Sacramentaries can do nothing else but proclaim the negative, that it is not there. So Luther, prince and father of this Gospel. and so that Luther, 
supra cap. 3.  whose judgement M.W. preferreth before a thousand Austin's, a thousand Cyprian'S, and as many churches. and so at the lest, more to be esteemed then one M. jewel, though M.W. stand by him to help out the matter.  
But this field is so large, that the farther I go, the farther I may. & therefore to break of, omitting S. Chrisostome, who made 6. 
S. Chrisostomes' 6. books de sacerdotio.  books of priesthood, (and never a one of ministerhode,) and therefore is not like to be an enemy to the sacrifice, 
lib. 3.  which in one part of that work he setteth forth so excellently, referring M. 
chap. 4.  W. for the sacrifice to that which hath been said before: for the real presence, to that which may by occasion be touched hereafter, 
chap. 8 & 9  I will end this matter, wishing the reader to carry in memory M. jewels challenge as an eternal example of his inexplicable impudence and rashness. thereby that he learn, not to be moved with the bold countenances of his aftercomers, whose fashion is very commonly to look biglie, 
Tower disputation.  when in deed (setting a side the Tower rack & Tyburn) they can do nothing: and then to crack unmeasurably, when besides words and cracks (and lies) they have nothing to say. which to have been the fashion of heretics in his time, S. Austin of old noted, 
Aug. de utilitate credendi cap. 1.  and we in our time find true by experience. And in this present quarrel it can not be avoided, but either Calvin, Luther, Beza, Peter Martyr, Zuinglius, Illyricus, & Bale, principal evangelists & gospelers be egregious liars, who tell us that the fathers thus taught, and thus believed of the Pope's primacy, of the sacrifice and real presence: or else M. jewel must take that to himself, unto whom in deed, that quality was in a very high degree an inseparable accident. For in that property, I believe verily he passed any one heretic that ever wrote since Christ's tyme.   

CHAP. VIII. Of Beza corruptly translating a place of scripture Act. 3. and of the real presence.  
WHEREFORE leaving M. jewel, proceed we on in order to that which followeth, that is, to Bezaes' translation of the words of S. Peter Act. 3. in defending whereof, you draw near to the vain I look for, and show yourself to be a scholar of him whose challenge you advance so much. For you do nothing else but dally in ambiguity of words without any regard of truth, deceiving both your reader & yourself. You say, 
pag. 9  when Beza translated, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by this, quem oportet quidem coelo capi, who must be received in heaven, he did it only to avoid ambiguity of speech, which is found in the other, quem oportet coelum capere, and the sense still remaineth one. For whereas Peter will say and teach, 
How knoweth M.W. that S. Peter will say so?  that necessarily heaven must receive Christ until the times that all things be restored, this sense Beza delivered most faithfully, in most convenient words. For if heaven shall receive Christ, then necessary it is, that Christ be received of heaven. which thing common sense might have taught you. For tell me I pray you M. Martin, if the school receive and contain you, are you not received & contained of the school? Having obtained thus much, you fall into an idle talk, that actives or deponents may be rendered by passives by example of Cicero, whereof no man doubteth, & then conclude, that S. Gregory Nazianzene doth affirm Christum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This being the entire sum of your discourse, gladly would I now learn of the reader, whether he understandeth hereby what you would say, or what you go about to prove, and reprove? forsooth, that the sense in a Greek writer is not hindered, if a verb deponent or active making the sentence doubtful and applicable to diverse senses, for plainer understanding, in Latin be turned into a verb passive. For so did Cicero in translating a sentence of Plato, and so might you do in translating a sentence of S. Paul, animalis homo non percipit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ea quae sunt spiritus. spiritual things are not perceived of a carnal man. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a verb deponent in Greek, is well expressed in English, by a verb passive. You say well, and like a good scholar. But is this all that M. Martin went about to show, and for which he found fault with Beza? Certes it is all, for aught I can conceive by your manner of defence. but the thing itself is far otherwise. 
How dangerous it is to restrain the text of scripture, to the particular sense of some one man, or Sect   
For first, although in common profane writers, where ordinarily in words and phrases there lieth no hid secrets or mysteries, to express doubtful Greek by undoubtful Latin, when if there be committed an error, it importeth not greatly, this is not so material: yet in the word of God, where ambiguous speaking yieldeth divers senses, and perhaps both, or not that one which is taken, principally intended, there, for any man of purpose to restrain that which the holy Ghost hath left at large, it is to saucy and malapert, if it be not wicked and impious. For what if the meaning of saint Peter be here not that heaven should take Christ, but that Christ should take heaven, to rule and govern it even to the end of the world, according as elsewhere it is said. 
a Mat. 11. v. 27. & cap, 28 vers. 18.  All things are delivered me of my father. to me is given all power in heaven & in earth. & again, 
b Cor. 15. v. 26.  thou hast put all things under his feet, 
c Eph. 1. v. 20  setting him on thy right hand above all principality, and potestate, and power, and domination, and every thing that is named, not only in this world but also in that to come. But you will say this is a false sense. Suppose it be, as perhaps it is not. will you take upon you by Cicero's authority, as Beza doth oftentimes by Homer's and Ovid's, to limit that which the Evangelist hath left at at large? And see by this rash audacity what confusion you bring, and what a hotchpoch you make of the scriptures. Suppose some other be of my opinion, and think the sense which I give, to be the only true, and yours to be the false. shall he be so bold to shut out yours, and thrust in his own with like necessity & restraint as you have done? if so, than you know the Lutherans think as I say. For thus writeth Illyricus, and he writeth as it may seem, directly against your Beza. 
Illyric. in Act. cap. 3. ver. 21.  Some understand this place, that Christ is received or contained of the heaven. which sentence is against the scope of the Apostle, and should set forth rather the infirmity, than the glory & power of Christ. For so of angels, yea of devils it may be said, that they are received or contained of heaven, because the word coelum, sometime in the scripture signifieth the air. A goodly matter. he who by witness ●o the scripture filleth all things, we will say is received or contained in a certain place, almost as it were in a prison.  
Secondarily, what wicked and unconscionable dealing is this, in spending so many words, not to speak any one word to the purpose, whereunto you should speak all, or else hold your peace & speak nothing. Was not that the point of his reprehension, not because you gave a passive for an active or deponent, but because you did it in this place, and did it to this end, that so you might seem by scripture to exclude Christ from the sacrament? For this reason Beza giveth, and for this reason M. Martin reproveth Beza, & Bezaes' corruption. and of this M.W. speaketh not a word, or if he do, it is a manifest falsity. For if M. Whit. saying that Beza did it for that only cause, to avoid doubtful speech, oppose himself to M. Martin in this, 
Scripture of purpose falsely translated against the real presence. Discove. pag. 257.  it can not be excused from a plain lie. for so much as in Bezaes' behalf he avoucheth that to be true, which Beza himself protesteth to be false. They so conclude Christ in heaven (saith M. Martin) that he can not be on the altar. and Beza protesteth that he so translateth of purpose, to keep Christ's presence thence.  
Yet a third fault you have committed beside, in justifying this small demie sentence. and that is, whereas M. Martin for the better strengthening of his reason against you, joined to it the authority of Illyricus and Calvin, you omit them both. 
Discou. pag. 257.  This translation of Beza is so far from the Greek (saith M. Martin) that not only Illyricus the Lutheran, but Calvin himself doth not like it. Which woods if you had joined to the rest, if you had but named those men, your slender reasons in the eyes of your reader, would forthwith have appeared contemptible. And well he might have marveled, how you durst defend such a translation, which not only Illyricus a famous Lutheran, but also Calvin, a prince amongst the zwinglians, in plain speech reprehendeth. whereby a man may see that you seek not for truth, but only to talk on, and serve the time, & abuse the reader.  
And yet once again, under pretence of a little simplicity, and most rude and simple sophistry, a fourth fault have you made, worse than the former, running first from one sense to an other and then from one word to an other. 
Recipitur continetur.  and so in fine, whiles you would seem to make S. Peter speak clearly and plainly, you make him speak falsely & heretically. whereof, forthwith I shall have occasion to treat. The place which you cite out of Nazianzene, oportet Christum a coelo recipi, maketh no more for you, than doth the article of our Creed, ascendit ad coelos, or sedet ad dexteram patris. and I marvel what Catholic believeth the contrary, and therefore I let it pass.  
As ye proceed, the reason beginneth to appear, why you would so fain have that forged interpretation of Beza to stand for good. For now you begin to frame against the real presence, arguments drawn from natural and mathematical conditions of a body: whereby the reader may learn the more to detest and abhor the whole race of your heretical translators. 
Mat. 13. v. 25  For as our Saviour saith, in the field of his Catholic church in the night, when men were a sleep, 
Every heretic translateth the scripture in favour of his heresy.  his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat, and went his way, and some time passed, before the cockle thus sown appeared: in like manner these feedemen of the same adversary, wicked corrupters of the good feed and word of Christ, first fall a translating of the scripture, with many goodly and plausible pretences, of god's honour, & the people's commodity, and publishing gods blessed book etc. And so while no man thinketh amiss of them, as it were in the night and darkness, being espied of none, among the good seed of god, they mingle & sow their own wicked and abhommable darnel, which at first is not seen, but in time showeth itself. For when M.W. so smoothly went away with the matter, and found fault with M. Martin's ignorance for disliking so plain a thing, when he told us of actives and passives, that there was no difference between the first, quem oportet coelum capere, and this second, quem oportet coelo capi, but that this later is more clear and perspicuous, who would have supposed any great mischief to have been hidden therein? But now, even thereof he frameth his principal argument, to spoil the church of Christ's real presence. With like sincerity translate the Lutherans for their Lutherish, the Brentians for their Ubiquitary, the Trinitaries of Pole for their Arian, and Sebastianus Castalio for his Academical heresy, sprinkling hear and there many drops of poison, with which simple souls are dangerously infected, before the mischievous practise be of many discovered. But let us hear M. W. argument, drawn (as he would have us suppose) from the former falsified text of scripture, but in deed from Aristotle and Euclid. 
Pa. 11.  If Christ's body (saith he) be natural, and of the same substance that ours is, 
The zwinglians most usual & plausible argument against the real presence.  then can it be contained but in one place, and if it be in heaven, it is not in the sacrament. But Christ's body is such a body, consubstantial to ours in all things, saving glory and immortality, and that body of Christ is now contained in heaven, as Peter saith, 
Continetur  therefore it is not in the Sacrament, much less in infinite Sacraments. This argument feareth not your forces. For if Christ's body be together in heaven and in the sacrament, than Christ hath a double body or rather infinite bodies. but this is false. ergo that. Furthermore if Christ's body be circumscribed with some certain place in heaven and retaineth all properties of a true body, & the self same in the sacrament be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incircumscript, invisible, etc. then contradictories may be verified of the same body. But this can not be. therefore the other is unpossible.  

Many things to be noted in M. W. argument.  Of this kind of reasoning, which may be enlarged as far, and amplified by as many circumstances, as either Geometry, or Philosophy, or any sense, seeing, hearing, tasting, handling, or humane reason, or common experiment, in the course of the world list to heap together, all depending of one principle, whether one body may be in divers places, or whether Christ be bound to the rules and conditions of nature, many things I learn.  
First, how much you can make of a little, and vaunt so lustily of such beggarly arguments, 
Great vaunting upon small occasion.  which being found out first and invented by prentices and artisans in their shops, thence admitted by ministers into their pulpits, and at length received by such as you are, in to the schools for want of better store, yet rather as rhetorical than theological, rather coniectural then necessary, have so oft times been refuted by Catholics, condemned by Lutherans refused of calvinists, & are withal as common, as are the Postilions boots.  
Secondarily (which before I noted) I learn how careful a Christian man ought to be in dealing with you, whose fashion is, of molehills to make mountains. 
wicked Sophistry.  and if of courtesy one grant you an inch, strait ways you borrow a span, and forthwith by force and violence you snatch an ell. For when you so demurely made it to be a trifle, whether a man translated the words, quem oportet coelum capere, 
〈◊〉.  whom the heavens must receive, or who must be received in heaven, and so carried away the later against the former, who would have thought that to have been such a cokatrice egg, as where of should proceed such a pestiferous serpent, that would corrupt the universal church of Christ, and destroy the faith, that hath been since Christ's tyme. 
Contained.  If Christ's body be contained in heaven as S. Peter saith, then is it not in the sacrament. which collection when a man perceiveth, who before of simplicity found no fault wi●h your translation, and made no conscience whether he said, 
Corruption of scripture.  heaven received Christ, or Christ was received in to heaven, he can not now forbear, but needs he must say, that your argument is false, and you belie S. Peter. And this being your sense, you have corrupted the word of god, & thrusting in your own word, 
Hiero. in Gal. cap. 1.  have made of it the word of the devil. Great danger it is (saith S. Hierom) to speak in the church, lest perhaps through perverse interpretation, of the gospel of Christ, be made the gospel of man, or which is worse, the gospel of the Devil. And plain it is that by this corruption & shuffling in contained for received, and running sophistically and wickedly as you please from one to the other, you abuse the scriptures & falsify them intolerably, & make them your own word, not the word of god. For S. Peter, in saying that heaven must receive the body of Christ, affirmeth Christ's body to be contained in heaven, no more then S. Luke writing that Samaria received the word of God, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 8. v. 14. Luc. 9 v. 48.  affirmeth that the word of God was then contained in Samaria, which was most false. Our Saviour saith in this self same manner. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The like whereof he speaketh in S. Matthew of receiving his Apostles. 
Mat. 10. v. 40  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that receiveth a child, Apostle, or prophet in my name, receiveth me. and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that hath sent me. Here, who seethe not what impiety would follow, if we should take to ourselves M. W. liberty, and say, he that receiveth a child in Christ's name, he receiveth Christ, he receiveth God, that is, of him, Christ is contained, God is contained. And albeit here in the things compared together there be some difference, yet in the word used by our Saviour, S. Peter, and the evangelist, there is no difference, and this indifferency should the interpreter have expressed, and so would Beza have done, had it not been for his heresy against the B. sacrament.  
Thirdly I note the proceeding of your Gospel, and learn how it goeth on according to S. 
2. Timoth. 3.  Paul's prophecy, a malo in peius from bad to worse, from heresy to apostasy, 
The proceeding of the new gospel.  running continually forward the very high way to infidelity. When this gospel began in England in the end of King Henry's days, those that in other points were stark heretics, and the ringleaders unto others, 
See M. Fox. martyrologue in Fryth and Barnes, etc.  Tindale, Frith, Barnes, Cranmer, left it as a thing indifferent, to believe the real presence. And namely Frith (that glorious martyr) permitted every man to judge what they listed of the sacrament, 
Fox Act. & monumen. edit. ann. 1563. p. 500  if so be the adoration thereof were taken away. His reason was, because then there remained no more, 
The real presence approved by M. Fox's Martyrs.  any poison that any man ought or might be afraid of. So that the real presence to this great martyr, seemed no way harmful or against Christian faith, which now to M. Whitaker is a matter so monstrous, that it is against scripture, against faith, against S. Peter, and in steed of one Christ multiplieth many. And how then calleth he the Lutherans, his brethren in Christ, who by this reason have an other Christ from him, nay a plain contradictory Christ against him?  
But to answer his argument, and in this all other drawn from like principles, I demand of M.W. whether he urge this argument so, that Christ's body by course of nature can not be in divers places and receive those other contradictory qualities (as he falsely imagineth) or that by God's power and omnipotency this can not be wrought. If the first, than we are agreed, and then may all these blotted papers serve for some other purpose. For against us and the doctrine of the church, they make nothing. And then M. W. hath done wickedly, to move these scruples to idle heads, whereas he should rather have sought what Christ's will is. If he say the later, that it is above the reach of God's power, where unto his arguments tend, I reply, that he is an infidel, 
Many thielges in h● scripture uncredible as Christ's presence in the blessed Sacrament.  and believeth not the first article of his Crede. he believeth not other things expressly set down in the scripture, of the same quality, as that our Lady was a Virgin when she delivered Christ, 
joan. 20. vers. 19  that he entered in to his disciples ianuis clausis, that in the burning furnace, one and the self same fire was so hot and violente, that it slew those that stood a far of, 
Daniel. 3. v. 47. & 48.  the ministers of the King, and yet to those that were in the midst of it, Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, it was so cold and temperate, that it resembled ventum roris flantem, a moist gale of wind, 
Ibid. v. 50.  and harmed them nothing. which is as flat a contradiction as any he bringeth, and therefore belike, without the compass of his belief. I say again, that he is proceeded farther in infidelity then his masters, who notwithstanding were gone far enough, and a man needed not to overrun them. For they hitherto were wont to protest, that they never doubted but Christ could do it, marry they supposed and believed that he never meant it, and so made the question to consist in that, whether Christ would, not whether he could, as may be seen in M. 
jewel art. 10 ¶. 9 in fine.  jewel, in the very end of his 10. article against M. Harding, and in many other. 
M. W. argument against the Sacrament the very root of Paganism, & infidelity.   
Next let him note, that this his argument is the very shipwreck of Christian religion, & root of all Paganism, destroying our redemption, destroying our resurrection, confounding and destroying all the articles of our faith, although it pretend the honour of god: 
Calvin contra Seruetum pag. 105.  as well writeth Calvin of servetus and the Anabaptists. For what is the first cornerstone of the Seruetan and Anabaptistical building against Christ's Incarnation? Even that which M. W. here tendereth them, and was squared before to their hands by Zuinglius & the Sacramentaries. The Anabaptists I say, urging the self same Philosophical and physical rules, object that the Papists belief of Christ's Incarnation of the Virgin, besides that it is base and attributeth to much honour to that woman, besides this, 
Calu. Inst. Lib. 2. cap. 13. ¶ 3.4.  is also against the rules of Physic and Philosophy and implieth a contradiction. For, ex arte medica & Philosophia, out of Philosophy and Physic rules, they find that women are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and therefore, to say that Christ had a true humane body as is ours, and yet of a virgin without the seed of man, was to say he had a true humane body in word, & deny it in deed. And if M.W. weigh the matter well, he shall find their argument better than his, and that it toucheth more intrinsically the essence and origin of our nature, to be conceived of the seed of man: & that to be form of a virgin, is much more repugnant to nature, and sith the beginning of the world hath been wrought more seeldom, than a body to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof he talketh so peremptorily, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which others of his sect urge, & is more to the purpose, that is, 

Petrus sponte sua vinclis labentibus eq: carcere processit clauso. Pauli. natali. 4. B. Felicis.  
See the new testament in S. Ihon. 20. v. 19 Luc. 4. v. 29.   not circumscript, nor visible, nor local, where of the first was practised in the self same body, in his nativity, resurrection & ascension, and in S. Peter Actorum. 12. The second is more common, and was not only in our Saviour, when the jews meant to have thrown him down headlong from the hill, and he passing through the mids of them went his way, but also in Elizeus, when the host of the King of Syria having him in the mids of them, 
4. Reg. 6. v. 17.  yet saw him not, 
Notum non agnovere surentes. Felicemque rogant Felixubi cernitur & non cernitur, ipse nec ipse vir est, cum sit prope, long est. ignotu● notusque suis fitcivibus idem discernete fide vultum credentibus. Paulin. natal. 5. B. Felicis.  & in S. Felix a martyr & priest of the city of Nola, of whom S. Paulinus bishop of the same city writeth, that in time of persecution, when the citizens, such as were infidels well acquainted with him, would have apprehended him, they could not see or discern him being in the mids of them: although (which is more strange) the faithful at the same instant saw him, & knew him, and perceived in him no difference or change at al. So that at one and the self same time, he was visible and invisible, known and unknown, endued with his accustomed figure, proportion, and lineaments, & yet altered & changed and so forth, subject to other such marvelous accidents, as M.W. fond and falsely nameth contradictions. The third is so far beneath the omnipotency of God, that by the vulgar opinion of Philosophers, the first heaven being a perfect natural body, is notwithstanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in no place, and therefore much more may we yield this prerogative to Christ the Lord of heaven and earth, whose word & will, is the very rule & squire of nature. And let M.W. see how urging so vehemently his proposition, Chri●tes body is per omnia nostris corporibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saving glory and immortality: and he hath all the properties of a true and humane body, how he will free himself from the filthy and wicked heresies of the Ebionites & Nestorians. 
Epiphan. lib. 1. Here. 30. Socrat. l. 7. ca 32.  Who upon this general proposition, may & must infer their opinions, that Christ was begotten between our Lady & joseph as other men are. they may and must infer, that Christ assumpted as well the person, as the nature of man: the personality, being a thing much more nylie, and essentially joined to the nature, them are these accidental qualities of visible and circumscript, which here are objected.  
Thirdly, I answer that this absurdity was foreseen by the ancient fathers, who for all that were never induced to invent this distinction that you have found out, that is, to deny the verity of Christ's presence. Let us evermore believe God (saith S. 

Chrisost. in Math. hom. 83.  
M.W. argument rejected by the ancient fathers.   Chrisostom) albeit it seem absurd to our sense & cogitation that which he saith, albeit his words surpass our sense and reason. Thus as in all things we ought to do, so especially in the sacraments, not beholding those things, which lie before our eyes, but holding fast his words. For in his words we can not be beguiled, but our sense is easily deceived. Therefore sith he said This is my body, let us believe it without casting any doubt, and with the eyes of our understanding conceive the same. The like is used by divers other fathers, which they never needed to have spoken, neither could have spoken with reason, had their faith been so agreeable to the rules of Philosophy, as you would now make it.  
Fourthly, I say that your own brethren and masters, 
M. W. argument abhorred and condemned by the more learned protestants. Cent. 4. ca 4. col. 241.  though in other heresies they agreed with you, yet in this kind of argument detested and abhorred you. So the Historiographers of Magdeburg, in their fourth century where they prove by many authorities of S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, S. Hilary, S. Epiphanius, S. Nazianzen, S. Basil, and others, the verity of Christ's presence, dedicating the same to the queens Majesty, thus they speak unto her. 
Ibi. in prefat. pag. 9  And this (most excellent Queen) is not to be overpassed, that whereas now there grow every where, divers as it were factions of opinions, among which, some flatly by Philosophical reasons make void and frustrate the testament of our lord, so as they take away the body & blood of Christ touching his presence and communication, according to the most clear, most evident, most true, and most puissant words of Christ, and deceive men with marvelous equivocation of speech: principally your majesty hath to provide, that the sacraments may be restored without such pharisaical leaven etc. And Melanchthon, whom Peter Martyr maketh equal for learning and godliness, with S. 
Pet. Martyr in dialog. de corpore Christi in loco. fol. 107  Austin, S. Hierom, S. Leo, & the ancient fathers, debating this matter with Oecolampadius, There is no care (saith he) that hath more troubled my mind then this of the Eucharist. 
Lib. 3. epist. Zuinglii & Oecolamp. fol. 132.  And not only myself have weighed what might be said on either side, but I have also sought out the judgement of the old writers touching the same. And when I have laid all together, I find no good reason, that may satisfy a conscience departing from the propriety of Christ's words. You gather many absurdities, which follow this opinion (as here we see in M.W.) but absurdities will not trouble him, who remembreth, that we must judge of divine matters, according to God's word, not according to Geometry. And not far after in the same book. I find no reason, 
Ibi. fol. 140.  how I may departed from this opinion touching the real presence. Well it may be, that an other opinion more agreeable to man's reason, may please an idle mind, especially if the opinion be furnished and commended with arguments well handled. But what shall become of us intentation, when our conscience shall be called to account, what cause we had to dissent from the received opinion in the Church. Then these words This is my body, 
Fulmina erunt. Westphal. in Apol. contra Calvin. c. 19 pa. 194. anno 1558.  will be thunderbolts. So joachimus Westphalus in his Apology against Caluine, answering this very argument, the body of man is circumscribed in a place, therefore at one time, it can not be but in one place, therefore not in all places where the supper is ministered: Is not (saith, he) this Geometrical argument fetched from Euclides demonstrations, the pillar and upholder of all these Sacramentaries? 
Plurimos scripturae locos corrumpunt.  Doth not this uphold the building of their syllogisms, which corrupt very many places of scriptures? Most truly is verified of the Sacramentaries, that memorable saying: 
The Sacramentaries corrupt the scriptures.  Take from heretics that wherein they agree with Philosophers, and they cannot stand. 
The ground of the Sacramentaries divinity.  Take from the Sacramentaries that which they draw from Philosophy, and how small a quantity will remain of the great volumes of all the Sacramentaries? How long will it be, before the doctrine of Berengarius fall to the ground? Well and truly written Tertullian, that Philosophers are the patriarchs of heretics. For philosophy brought forth all heresies, and she begat the error of Zuinglius.  
Finally, 
jew. defence of the Apolog. part. 4 cap. 4. ¶. ●.  because the English church in their Apology acknowledgeth Luther for a most excellent man, sent from God to lighten the whole world, and M. W. saith that they worship him as their father in Christ, 
M. W. argument answered at large by Luther.  I answer as that excellent man of God and their father answered long ago. His discourse being long, I will gather shortly the sum of it, & set it down in his words. If M.W. would be better satisfied, I remit him to the main work. First, he confesseth this argument to be fundamentum quod habent omnium praecipuum, 
Luth. To. 7. defence. verborum coenae fol, 388.  the chief ground & foundation of the Sacramentaries. But he asketh, what scripture they have, to prove that these two propositions be so directly contrary, Christ sitteth in heaven, and Christ is in the supper. whereas they can bring none, he concludeth, The contradiction is in their carnal imagination, not in faith or the word of God, which teacheth no such matter. Next, whereas God's power surpasseth all cogitation, & worketh that which is to our reason incomprehensible, and which only faith believeth: and the same God said, This is my body which shall be delivered for you, how can I persuade my conscience, (saith he) that God hath neither means, nor ability to do as his words sound. Then he showeth, that although in the mind of man, these things are contrary, yet in the mind of God, they work no more repugnance, than Mary bringing forth in her virginity, is against that universal sentence, Increase and multiply, or this proposition, Christ is God, overthroweth this other, that Christ is man. Out of which thus premised, he falleth in to a vehement exhortation, that all Christians beware of the Sacramentaries in this kind of argument, 
Ibid. fo. 390.  for so much as directly thereby they draw men to Paganism and infidelity, the principal parts of our faith being in like sort subject to the control of carnal reason & humane philosophy. Boni isti Sacramentarii (saith he) sua nausea aditum parant ad Christum & Deum ipsum, 
The sacramentary heresy, the high way to infidelity, & denial of all faith.  & omnes articulos abnegandum etc. These good Sacramentaries by their loathsomeness, make a way to deny Christ, and God himself, and all articles of our faith. and truly for a great part they have already begun to believe nothing. For they bring themselves within the compass of reason, which is the right way to damnation. and themselves know, that these ethnical cavils, either are nothing worth against this article, or if they conclude aught against this, they do the like against al. For the word of God is foolishness to man's reason. 1. Cor. 1. and they would never have uttered this, if they had any regard of the scripture, and were not their hearts full of infidelity, so as their mouth speaketh of the abundance of their heart. 
1 bid. fo. 391.  
The unequal dealing of the Sacramentaries in alleging the fathers.  After this he noteth the unequal dealing of the Sacramentaries. This truly (saith he) is worthy of admiration, that none of the fathers, whereof there is an infinite number, did ever speak so of the Sacrament as do the Sacramentaries, but clean contrary. Yet notwithstanding, if perchance they fall upon some odd place in a doctor that soundeth towards their opinion, as where S. Aug. saith, corpus Christi in uno loco esse potest, here (saith Luther) by reason of their prejudicate opinion, they snatch at that, & make much of it, whereas otherwise, against the sayings of all the fathers they are most stiff and stubborn, and senseless, & more unmovable, then is any rock amidst the sea. and though the fathers all with one mouth affirm, yet the Sacramentaries harden themselves to deny them. Last of all against Zuinglius and Oecolampadius using in their books the self same reasons, which M. W. useth here, and triumpheth so insolently, he concludeth, 
Ibid. fo. 397  as I conclude against him. If these be the grounds and reasons, which should certify us of truth, approve our faith, and confirm our conscience, 
Note how deeply M. W. argument weighed with Luther  then truly we are in evil cas●. If a man had delivered me such books without title and name, and I knew not otherwise such excellent and learned men to have been the authors of them, I should surely have thought, that some i●sting Comediant, 
Histrio, aut erro Macho metanus.  or Turkish vagabond had made them in despite and derision of Christians. Verily I see not how they can be excused with any probable pretence, as many other heretics have had. For it appeareth, that they play with God's word, of wilfulness & malice. 
Frigidae nugae & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And I think it can not be that such cold toys and babblings should in deed move a Turk or a jew, much less a Christian. But that great loathsomeness and disdain of the sacred supper, and immoderate greediness to defend their opinion, maketh them so mad or giddy, that whatsoever they take hold of, though it be but a straw, yet they imagine it to be a sword or a spear, and that at every stroke they kill thousands. This is the terrible argument so magnified by M. W. quod impetus nostros non pertimescit, that feareth not our forces, an argument, which plucketh up the very roots of Christianity, & gain saith many places and histories of the Scripture, and maketh frustrate the testament of Christ: an argument carnal & ethnical, and for such contemned of the ancient fathers, and condemned by the late heretics of greatest learning: an argument which Luther would never believe could proceed but from a Turk, had he not seen it in the books of some of the Zwinglian Sect usurping the name of Christians: such an argument, as he accounteth them heretics, wilful and inexcusable, who are aught moved therewith: finally, such an argument, as M.W. can never maintain, except withal he maintain himself to be an Anabaptist, an Ebionite, and a Nestorian.  
And thus much touching your philosophical reason. wherein I have stayed somewhat the longer, partly because you crack so much of it, as though it were very pregnant, partly because it is an argument whereinto both in pulpit and writing you gladly fall, & (because it standeth well with sense and reason) easily deceive the simple, partly also because it toucheth M. 
M. jew. challenge touching the real presence artic. 5. refuted by martyrs, Confessors, & doctors, of his own religion.  jewels challenge, which here is disproved sufficiently. except these great States and Evangelists, so magnified by yourselves, be so foully overseen, as so vehemently to aver that, which hath no one clause of Scripture, Father, Council or Doctor to uphold it. And if they do so in this, where they use such heat and detestation, how may we credit them in any other part of their doctrine? how may we be persuaded, but they continually lie and deceive us in like sort? But I trow, you will not judge so rashly, especially of Luther, what soever you account of Barns, Frith, Westphalus, Melanchthon, and Illyricus, and those ancient fathers alleged by him and his companions. for, seeing the whole church of England commendeth Luther for a man so excellent, sent of God to give light to the whole world, I hope that you being but a simple member of that church, will not by defending the contrary oppose yourself unto him. And certain it is you can not come from God, if you poor worm resist & withstand that excellent man, whom God sent to be your Prophet and Evangelist. which is as monstrous a case, as if some simple sheep, should presume to direct his skilful pastor, some ignorant scholar, to teach his master most learned, 
2. Tim. 4.  or some Alexander a miserable coppersmith should oppose himself against S. Paul, whom Christ had made his governor, and furnished with sufficient gifts to instruct him and all the world beside. But you have (I fear) a general salve for such fores, that you believe neither Luther, neither yet the church of England any farther than they agree with God's word & your own conceit thereof. And so still the supreme rule & determition of all shall rest in your own hands.  

pag. 11.  After your reasons against the sacrament, you bring in to like purpose a place out of S. Ciril that Christ is ascended in to heaven, and is absent from us in the presence of flesh. which if we did not believe, we would never say the Crede so oft as we do, nor keep the day of Christ's Ascension so honourable and festival, as you I think may know. Marry if you think, there is more pith in S. Cirils word of absence, 
Mat. 26. v. 11  you might better have objected Christ's own words, The poor you shall have always with you, me you shall not have, but then for answer I should have sent you to the note upon that verse, as I do now also for this, the reason being all one. For, that S. Ciril was not a sacramentary, appeareth most clearly by a large discourse which he maketh as it were of purpose against that manner of reasoning which you have given out in this place. Thus he writeth. Quomodo potest hic nobis carnem dare etc. 
Ciril. in joan. lib. 4. cap. 13.  The Jews ask, how can he give us his flesh? Thus they cry out upon god, not without great impiety, neither remember they, that with god nothing is impossible. But let us making great profit of their sins and having a firm faith in these mysteries, never in such divine things, utter or so much as think of such doubting. for that word Quomodo, how, is judaical and cause of extreme punishment, And after a long and good treatise against such peevish fantastical toys as here M.W. objecteth for profound arguments, thus he concludeth. If notwithstanding all this, thou (jew) cry still, how is this done, I following thy ignorance will demand of thee, how so many miracles were done in the old testament, the passing over the red sea, Moses rod made a serpent etc. 
To search by reason how Christ is present in the B. Sacrament, is to deny all scripture.  wherefore we ought rather to believe Christ, & humbly to learn of him, then like drunken sots to cry out, how can he give us his flesh, by which questioning thou must needs be driven to deny the whole scripture. In which words we see he reckoneth you amongst the Jews, & accounteth you neth●r very learned, nor much better than an Infidel, for these stout reasons which here you so magnify. And Peter M. being pressed with the authority of this Ciril, 
Ciril. in joan. lib. 10. cap 13.  that Christ by the mystical benediction, that is, by receiving of the Sacrament, dwelleth corporally in us (which M. jewel after his manner answereth very learnedly, 
jew. art. ●. ¶. 10. In M.W. translation fo. 414.415.  though very easily, by comparing it with an other phrase, that corporally is as much as truly, and truly may signify spiritually, and that is all one with tropically) saith more rudely, yet more sincerely. 
Martyr defence. ad object. Gard. part 4. pa. 724.  The flesh of Christ so to devil in us corporally, that the substance of his body should be communicated with us, that is (as this man interpreteth it) be mingled with our flesh, it is not in any case to be granted, no not if a thousand angels, much less if one Ciril said it. For it can not be, that Christ's flesh should so be diffunded or multiplied in infinite men and places. which showeth that Peter Mart. took not S. Ciril to be of your faith touching this article of the sacrament.  
The place which you cite out of S. Damascene, 
pag. 11.  because you direct me no where to find it, I will not bestow the pains to seek it. & being granted, it is not much to the purpose, and I marvel why you put it in greek as though there were some great terrible bug in it. 
Damascene.  That which was circumscript (saith he) was circumscript, & uncircumscript uncircumscript, and visible visible, and invisible invisible. which I take to be as true, as that a spade is a spade, and a mattock a mattock, fire is fire not water, and the sun is the sun and not the moon. And if you mean hereof to infer your heresy, that therefore Christ is not in the sacrament, frame you the argument, & perhaps it will persuade much. 
Damascene lib 4. de orthodoxa fide. c. 14.  In the mean season that Damasc. was no more of your religion, then S. Ciril, I refer you for proof to his books de Orthodoxa fide, where, 
Few of the ancient fathers, argue more vehemently and directly against M. W. heresy & argument proving the same, then S. Ciril. and Damascene whom he citeth.  namely in the fourth you find a very good and large chapter against your Zwinglian heresy. & especially against your philosophical fancies he disputeth thus. If the word of god be lively & forcible, if what soever our lord would, he did: if he said, let light be made & it was made, let the firmament be made and it was made: if by the word of god the heavens were established, and with the spirit of his mouth all the power of them: if heaven, and earth, and water-fier, and air and all their furniture, and man himself were perfected by his word: if when god the word so would, he became man and of the most pure and immaculate blood of the holy virgin, framed himself flesh without the seed of man: can not he (in the sacrament) make of bread, his own body, and of wine & water, his blood? No marry can he not, saith M.W. for that is against reason, and so he should have two bodies, one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But S. Damascene contemning such ethnical joys, proceedeth & concludeth, that as god in the beginning said, let the earth bring forth green herbs, and hitherto being helped and strengthened by that precept it so doth, so god said, this is my body, and this is my blood, and do this in commemoration of me, and by his omnipotent commandment it is wrought, which thing only faith can conceive. How shall this be done, saith the B. Virgin. the Archangel Gabriel answered, the holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most high shall overshadow thee. And now demandest thou, how bread is made the body of Christ, and wine and water his blood? I answer in like manner, that the holy Ghost cometh upon it, & worketh that which passeth the capacity of reason, and reach of understanding. Whereby you see, that how soever circumscript remained circumscript, and visible visible, S. Damascene never intended by such visible follies so to circumscribe our f●●th, or subject our religion to humane reason, that Christ's presence should be excluded out of the sacrament, or the sacrament should be esteemed a Zwinglian figure, which to induce you take much pain, but to very small effect.   

CHAP. IX. Wherein is refelled M. W. answer to certain places of S. Chrysostom touching the real presence and sacrifice.  
IN the last chapter we had an example how sufficiently you are want to confirm your own faith by scripture, reason, & fathers: here you give us an example how substantially you answer the fathers which we use for confirmation of our faith. Two places M. Martin objected out of S. Chrysostom against your geometrical opinion of Christ's body in one place. you avoid them so, as you give out plain demonstration, that you never considered them in the author himself, but only took the answer at delivery from M. jewel without any farther search. Thus you writ. 
pag. 11.  To Chrysostom teaching that Christ both left his flesh with us, and ascended having the same with him, I answer, that Christ placed his flesh in heaven, and nevertheless left us a sacrament of that flesh. And our faith enjoyeth the same evermore present. For the very substance of his flesh, Christ no more left in earth, than Elias left his body, when he ascended in to heaven. For so Chrisostom written a little before, that Elias was afterwards double, there was an Elias above, and there was an Elias beneath. Tell me I pray you M. Martin was that Elias body in earth, when he left his cloak to Elizeus? you will not say so. So true it is which Chrisostome writeth, that Christ hath left his flesh unto us symbolically, and yet hath carried the same in to heaven corporally.  

jewel. art. 6. ¶. 4.5.  This is your answer, which I say, you rather allow us (as may be thought) because Master jewel apply the same to the self same place, albeit in my opinion elsewhere he giveth you a better. 
Ibid. art. 10. ¶. 2.  For labouring to answer the place of S. Cyprian de caena Domini. Panis iste quem dominus etc. This bread which our lord gave to his disciples, being changed not in shape but in nature, by the almighty power of the word of Christ is made flesh, after a number of phrases alleged against the other parts of this sentence, coming to the last is made flesh, he showeth that neither this proveth the real presence, & that hystore of like phrases. For S. Aust. saith, nos Christi facti sumus, we are made Christ's. Leo saith, Corpus regenerati fit caro crucifixi, the body of the man that is regenerate, is made the flesh of Christ that was crucified. Beda saith, nos ipsi corpus Christi effecti sumus, we ourselves are made the body of Christ. Origen saith in like manner of speech, spiritus sanctus non in turturem vertitur, sed columba fit, the holy ghost is not changed into a turtell, but is made a dove. Thus if you had answered, that Christ departing took his flesh with him really, & left his flesh behind him allegorically, that is, the Christian people, his church, which S. 
1. Cor. 12. v. 27. Ephes. 5. v. 23.  Paul many times calleth his body, that had been more probable, more to S. Chrisostoms' discourse (& you see what doctors you might allege for it) them to say, that Christ took away with him his flesh really, & left the same with us symbolically, that is, bread and wine, which when we receive at the supper, we remember perhaps that Christ had flesh. But because it was either your chance or choice to give us the other, let us see how handsomely you frame it unto S. Chrisostoms' text.  
The sum of your answer is, that as Helias ascending left his cloak, which for certain reasons was called Elias, 
A commentary clean against the text.  so our Saviour ascending left us bread & wine, which is a sign of his body, & for some reasons is likewise called by the name of his body, but was no more his body, than the cloak was Elias. And are ye not ashamed thus to dally & abuse the reader? Or can your ignorance be so gross, as to think that this is S. Chrisost. meaning? Or can your reader otherwise deem of you, then as of a man altogether reckless what you say, if ever he read the place in S. Chrisostome himself? For so far of is it, that S. Chrisostome hath any such thing, that contrariwise he overthroweth most strongly this your folly, and vehemently urgeth the clean contrary. First touching Elias, he hath some of those words which you allege. As a great inheretance (saith he) Elizeus received the cloak: and truly it was a very great inheritance. And afterwards that Elias was double. There was an Elias above, and there was an Elias beneath, meaning (as it is plain) that he was taken up in body & soul, and remained beneath in power and operation, for so much as by the cloak Elizeus wrought strange miracles, such as Elias himself did before. And so S. Chrisostome saith expressly. propterea & in coelum ascendens, nihil aliud quam melotem discipulo reliquit. Therefore Elias ascending in to heaven, left to his disciple nothing else, but his cloak. And would he make a like comparison, and say the same of our Saviour? Let us hear his words. Thus he cometh to speak of Christ. quid igitur si vobis demonstravero quid aliud quod illo multo maius etc. 
Chrisost. homil. 2. ad pop. Antio. in fine.  what then will you say, if I show you an other manner of thing much greater than that, wh●ch all we have received, who so ever have been made partakers of the holy mysteries? Elias in deed left his cloak to his disciple, but the son of God ascending left to us his flesh, And Elias did so, but himself being deprived of his cloak, but Christ both left it unto us, & ascended having the self same with him. Therefore let us not faint in courage. For he that hath not refused to shed his blood for us all, and hath communicated unto us his flesh and the self same blood again, he will refuse nothing for our salvation. These are S. Chrisost. words, which tend to set forth, not a similitude, but an opposition, not an equality, but a supereminent excellency in our Saviour. 
The great difference between Elias leaving his mantle to Elizeus, and Christ leaving his flesh to us.  I will show you an other manner of thing (saith this holy father) far greater than that of Elias. And how so? and wherein standeth that so great and singular difference? In this. That Elias left his cloak: but the son of God his flesh, which none but the son of God could do. Again, Elias leaving his cloak, lost it, and so was bereft of it: but Christ the son of God, (as a work proper to his divine majesty) both left his flesh with us in the world, and yet lost it not, but carried the same flesh with him in to heaven. Furthermore, Elias took some pains for the saving of his people, but never shed his blood for them, much less could he impart to them the same: for this was above the compass or reach of humane imbecility. But Christ both shed his blood for our redemption, and again imparted unto us the self same blood, as the same doctor saith elsewhere. 
Chrisost. in 1. Cor. ca 10. hom. 24.  Quod est in chalice, id est quod fluxit è latere, et illius sumus participes. That which is in the chalice, is that which gushed out of his side, and we are partakers thereof.  
This is the most evident speech and sense of S. Chisostome, and no man I suppose can be so simple, but he may forthwith see, how well this matcheth with the doctrine of the catholic church, & how dissonant it is from the preaching of your congregation: especially if he know your doctrine a right and be not deceived with your fantastical painted words, which you sometimes use to beguile simple souls, seeming to advance that very highly and magnifically, which in deed yourselves esteem most basely & contemptibly. For think you of your Communion otherwise, then as of common bread and wine, without all grace, virtue, or sanctification, 
The true opinion of the zwinglians, touching their Supper or Communion.  with a bare figure of Christ absent, which figure yourselves can not explicate, nor shall be ever able to give reason, but you have or may have as good figures, at your common breakfastes divers, and suppers? This is your faith in that point, if you be zwinglians, and believe as the church of Geneva. 
Zuing. tom. 2. lib. de vera & falsa relig. c. de Eucharist. fol. 212.  The Eucharist (saith Zuinglius) or communion, or lords supper, is nothing else but a commemoration, in the which they that firmly believe themselves to be reconciled to god the father by Christ's death & blood, set forth his lively death, that is, praise it, give thanks, and preach. And when Luther objected to him, that he and his fellow heretics were divided amongst themselves, 
Ibid. in exegesi ad Lutherum fol. 362.363.  he answered thus. whereas thou sayest (Luther) that there are sects amongst us, it is false. both I, Carolostadius, & Oecolampadius, 
Symbola tantum esse. the Sacrament, only a figure.  and the rest avouch that the bread and wine be only figures, marry we shift the words of Christ after a divers manner, verba diversimodè expedimus. And in an other book against Luther, It is to be noted (saith he) that Paul 1. 
Ibi. add Luth. Confess. responsio. duae fo. 435. & add Matth. Rutling. fo. 155, & ad Theob. Billica. 261. The Sacrament nothing out bread.  Cor. 11. after the words of the institution, calleth it no otherwise then bread and the cup. For he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, this bread of the supper or that bread, hunc hunc panem qui praeter panem non est quicquam amplius. this bread this bread I say, which is nothing else but bread. All which he there expresseth by a plain similitude in this sort. 
Ibi. respons. duae, ad Lutherum fol. 477.  Behold this is the sacramental presence of Christ in this supper, as the Emperor or the King of France are said to be in the kingdom of Naples, 
Signa. The Sacrament is no more the body of Christ, than a painted scutcheon is the Queen of England or king of France.  because their banners or signs be there, whereas in the mean season, the one of them liveth in Spain, the other in France. But the bread and wine are no more one and the same thing with Christ's body and blood, than those kings banners be the very kings themselves, because they note unto us the majesty and power of the kings. And that you cavil not, that this is not the faith of your Genevian church, & so shroud yourself in your ordinary cloud of words, whereby you seem to speak honourably of this sacrament, hear you what Theodore Beza writeth, whom you extol so highly. Dico impudentes esse calumniatores etc. 
Beza. in epi. theologicis epist. 1.  I say they are impudent slanderers who imagine that there was ever any contrariety between the doctrine of these most excellent men, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, and Caluine touching the sacraments. I say also, that the self same faith in every respect, is proposed and defended in the Churches of Suizzerlande, Savoy and France, in the Flemish, Scottish, and (as I think) in the English churches also.  
Wherefore this being your faith, that in the Sacrament there is nothing but bread in such sort as hath been declared, I say with Zuinglius panis, 
How aptly M. W. answer and S. Christ. text match together.  panis, & nihil amplius, bread, bread, and nothing else, now compare your faith with S. Chrisostome, and see how handsomely you can patch it together. thus you must needs say. Elias departing out of this world left his cloak, but Christ left a thing of greater power and miracle, for he left us bread and wine. Elias left his cloak and so lost it, for he carried it not with him, but Christ ascending left us bread and wine, and took up bread and wine to heaven with him. Again (where in Elias hath no part of comparison) the blood which Christ shed for our redemption, that he imparted unto us in the chalice. Here you must help me through, for I know not what you will say, but sure I am, one of these two it must needs be: either that Christ redeemed the world by wine, which is the blood of the grape, and so communicated such wine and bread with us, and this standeth jump with your figurative supper & Communion: or that he redeemed the world with his own precious blood, and so communicated the same with us in the B. Sacrament, which is our faith, marry you will none of that. In conclusion, advise yourself better what you writ, and think not with such bald toys to shake of such grave authority. Regard the words, meaning and scope of the author, & so (except you be to dull) you can not be ignorant, but that you clean pervert this father, & turn him quite upside down. For whereas he would infinitely prefer that fact of Christ leaving the sacrament of his body to his Christians before the fact of Elias leaving his cloak to Elizeus (for of our conversinge with Christ in heaven by faith and understanding, 
M. W. quite perverteth S. Chrisost. sense and sentence.  here is no question, & Elizeus might have, and had no doubt his mind in heaven with Elias) by your commentary and sense, far greater was the fact of Elias then that of Christ. For the cloak was a far better and more lively figure of Elias, than your bread and wine is of Christ. By it Elizeus received great grace & strength, 
Chrisost in hoc loco.  as writeth S. Chrisostome, as by the which he fought against the devil and vanquished him. That your bread should give any grace, 
zuing. to. 2. li. de peccato origin. fo. 121. et ibid. respon. ad D. Baltazarem. fo. 105.  it is against your whole doctrine, and Zuinglius laboureth to prove it at large in sundry places, calling it papistical, to say, that any sacrament, even baptism doth aliquid momenti conferre ad sanctificationem aut remissionem peccatorum, profit any jot to sanctify or take away sin. 
4. Regum 2. v. 14.  Elizeus by that cloak wrought strange miracles. so did you by your figurative bread never, nor never shall, so long as the world standeth. Briefly, whereas Elizeus cloak carrying with it such virtue and power, was a thing surmounting the ability and reach of man, and could not be done but by the omnipotency of god: your bread being nothing but a sign or banner, as it were a maypole, or token of a tavern, by Zuinglius his own confession, the king of France or Spain can make ten thousand as good. And the truth is, they can make much better, because theirs do no harm, whereas yours lead men the high way to damnation. Wherefore your answer to this place of S. Chrisostome is to to fond and childish.  
And hereby we may have a guess, how substantially you are like to deal with the next, which is taken out of the same father. I must needs write it down somewhat at large, for the readers better understanding of us both. It is in his third book de sacerdotio, where he setteth forth the high estate of the priests of the new Testament, and that act wherein priesthood especially consisteth, that is, the sacrifice: thus he writeth. 
Chrisos. lib. 3. de sacerdotio. paulò post initium  This priesthood itself is exercised in earth, but is to be referred to the order and rue of things celestial, and that for good reason. because no mortal man, no angel, no archangel, no creature, but the holy Ghost himself framed this order. Terrible were the things & dreadful, which were before the time of grace in the la of Moses, as were the little bells, pomegranates, precious stones in the breast of the priest, the mitre, golden plate, 
The excellency of the priesthood of the new Testament. above that of the old.  sancta sanctorum etc. But if a man consider these things which the time of grace hath brought to us, he will judge all those things which I called terrible and dreadful, to be but light, and though glorious, yet not comparable with the glory of the new testament, as S. Paul saith. This being laid before, 
2. Cor. 3.  as it were a preface or preparative to that which followeth, he than cometh to that place, out of which M. W. culleth certain words. For (saith he) when thou seest our Lord sacrificed, and the priest earnestly intent to the sacrifice, and pouring out his prayers, and the people about him imparted and made red with that precious blood, 
Intingi & rubefieri.  thinkest thou thyself to converse amongst mortal men, and remain on the earth? And immediately, o miraculum, o Dei benignitatem, o miracle, o singular goodness of God, he that sitteth with his father above, at the self same moment of time is handled with all men's hands, and delivereth himself to those that will receive and embrace him. and this is done plainly in the sight of all men, without any deceit or illusion. Of this place M. Martin inferreth, that M.W. reasoning, Christ is in heaven, ergo not in the Sacramet, is wicked & refuted by the old fathers. But M.W. replieth, no. And I will give you your answer (saith he) out of the same place. 
Pag. 12.  for here Chrysostom affirmeth that we see our Lord sacrificed in the supper, and the people imparted and made red with the blood, and that this is done in the open sight of all that are present. But who seethe either our Lord tru●y sacrificed, or one drop of blood, with which the people are made red, so as all see it, as Chrisostome writeth. Therefore as we see Christ sacrificed, and the people imbrued with his blood, so we receive him in our hands. In these words, Chrysostom would both amplify the dignity of priests, unto whom Christ gave power to minister the Sacrament of his body and blood, 
A bad way to make them afraid, if they universally knew & believed the contrary,  and make the people afraid, that they which come to this supper, should bring with them godly and religious minds, as though they should take Christ himself in their hands. The substance of the answer is this. Chrysostom in the same place saith: we see Christ offered, which in truth is not so, but by a figurative speech: therefore when he saith Christ is in heaven and in the Sacrament, it is not simply true, but by like phrase and figure. But whereunto then tend all these great words and persuasions of this father? to honour the priest's office, and make the people afraid. and were there priests in the church in those days? No. but by priests you must understand minister's. and then, a simili, by the sacrifice he speaketh of, that is the mass, you must understand the Communion, that is by Catholic religion, you must understand heresy, and by light, darkness. But I will go through the branches of this answer in order.  
First, whereas you make that a thing most assured and certain that no man seethe Christ offered, except you mean in your English supper, 
We see Christ offered in the church.  you are greatly deceived For in the church Catholic we see Christ offered, and that not in phrase of speech only, as the protestāns may be said to do injury to Christ, when they abuse his image, but in verity and truth of doctrine. And S. Chrysostom with the rest of the fathers, never thought or spoke otherwise. How oft hath S. Chrisostome, 
Chrysost. in 1. Cor 10. hom. 24.  qu●d summo honore dignum est, id tibi ●n terra ●stendam. That which deserveth most honour, that will I show thee on earth. and in the same place. The royal body of Christ is in heaven, which now in earth is set before thee to be seen. I show unto thee, not angels, not archangel's, not heavens, not heaven of heavens, but I show thee the very Lord himself of all these. perceivest thou not, how not only thou seest in earth and touchest, but receivest also the sovereign and principal thing that is? And in the same place. This body which thou seest on the altar, the wise men adored in the manger. But it were tedious to note out such places, which are common in every book. This rather I would wish M. W. to understand, that where it hath pleased God in certain creatures to exhibit his presence after a more special and singular sort, there in a more special and singular manner, truly we may & aught to believe that we see our Lord. God is by essence, power and operation, present in every creature, yet in seeing a beast or tree, 
Genes. 32. ver. 30.  we may not say as jacob doth in Genesis, vidi dominum facie ad faciem, I have seen God face to face, when he wrestled with the Angel: or as Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abiu in the mount viderunt deum Israel saw the God of Israel, 
Exod. 24. ver. 9  and under his feet as it were a work of sapphyre stone, or as the prophets many times saw God sitting upon his throne. Which if it be true, 
3. Reg. 22. ver. 19 Esa. 6. v. 1.  how much more boldly and truly may we affirm, that we see Christ in the B. Sacrament, where we have most certain warrant, that his humanity & divinity are present after a most singular, and effectual, and substantial manner. Our saviour talking with the blind man unto whom he gave sight, said to him. dost thou believe in the son of God? 
joan 9 v. 38  he answered & said, who is he lord that I may believe in him. And jesus said to him. both thou hast seen him, & he that talketh with thee, he it is. and forthwith he fell down and adored him. This by your opinion must be false, because he only saw the external lineaments of a mortal man, but saw not, nor could see the son of God, being himself God: 
joan. 1. v. 18. 1 Tim. 6. v. 16. Exod. 33. vers. 20.  and god no man hath seen at any time, and not only no man hath seen, but neither can see. for as God himself saith, non videbit me homo et vivet, man shall not see me and live. Yet as Christ was truth itself, so he taught truly, and by reason of his divine and eternal person joined to that humanity, the poor man saw the eternal son of God: and so though after a far different manner, those prophets and patriarchs saw God. And therefore to you it should not seem strange, if S. Chrysostom and the Catholics profess, that truly they see Christ offered. for most true it is. It should seem no more strange I say, than it was strange for Christ to point to that which he had in his hands, and gave to his Apostles, and say withal, 
2. Cor. 11.  this which you see, is my body, and the same, which shall be delivered for you. which body delivered for us, if it were Christ, than the Apostles by Christ's demonstration saw Christ, and in such sort as we see him. So that first I answer, that your taking that for a thing plain and evident amongst us, which is clean contrary & most false, proceedeth of ignorance of the Catholic faith against which you writ, & so convinceth you of rashness to refute that which you understand not.  
Next I say, that you are as ignorant in the doctrine of your brethren the Lutherans, for this they affirm as well as we, though far more absurdlye. For reteyninge still the substance of bread & wine, yet because of the real presence, they acknowledge that bread to be the body of Christ, and so see the body of Christ, and apply hereunto, that ancient rule of our forefather's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and thereby adore it, and give to it godly honour, and believe that they take, receive, and touch Christ himself, and account you, not to be their brethren, (though you so basely will needs claim their kindred) but to be brethren of the old ethnics & Apostates, who for like belief scorned & mocked the ancient Christians, as you do us now. So Martin Luther confirming that, which in the first place I have said of gods exhibiting himself to us in creatures, writeth thus. 
Luth. Tom. 7 serm. de Eucharistia. fo. 337.  Although Christ be every where in all creatures, yet we may not look for him without the word. Wherefore he hath appointed us a certain way to find him, how and where he is to be sought and found. This they see not, neither understand, who say it is absurd to affirm or believe that Christ is in bread and wine, because they understand not what manner thing the Kingdom of Christ is etc. He is most present in his word, albeit he is not present in that sort, as he is here in the sacrament, by which he exhibiteth to the Christians his body and blood by the ministery of the word joined in bread and wine. And that the old Pagans in this kind of infidelity were the fathers of our Zwinglian Protestant's, he showeth in the same place writing thus. 
Ibid. fo. 335.  The devil laboureth (saith he) to sup up the egg and leave us the shell, that is, 
the zwinglian Communion plain bakers bread.  from the bread and wine to take away the body and blood of Christ, so that nothing remain, but plain bakers bread. And here they mock us at their pleasure, calling us shamefully, sarcophagos, and haemopotas, eaters of flesh and drinkers of blood, 
Infidels and Apostates forefathers of the Protestants, in mocking & scorning the Sacrament.  and that we worship a god made of bread, as they say: as of old that naughty man, & laden with all sin Averroes said. who slydinge back from our faith, slandered and reproached the faithful Christians, saying that there was not under the sun a more wicked people, than were the Christians, because they devoured their own God, which wickedness no people ever is read to have committed. 
Kemnit. in exam. conc. Trident. contra canon's de Eucharistia.  And Kemnitius in his examen Concilii Tridentini, upon this ground of the real presence, approveth the custom of the Church in adoring Christ in the sacrament, by the authority of S. Augustine, and S. Ambrose in Psal. 98. by Eusebius Emissenus, and S. Gregory Nazianzene, and saith it is impiety to do the contrary.  
Thirdly, if you had been but so conversant in Caluine as your profession requireth, you could not so far have been overseen in this easy distinction known to Catholic, Lutheran and Zwinglian, although when Caluine wrote thus, perhaps he was more than half a Lutheran, and not so far gone in Zuinglianisme as after. In his little book de caena domini thus he writeth. 
Calu. de ●oena Domini inter opuscula.  The bread and wine are rightly called the body and blood of Christ, because they be as it were instruments, by which Christ doth distribute them unto us, we have a very apt example in a like matter. When god would that the holy Ghost should appear in the baptism of Christ, he represented him in the figure of a dove. 
joan. 1. v. 32.  john the Baptist rehearsing the story, saith that he saw the holy Ghost descending. If we look narowlie, we shall find that he saw nothing but a dove. For the essence of the holy Ghost is invisible. Yet because he knew that vision to be no vain figure, but a most certain sign of the presence of the holy ghost, he boldly affirmeth that he saw him, because it was represented in such sort as he could bear. So in the communion, which we have in the body & blood of Christ, the mystery is spiritual, which we can neither see with eye, neither comprehend with humane w●●●. Therefore is it showed us by signs, yet so, 
The Sacrament in what sort a figure.  that it is not a naked or only figure, but io●ned to his truth and substance. Rightly therefore is it called the body, which it d●th not only represent, but also exhibit unto v●. Thus Caluine, teaching and prou●nge by scripture, that truly we see Christ (though not in his own form) partly because the sacrament is a figure which hath the verity io●ned with it, and therefore may well have his denomination of the principal, partly because being inconvenient either in respect of gods wisdom, or of our infirmity, to receive that glorious body in his own form (which reason Theophilacte, S. Damascene, S. ciril, S. Chrisostom, and other fathers give) god hath appointed these external sacraments for instruments, by m●anes whereof we m●ght truly be made partakers of that, which otherwise we should abhor.  
But grant we now to M.W. that it is only a phrase of speech to say we see Chr●st or his body and blood, how followeth his reason, therefore it is also but a phrase of speech to say, the body is there at all? Suppose a man may stand in argument that the Apostles seeing the humanity of Christ, saw not the son of god, saw not the creator of the world, will your philosophy or divinity serve you to infer, ergo that person or man, whom they beheld, was not the son of god? Again what logic, 
The Protestant's by their analogy of faith. of every place of scripture or doctor conclude what they list.  what wit permitteth you from one particular, to conclude as many as you list? It is a figure when we read in scripture, god hath hands, face, nosetrils: ergo it is a figure when we read that Christ took flesh of the virgin. It is a figure when Christ said, that he descended from heaven: 
joan. 3.  ergo his ascension is not true but imaginary. It is not possible for us in the height & excellency of the divine mysteries, and the baseness of our understanding and barrenness of our tongue scarce to think, much less to speak of them, but we shall fall in to some unproper terms, as appeareth by the whole course of divinity. From which necessity, he that taketh this licence, which M. W. alloweth to himself, & from one word spoken figuratively, at his pleasure will deduce the like of an other, he will make Christian religion as variable as is the rainbow, as unconstant as the weathercock. And yet this loose kind of talking (for who can call it reasoning) is the very root and mother of the Zwinglian gospel▪ for upon this pillar was erected the sacramentary heresy in Zuricke, as Zuinglius himself signifieth: for thus he reasoned. When Christ said this i● my body, he spoke tropically, because when Moses said, 
Exod. 12.  the lamb is the passover (which notwithstanding is a text of his own coining, as Luther proveth against him) this is a tropical speech. 
Luther to. 7. defence. verborum coenae fo. 386.  Against which, Luther replying and scorning, saith it is as valiant & wise a proof, as if a man would argue that Sara or Rebecca brought forth children and remained virgins, because our Lady did so: or that Pilate and Herode were two glorious Apostles of Christ, because Peter and Paul were.  
But see you not saith M. W. that S. Chrisostome is full of vehemency and amplification? He is vehement I confess, 
Impossible to interpret S. Chrysost. of the English Communion.  & perhaps amplifieth. But wherein is he vehement, or what doth he amplify? a lie or a truth? a truth, to wit the dignity of priests, say you. Then there were priests, and so there was a sacrifice by your own definition. 
supra pa. ●7.  and plain it is that S. Chrysostom so much advanceth the priest in regard of the sacrifice. Now this amplification must rise upon a true ground, otherwise he may rather be said to magnify a lie, then to amplify a truth. Then gather me out of S. Chrisost. any one truth where upon he doth thus enlarge and use his vehemency. Nay consider by your opinion and faith, whether almost every word in this place be not a lie. We see Christ saith he. that is a lie, and now refuted by you. We see him offered, that is a lie, and a blasphemous lie. 
M. jewels 17. article.  The priest bend earnestly to the sacrifice, that is a lie, for there was no such sacrifice within six hundred years after Christ. The people receive the precious blood, that is a lie, 
The 5. artie.  for no man believed the real presence within six hundred years neither. O miracle (saith S. Chrysost.) o singular goodness of god, he that sitteth with his father above, at the self same moment of time is received in the church at the priests hands. that is a lie, 
The 6. artie.  for so should the body of Christ at one time be in a thousand places, which is against M. jewels sixth article, & therefore needs it must be false, so to speak or think. What truth now remaineth for S. Chrysostom to amplify, whereas every word he speaketh being taken as it standeth, according to your religion is false? Belike he m●ant to advance such dealing of bread and wine as you use in your congreg●tions, and consequently your ministery which is promoted to so worthy a vocation. But what sentence, what word, what syllable hath he to that purpose? yet grant it be so. Then your faith and religion being all one with S. Chrisostomes' (as you tell us) let your ministers use such amplification to their people (and you need not to be ashamed to borrow or learn of so excellent a doctor) and see whether both the people will not cry out upon them as false prophets, and the Commissioners bring them within the Praemunire, for preaching against the pure gospel received and authorized by parliament. Let them preach that they offer and sacrifice their lord and master, that they are earnest lie be●t to perform that duty of priesthood, that at their hands the people receive the precious blood of Christ, let such preachers be brought before you M. W. as th● public professor of divinity, and I appeal to your conscience, whether you will allow such preaching as an amplification of their m●nisterio & not condemn it as wicked, and detestable, and blasphemous against the gospel.  
Finally M. W. could in no place more undiscreetly have used this manner of answer then here. For S. Chrysostom so placeth the sacrifice of the church between two notorious sacrifices, 
True sacrifice in the church.  and maketh the comparison between all three so nighly and exactly, preferring always ours by infinite degrees of excellency, that a man with half an eye may see that M. W. thrust it in rather because he had so read in M. jewel, then because he considerately perused the place himself. Before the words pertaining to the sacrifice of the church, S. Chrysostom thus speaketh of the levitical sacrifice. 
Chryso. ubi supra.  All things were terrible and dreadful about that sacrifice and priesthood: but if you match it with this sacrifice and priesthood, wherein by the priest, our lord himself is sacrificed, all that is nothing as in the words set down in the beginning appeareth. Immediately after, thus he proceedeth▪ wilt thou see the excellency of this holiness by an other miracles put before thy eyes Elias and that infinite multitude about him, and the sacrifice l●yd upon the altar, the prophet pouring forth his prayers, suddenly fire descending from heaven and consuming the sacrifice, all strange and full of admiration. Ab illis sacris ad nostra sacra te transfer, from that sacrifice turn thyself to behold our sacrifice, and thou shalt see that ours is far more wonderful and passing all admiration. For here is the priest carrying not fire, but the holy Ghost, from whom grace floweth in to the sacrifice etc. Wherefore, whereas he beginneth with a true sacrifice, and endeth with a true sacrifice, and compareth the middle with the extremes as a most true and excellent sacrifice, and affirmeth it so to be, and useth the other two for no other purpose, then by the abasinge of those sacrifices to advance the dignity of this singular sacrifice: for one to come now and against such evidence, upon one or other metephorical word (which in such divine things can not possibly be avoided) to say, all is metaphors, & he meant no such thing etc. it is an argument neither of wit, nor of learning nor shamefastness, nor conscience. it is a manifest sign of one, that neither seeketh after the truth, nor careth what he saith, nor regardeth man, nor feareth god. but pass we on.   

CHAP. X. Of the place in S. Luke's Gospel cap. 22. corrupted by Beza.  
BEFORE you come to justify the corruption of S. Luke's Gospel, whereof your grand captain Beza is attainted, very orderly you begin with the commendation of so singular a parsonage, saying that M. 
Pag. 12.  Martin with the rest of his adversaries, in respect of him be but Pigmees, whom if he could once see, he would sow them up in a bag, 
insutos in culcum allideret.  and knock out their brains, as Polyphemus did to Ulysses companions, wherein you speak perhaps truer than you are aware. For in deed, in murdering men he hath better skill than he hath in his bible, as cunning as you make him, whereof all France is witness, unto which he hath been a known Catiline and firebrand, and hath in deed been the cause that some good men have been so used, as you threaten he would use his adversaries, 
Vide orat. Pet. Frar. contra sectarios. item epist. Bezae 41.  as in the stories of the civil wars of France we read. Marry that you wish some man to write against him, whose tongue he understandeth, as though such wanted, this argueth that either you are very ignorant, & know little out of your own territory, who think there are none such, or else that you are not his friend, who wish him more enemies: whereas he hath store of such, more than ever he can turn himself unto, and therefore lieth continually as it were broken in back and wind, groveling under such heavy burdens as he is charged withal. And although I take not upon me to know much in his affairs (and I wish withal my heart I knew less) yet thus much I am assured of, 
Writers against Beza.  that not only Catholics of excellent fame and learning, some of them renowned Bishops & doctors, have written against him in such a tongue as he well understandeth, as Claudius Santesius, Espenceus, Vigour, Lindanus, Franciscus Balduinus, Michael Fabricius & his nephew Gabriel, but also Lutherans and calvinists have plied him with such books: as for example, Heshusius, Flacius Illyricus, Selneccerus, the University of jena in Germany, Sebastianus Castalio, Carolus Molineus, besides many other Polonians, his own scholars, whose names I know not nor list to learn. These Pigmees and dwarves, how little so ever they were, in country's Catholic and Lutherish, and in many places professing Zuinglianisme, have so put out the eye and diminished the estimation of your Poliphemus, that of the Catholics he is known to have been but a wicked sycophant, of detestable manners, a feared conscience, 
1. Tim. 4. v. 2.  and mean learning, and of the Lutherans, he is accounted as ill, howsoever among the ministers of England, where perhaps Luscus may regnare inter caecos, he is esteemed for a marvelous Evangelist, as it were an other Hercules or Atlas, that holdeth up your gospel with his shoulders.  
But let him be as huge as may be, as big and great as you would make him: he had need be as great as Gargantua, or the great devil of hell, if he bear away that which we charge him withal, though you lay to your shoulders to help him as well as you can. M. Mar. accuseth him that he controleth our Saviour, setteth the holy Ghost to school, & correcteth the Evangelist. For whereas the Evangelist by Beza his own confession wrote one thing as uttered by our Saviour, and therefore most assuredly our Saviour spoke so in substance and effect, and the holy Ghost guiding the pen and hand of the Evangelist indited so, this your great Giant cometh and shouldereth them all out, altereth quite the text, saith it is false, and giveth us a new text of his own. 
The point of this controversy, well to be marked.  The point of the controversy is this, that S. Luke avoucheth, that that which was in the chalice (for to babble about the metal of the chalice, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  is more meet for William Summer the King's jester, then for M. William Whitaker the queens reader) was the new testament in Christ's blood, or as S. Mark and S. Matthew writ, in meaning and truth all one, for easiness of understanding, to common Christians more plain, is Christ's blood of the new testament, and the self same (contained in the chalice) was shed for us. So Beza himself giveth us the translation in S. 
Beza in Mat. 26. ver. 28. Mar. 14. v. 24  Matthew and S. Mark. Hoc (poculum) est sanguis meus novi testamenti, This (cup) is my blood of the new testament, meaning by the cup (as himself there writeth) tha● which was contained therein, vulgata & trita omnibus linguis consuetudine loquendi. by a common kind of speech and familiar to every language. So that M. whitaker's gross affectation of a little subtility, is here more out of season, then in lente unguentum, or to mingle S. 
Rom. 9  Paul's discourse of Predestination, with a tale of Robin Hood. The matter being well & at large handled by M. Martin, 
Discou. ca 1 numb. 38. c. 17. num. 10.  I remit the reader to him for more particular explication of every parcel and circumstance, I will only note the conclusion, for which all this stir against S. Luke is kept, & perhaps it is a great reason, why in their late conference in the Tower, 
See before cap. 2.  they have turned him out of his ancient authority, and matched him with judith and the Maccabees, which they esteem little better than Aesopes' fables. 
The real presence manifestly proved by S. Luke.  The conclusion is, that whereas S. Luke most directly affirmeth that which was in the chalice to be the self same blood that was shed for our sins, hence we confirm (as all the world may see) the old Catholic faith, and refute this new, profane, and bakerly Communion devised by Carolostadius and Zuinglius. That this is the reason, why Beza altered the text, himself confesseth in flat terms. Quum haec verbasi constructionem spectemus, 
Beza in Luc. 22. v. 10.  necessario non ad sanguinem sed ad poculum pertineant, neque tamen de poculo intelligi possint etc. whereas these word (which is shed for you) if you regard the plain construction, appertain of necessity no● to the blood, but to the cup or chalice, and yet can not be understood of the cup or chalice (which he speaketh, presupposing his heresy to be true) therefore I have made this alteration saith he. That he never found among all his ancient copies latin or greek, any one reading as he translateth, himself also confesseth. Omnes tamen vetusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant. Albeit I thus translate, yet all our old ancient books had it otherwise. that is, so written as it is commonly read, and as the papists would have it.  
Wherefore this being his fault, that upon private fancy to serve his peculiar heresy, he hath altered the very letter and text of the Gospel, is he a Christian, is he a common heretic, nay, is he not worse than a jew, than a Turk, than the worst kind of Pagans, that pretending the name of a Christian will defend such a vile caitiff and monster, directly against the sacred Evangelist & our blessed Saviour himself? and yet forsooth because this man is not only a great pillar, but also for some great part a very coiner of this new Gospel, as it were their very Evangelist, (for much of their text is made by him) he must needs be defended, though the old Evangelists go to wrack for it. Pardon me (Christian reader) if I seem somewhat vehement, their dealing being such, that if men held their peace, the very infants, 
Luc. 19 v. 40  yea the very stones would speak, as saith our Saviour. And withal consider thou, when they will give over those barbarous Paradoxes, of feminine primacy, of baptism not remitting sins, of their tropical bread etc. wherein they stand only against the catholics, or at the most, against us and their brethren the Lutherans, when as they will not give over, but continue and maintain their traitorous and Satanical action commenced against our blessed Saviour.  
But if we may without sin spend time in hearing what they have to say against him, let us attend M. Whitaker and weigh what he dareth utter in that behalf. 
M.W. arguing against the text. of S. Luke. Pag. 13.  Thus he disputeth. The words of Luke are. This cup is the new testament in my blood: that is, if we follow M. Martin's interpretation, This blood is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. what sense is there of these words M. Martin, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and what doubt blood is this? See you not here a manifest repetition of the same thing rising of your interpretation? Wherefore seeing your sentence is plainly absurd, who will not rather with Beza say there is a fault in the words, or with Basil read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. First of all to begin, you somewhat misreport M. Martin in saying that he interpreteth, Hic sanguis est nowm testamentum in sanguine meo. this blood is the new testament in my blood. For though he deduce that by necessary consequence, yet is it an other thing to say he interpreteth it so. 
The real presence.  The interpretation he giveth you precisely out of S. Chrysostom, 
Chris. in. 1. Cor. 10. hom. 24.  hoc quod est in chalice, illud est quod fluxit de latere that which is in the chalice, is that which flowed out of Christ's side. 
Leo serm. 11 de pass. The just blood is the cup which S. Luke mentioneth.  which also S. Leo the great very divinely expresseth. Fudit sanguinem instum qui reconciliando mundo et pretium esset et poculum. he shed the just blood which should be both the price & the cup to reconcile the world, the one in his passion on the cross, the other in the sacrament at his last supper. whereof though you may truly infer, that the blood of Christ in the chalice, is the self same blood that flowed out of the side of Christ, as here S. Leo doth, yet talking exactly of propositions, you may find a great difference. As if a man pointing to you should say, this man is a Caluinist or heretic, he saith in deed, this Caluinist is a Caluinist. yet can you not deny but there is a great difference in the proposition. Wherefore we hold you to the words and sense of the Evangelist, as your great rabbin setteth them down. hoc est sanguis mens novi testamenti. This (cup) is my blood of the new testament, which is the self same without any the least difference, which M. Martin giveth you out of S. Chrysostom. Now what have you against it? 
Many faults committed by M.W. in his defence of Beza.  Oh say you it is tautologia, an absurd repetition of the self same thing, for what double blood is this?  
First why lie you so grossly and intolerably, as to say here is mention of double blood? If I say, this Christ is Christ the son of God, this Messiah is the Messiah & Saviour of the world, this God, is God of heaven and earth, find you mentioned a double Christ, a double Messiah, a double God, as here you find double blood, if we say, this blood is the blood of the new testament?  
Again, let the reader see, if you be not possessed with a spirit of giddiness, 
Esa. 19 v. 14.  and what a miserable surgeon you are, who going about to cure Bezaes' wound, wound yourself as deeply, and whiles you endeavour to excuse his Atheism and impiety, run headlong on the same rock yourself. For what is Bezaes' fault? this, that to help forth his Zwinglian heresy, he corrected S. Luke in the later part of the sentence (shed for you) and altered that according to his fancy. How doth M. W. mend this? by railing at the first part, This cup is the blood of the new Testament. for this (saith he) is tautologia. here is double blood. here is an absurd sentence. So that now between you and Beza, S. Luke hath never a word right, Beza reproving and mending the later part, and you being as saucy with the former. Is not this well defended?  
Now grant we all these faults of ●aut● ogia, an absurd sentence, an idle repetition etc. where lie these faults? doubtless not so much in the Evangelist, who wrote them, as in our Saviour who spoke them. Suppose I say it seem hard to your delicate and Ciceronian ears. must therefore Christ be set to school to learn his lesson of that fierbrande of sedition, that sink & gulf of iniquity Theodore Beza? and what is the absurdity you find in these words? marry that that which was in the chalice was shed for our sins, and therefore consequently, it was the real blood of our Saviour, which is plain papistry and against our Communion book. Is it so? Then to hell with your Communion book, and you to, if that be so opposite to the Gospel of Christ, & you dare maintain it by open checking and controling Christ the eternal wisdom of God.  
And see what rovel we shall have in scripture, 
The Protestants by their example & practice, make the scripture more uncertain and mutable than any weathercock  if this unchristian divinity go forward. And always I desire the reader to remember, that I am by force constrained to remain in this base kind of talking in so plain a matter, against these enemies of Christ, that seem to have lost the common senses of men. S. john the Baptist beholding Christ saith: Ecce agnus dei, ecce quitollit peccata mundi. 
john. 1. v. 29  Behold the lamb of God, Behold (the lamb) that taketh away the sins of the world. Call S. john to M. whitaker's consistory, & he will ●●●ke him recant his speech. For first Christ is no lamb, because he hath no will on his back. It is the self same reason, which here is used against S. Luke, about the me●●all of the chalice▪ Than being driven from that, the adsurditie of tautologia still remaineth. Behold this lamb is the lamb of God, what an idle speech is this? what is this double lamb? therefore send it to Geneva to be cast a new in Bezaes' forge. 
Chriso to 3. serm. de ●rin●tate. Gen. 19 v. 24. Victor de persecutione Vandalic. li. 2. in sine. Psal. 66.  The catholics of old time to prove distinction of persons in the deity, used that place of Genesis, pruit. d●mi●●● a● domino, our Lord rained from our Lord: to prove the Trinity of people, they used the place of the psalm, Benedicat nos Deus Deus noster, benedis at nos Deus. God our God bless us, our God bless us. This to a Trinitarian, is absurda sententia, and induceth a plurality of Gods. whereas S. Paul saith, unus Deus, unus Dom●nus o●● God, 
Ephes. 4. 7.5. ●  one Lord▪ what remaineth them, but that according to the arrest of this, supreme arbiter, we fall to new casting of the scripture, and so in short space (no doubt) we shall grow to perfection, that is, to the Turks Alcoran, if we be not come so far already. The scriptures are full of such absurdities, which nevertheless are absurdities only to carnal cogitations, to Satan & Satan's ministers: 
2. Co. 10. v. ●  but to them that have learned in the school of the holy Ghost, to subject their understanding to the obedience of faith, they are nothing so. And M.W. 
If other heretics should do as Beza giveth them example. within a short time we should have a strange Bible.  if he had in him any drop of religion & faith, he should thus think. Howsoever I can reconcile two or three Gods with one, the blood shed on the cross with that which was in the chalice, were it blood or wine, let Christ's words stand as he spoke them and the Evangelist wrote them, and let us afterward in the name of God, be we Lutherans, zwinglians, Caluinists, Trinitaries or Anabaptists, each according to his private spirit, search for the sense as well as we can. Christ's soul went down to hell, saith our Creed and S. Luke. It is absurd (saith Beza) and papistical, 
Actor. 2.  and therefore for soul I have translated carcase, and for hell grave, whom in so doing the English congregation approveth. That Christ ascended into heaven, it is a fancy of Aristotle and Mahomet saith Brentius, 
Brentius & the Ubiquitaries have written many books against the article of Chr●sts Ascension.  and to the Lutherans, it is absurda sententia. shall they now leave out that word, and put in the text, for ascendit, evanuit or disparuit, he vanished out of sight in steed of he ascended, which to them is the true and only sense of the place, and which they may and aught to do by like reason and authority?  
But S. Basil you say, readeth as you translate. grant he did so. but what translate you? 
One or other father's reading▪ is no warrant for us to alter the text of scripture.  S. Basil, or S. Luke? if S. Basil, you have done well, to follow your greek copy. If S. Luke, then do you wickedly to alter S. Luke upon conjecture of one greek doctor, all greek copies and doctors being to the contrary. And what if S. Basil in an other place read otherwise? shall we not make a wise patching of scripture, if upon every particular doctor's citation we altar the holy text? S. Aug. in many places, S. Bernard, and other good men draw exhortations for their friends, or monks, or people, and commonly they do it in the very phrase of scripture. yet because they knit together many sentences of scriptures, that be in divers places, they must of necessity add some words or parcels of their own. Nether is it material, if oftentimes they leave out one word or a few words. But if by such authority we should alter our text, we should in short space have so many texts, that in deed we should have no text, because we should have no certain text whereunto we might trust. And why remember you not that, which in this self same place M. Martin told you out of Beza, who noteth it to be the custom of the ancient fathers in citing scriptures, 
Discou pag. 261. nu. 1●.  to allege the sense & not to stick precisely upon the words. And that therefore how soever they read, that is no certain rule to reform or alter the words of scripture.  
But here you make your advantage of M. Martin's words, and say, 
Whit. pa. 13.  if Basil cited not the words, but the sense of the scripture, them Beza when he so translated, miss nothing of the sense. so M. Martin doth now plainly acquit Beza, who before he accused. For if Basils' words give a true sense, and the interpretation of Beza and ours all agree with Basils' words, than your accusation is false, that we had corrupted the sense of the scripture. Somewhat you say, and this hath some appearance, more than any thing that you have said hitherto: yet you reach not home, and you are over hasty in your conclusion. S. Basil giveth a true sense I confess, whether you respect the particular matter whereunto he applieth the place, or the general doctrine of the catholic church. For his words are sufficient for the one and the other. And so are the words in our vulgar Latin and English, and may well be taken as agreeing with S. 
Luc. 22. v. 20  Basil. hic est calix, nowm testamentum in sanguine meo qui pro vobis fundetur. This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood which shall be shed for you. And whosoever readeth and taketh these later words, as referring them to the blood of Christ shed on the cross, 
Great difference between a Catholic reading indifferently one way or other, and an heretic choosing precisely one only way most serving his heresy.  he thinketh very well and truly and no man would ever find fault with such a sense or citation, if it stayd there. For this nothing impaireth the other truth whereof we speak, that the same blood is in the chalice. But when there riseth up a new heresy by one truth overthrowing an other, and by one part of the sentence destroying an other (as it fareth betwixt us) this circumstance so far altereth the case, that the old father alleging the text without any thought or imagination of heresy, did well and christian-like, the new heretic enforcing the same in defence of heresy, doth n●ughtely & sacrilegrously. as for example. If some good man as S. Basil or S. Bernard, to induce his auditors to the love of Christ, had used this sentence of the Apostle. 
Tit. 3. ver. 5.  In this appeared the benignity of our lord & saviour towards us, that not by the works of justice which we did, but of his infinite mercy he saved us. This place according to the sense, had been well & truly cited. For albeit infinite is not in the text, yet that is no hindrance to the meaning, and although I name not Christ god, 
In this sort S. Peter 1. epist. c. 2. v. 6 citeth a place out of isaiah. 28. v. 16  yet neither that word hindereth any thing, because in a Christian audience, it is all one to say our lord and saviour Christ, or our god and saviour Christ. But if there rose up some Nestorian heretic, that should divide Christ from god, and make two persons of this one saviour (from which heresy Beza was not far, 
Whit. cont. Cam. pa. 135  as you know) now this heresy maketh that citation though otherwise good and sound, yet not so perfect and absolute, as it had been to put in the word god. Because in this time, and against such an heretic, the place thus alleged is more forcible, & S. Bernard erred not in citing the first, but this heretic playeth the very heretic in pressing it against the later. Take an other example, to make the thing more manifest. In S. Luke we read that the angel thus speaketh to our blessed Lady. 
Luke. 1. v. 35  Spiritus sanctus superueniet in te etc. ideoque quod nascetur ex te sanctum, vocabitur filius dei: The holy Ghost shall come upon thee etc. and therefore that which of thee shall be borne holy, shall be called the son of god. who doubteth but S. Bernard or S. Thomas, and some ancient copies, albeit they leave out the words ex te, of thee, nevertheless mean the true and perfect sense of the place, that our Lady through the power of the holy Ghost, conceived of her body, and brought forth the son of god? Now rise your friends the Anabaptists, and amongst other heresies spread this, that Christ brought his flesh from heaven, and took it not of our blessed Lady, but passed through her as water through a conduit pipe, or according to your ancient comparison when you first began your gospel, Christ was so in her, as saffron in a saffron bag. And they being pressed with this place, answer as you answer for Beza, that the true reading is to leave out those two syllables ex te, and so the place proveth nothing. And this they would prove by better argument than you pretend any, having for them some ancient copies both greek and latin, besides the reading of more fathers than one. Can not you in this case easily conceive, how those fathers and writers gave a true sense and far from the anabaptistical heresy, and yet the Anabaptists are wicked heretics in urging this correction of the text? why so? because the fathers spoke truly, and meant entirely the full truth, although the sense be not so full and absolute to all purposes, and in every respect. namely of this new heresy (whereof these fathers never dreamt) as is the text itself in his natural strength and force, put down in those words and syllables as it was first by the holy Evangelist: the anabaptists speak falsely and mean detestably, when by that alteration they will seem to confirm their heresy & take from the Catholic church so good a ground refelling the same, which those other fathers never intended. This is your very case, and so S. Basil meant truly and simply, and as a Saint and a Christian, though Beza and you deal in the self same matter, falsely, and subtly, and as it becometh heretics.  
And yet one step farther, when you have done & spoke all, all that ye do & speak, 
Bezaes' corruption inexcusable, for aught M. W. either hath said, or can say.  is nothing to the purpose. For suppose ye sin●e many Basils', and many greek copies reading as you would have it, yet shall you be never for all that able to justify Beza, because he confesseth, when he so translated he never saw any, and therefore was not moved by any such reading. And therefore your p●ying & searching for fyg-leaves to cover his filthiness, 
Genes. 3.  can no more serve the turn, then if a man should excuse judas for betraying Christ, by reason of the good, which came thereby to the redemption of mankind. Because whatsoever was the event of that action, he sinned th●rin damnably who regarded no such matter, but only for malice and gain of thirty. pence, sold his lord and master. and the self same is to be said of this judas, whose honesty you would so fain sane. For whatsoever may be the success of your labours in this argument, he certainly played therein the part of a damnable corruptor of gods holy word, who for malice against the truth and love of his heresy, without any such knowledge committed so sacrilegious an act.  
And the reason which you make, 
Wh. pag. 23.  helpeth the matter never a whit, but so much the more discovereth your folly. Thus you argue. 
M.W. argument.  If by the cup you understand (not the cup itself, but) the blood of Christ in the cup, is not this a trope? why then are you offended with us, when you yourselves grant that there is a trope in these words? Is it lawful for you to invent tropes, & is it unlawful for us to appoint one necessary trope? 
The vanity thereof.  Whereunto I answer, first that this is also from the purpose. For be your Zwinglian heresy most true, as it is most false, it furthereth you nothing, nor abbettereth his rashness in altering the text. For we may not make the scripture speak every truth in every place, much less may we make it speak vile heresy in any place. Then, the form of your reasoning is so lose, that if a man would study for an argument to make sport withal, he could not devise one more fond and ridiculous.  
We allow of a trope, when we interpret the cup to be the blood, or the thing contained in the cup.  
Ergo we ought to allow your trope, in the other part of the sentence, that the blood shed for us, should signify a cup of wine.  
What wit, reason, probability, or sense, induceth you so to talk? whence riseth the coherence and connexion of this consequent? Is it this, because in one part of the sentence there is a trope or figure, therefore the other part is figurative also? as for example. S. 
Gal. 2. v. 19  Paul saith, by the la I am dead to the la, with Christ I am nailed to the cross. 
Rom. 6. v. 13  and again. We that are baptized, are buried together by baptism in to death with Christ. in which sentence the Apostle joineth two several truths, in the first, Christ was nailed to the cross, and I am nailed to the cross with him. in the next, Christ was buried, and we that are baptized, are buried with him. Now is this your argument. S. Paul was nailed to the cross mystically, and this a trope. ergo Christ was nailed to the cross in such manner, and that is also a trope & when the baptized are said to be buried with Christ, it is a figure. ergo that Christ was buried, is likewise a figure. If this be the knitting of your argument, you see what pith is in it. Or is it, because of one particular figure you may infer an other? then also you have your answer, given you partly in that which is how said, partly before by your father Luther, 
See before pag. 220.  that it is as substantial a reason, as if I should say: Peter was an Apostle, ergo Pilate was an Apostle. the blessed virgin brought forth and remained a virgin, ergo Sara did so. Or mean you that your trope hath as good reason to support it, as hath ours? 
Infinite difference between the figure of the Catholics and that of the heretics.  if so, we give you infinite difference, because upon our trope, to wit, that the cup, that is, the metal, could not be shed or powered out, and therefore the words must needs be understood of the thing contained in the cup, all Catholics now living, all Catholics from Christ's time, all heretics though otherwise most perverse & obstinate enemies of the truth, Lutherans, zwinglians, anabaptists, of any sect & fashion, all creatures endued with wit and reason, man woman and child agree, and (as Beza confesseth) it is a trope vulgar and usual to all languages and nations. But upon your trope, where you interpret the blood of Christ by wine, and refer the later part, not to that which was in the chalice, and so deny the real presence, no Catholic now living, no Catholic ever living agreed, the church of God from the beginning hath abhorred it, the very grammat & grammatical construction refelleth it, your own brethren detest it, Luther & the Lutherans condemn it, yea the Sacramentaries themselves many of them, account it a very dull and blunt evasion, so far forth, that Carolostadius the first father of your sacramentary heresy, (though he be not commonly so esteemed) thought it a more cleanly exposition, to say that Christ referred those worde● hic est corpus meum, 
Carolost, exposition of Christ's words, hoc est corpus meum.  hic est sanguis meus, to himself sitting at the table as if Christ had said: iccipite, manducate, take ye, and eat, and be merry, for I am he that must die for al. And Hulderike Zuinglius that most excellent man sent from God with Luther to lighten the whole world, by the judgement of your English church, 
Apol. Angl part. 4. ca 4. ¶. 2.  is so uncertain of your trope, that he alloweth well of this exposition, and giveth you good leave to follow it, and it was allowed of many thousand Sacramentaries besides him. Touching Zuinglius, his words are evident. Carolostadius pius homo, etc. 
Zuing. tom. 2. in epist. ad Matth. Rutlin. de coena fol. 255.  Carolostadius that godly man (saith Zuinglius) doth interpret the words of the supper, as though Christ had directed them not to the bread, but to himself, saying, take, eat, for I will deliver this body for you. This interpretation he proveth, 
Scripture applied by heretics to prove any thing be it never so absurd.  because the prophets foretell that Christ should be crucified, etc. And after many places of scripture brought to prove this exposition, he giveth in his own judgement thus. Ego hominis pii laudo industriam, de fide gratulor, hanc Carolostadii sententiam qui probaver it, nos minime offendet. I commend the diligence of this godly man, I praise the lord for his faith, if any man will follow this his opinion, I shall like well of it. So that, great is the difference between our trope and yours, as great as is between our doctrine and yours, that is as great, as is between truth and falsehood, light and darkness, heaven and hell: and therefore except you furnish it with better reasons then this, your figure will remain a poor, beggarly, heretical shift, devised by a few of one sect, and contemned by many of the same sect, and infinite of other sects, when ours shall stand accounted a certain truth, not only to Catholics & heretics of all sorts, but also to all men endued with common wit or reason.  
And this is all that M.W. bringeth for the defence of Beza wherein after a number of faults, errors, ignorances, impieties, he hath so behaved himself, that he hath lea●t the matter worse than he found it. so that in the next writing, he hath not so much to labour for Beza, so Lucifer like controling the Evangelist in one word, as he hath to shift for himself, who in a greater piece and more important, hath so damnably and detestably thwarted the same Evangelist and our B. saviour, and like a plain Atheist worse than Beza; hath more defaced that first and principal part this is the new testament in my blood: this speech of our Lord and saviour he hath reproved I say, of ●aur●logia, vain repetition, and absurd consequence. How much better and more honest had it been for him and Beza both, to have followed the sober counsel of their father Martin Luther. 
Luther tom. 7. defensio verborum coen. fo. 411.  I go v●●o (saith he) de iris Sacramentariis hoc sanc suaderent etc. I truly would give the doting Sacramentaries this advise, 
Luth. sage counsel to the Sacramentaries in this case.  that seeing they will needs be mad, let them play the mad men rather wholly, then in part. Therefore whereas they must adventure somewhat, let them make short work, and raze altogether out of the supper those words, this is my body which is given for you. For touching their faith and celebration of their supper, they have no need of these words, but it is all one, if thus they kept it: Christ took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, take, eat, do this in my remembrance. For this proveth sufficiently, that bread is to be eaten in remembrance of Christ. This is the whole and entire supper of the sacramentaries. And then to what end keep they in the book, that other superfluous and unprofitable text?  
Yea as though he had foreseen this desperate boldness whereunto the zwinglians are now grown, he before hand even particularly and in the self same words, warneth us of these very reasons, or rather peevish and shameless assertions, which Beza and M. W. throw forth for singular & mighty arguments against this clause of S. Luke's Gospel. For what is Bezaes' demonstration against the later part, qui pro vobis funditur, with which he is so offended? forsooth this: 
Beza in Luc. 2●. vers. 20.  aut manifestum est solacophanes, aut potius quum haec essent ad marginem annotata ex Mat. & Mar. postea in contextum irrepserunt. Ether there is some manifest fault in the Greek, or (which I suppose rather) whereas these words were noted in the margin out of Matthew and Mark, afterwards they crept in to the text. And what saith Luther of this? 
Luther ubi supra fo. 411  Thus he speaketh to the Sacramentaries. Quid inepti, nihilne consilii habetis etc. 
Luther thought it unpossible that the Sacramentaries would ever grow to such absurdity as now they defend  what ye fools, have ye no wit? you must venture. Dicite verba illa primum margini ascripta, postea vero ab aliquo textui inserta, say that those words were first written in the margin, and then by some odd fellow thrust in to the text, and not written so by the Evangelist, seeing you have a sure rule to prove all this: and your rule is, 
A good rule  that that is not true, whatsoever seemeth superfluous and unprofitable unto you. And what is M.W. argument against the first part, this (cup) is my blood of the new testament? Marry that this implieth an absurd sentence, it is tautologia, an idle repetition. 
Ibid.  And what saith Luther of this? whereas those words, that show the real presence of the body and blood, have nought to do in the Sacramentaries supper, eodem modo his quoque argumentari licet, mera tautologia est haec verba in cana poni. They might do very well here also to make this argument, that it is tautologia, a vain repetition, to put these words in the supper, and therefore they ought not to have any place there, whereas the supper without them is described, used and practised fully and perfectly, and no man can show any reason or necessity why they should be there.  
This is the proceeding of the Zwinglian gospel. that which their eternal enemy spoke in scorn and derision, as a thing so ridiculous & absurd, that they would never admit for shame, that have these good fellows without shame now received in good sooth & sadness. Wherefore to help them forward, if M. W. will take a little pains in searching old copies, perhaps he may find some one or other, at lest some ancient father, that readeth as Luther wisheth them to read. And to give him an entrance, let him look in S. Basil, 
Basil. in ethic. reg. ●1. cap. 4.  the next chapter to that which he citeth, and he shall find him to read thus. Caenantibus illis accepit jesus panem etc. whiles they were at supper, jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke, & gave it to his disciples. And then leaving out the rest, putteth next, et hymno dicto, exierunt in montem olivarum. and having said an hymn, they went forth to mount Olivet. And perhaps if Beza live to set forth his testament once again, well it may be with some good advise of such brethren, he will leave the words clean out of the book, or put in one syllable more (non) and so mend all, as he hath done in some other places upon as small reason as this, as writeth Gabriel Fabricius: whose words to conclude withal, I will set down in latin, because you shall perceive, that some man hath written against him, whose tongue Beza understandeth well enough. The book is entitled, 
Gabrielis Fabricii responsio ad Bezam Vezeliam Eceboliam. fol. 17.  Gabriel is Fabricii Responsio ad Bezam Vezeliam Eceboliam, printed at Paris an. 1567. In that book amongst many other notable things, thus he writeth. Id agis, haec verba toties repetita, (hoc est corpus meum) perinde accipienda esse ac si dictum scriptūquè esset, hoc non est corpus meum. Et fortasse ut tandem te expedias, et tot commentariorum plaustra facessere iubeas, recurres ad talem emendationem. Et quia nostri correctores dicunt in ipsis etiam Pandectis Florentinis saepe deesse negationem, tu tali artificio, statim te liberes, et adversariis os obstruas, praesertim cum alios multos evangeliorum locos similiter scilicet emendaveris, partim ex coniectura, partim ex manuscriptis (ut ais) exemplaribus. You labour to show that those words so often repeated (this is my body) are to be taken as though it had been spoken and written, this is not my body. & perhaps at length, that you may rid yourself, and dispatch out of the way these cart-loades of commentaries, you will fly to such a kind of correction. And because our correctors say, that in the very la books of Florence, 
Bezaes' manner in correcting the testament.  oftentimes there wanteth a negative particle, you also will use such a shift to stop the mouth of your adversaries, especially whereas you have already corrected in like sort very learnedly, many places of the gospels, partly by conjecture, partly by handwritten copies, as you tell us. Some such corrected copies if M. W. can find against the next time, it will ease him of much labour & put us to much trouble. In the mean season, this I dare promise him, he shall never scour his coat clean from those spots with which in this defence of Beza he hath foully stained and soiled himself, so long as the old copies of S. Luke's gospel stand in force.   

CHAP. XI. M.W. general answer to the book of Discovery, and of the notable impiety committed by the translators of the English Bibles.  
AFTer these particular controversies and reprehensions M. W. cometh now to make a general answer unto M. martyn's Discovery, which although it be very short, yet is it very sweet, to the singular commendation of their English translations. The sum is, that all is well, nothing amiss, every word standeth right, so as he marveleth that M. Mart. was not ashamed so notably to publish his own ignorance & unskilfulness to all the world. Thus he writeth. 
Whit. pa. 14.  Albeit heretofore I liked well our translations, yet now I love them much more, whereas I see so few faults, & those so small & trifling can be found out and reproved even of our enemies. For what adversary was there ever so blinded with malice that can not perceive our translations to be disallowed of you, without judgement, learning, or reason? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we translate sometimes instructions, sometimes ordinances, sometimes precepts. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 images, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 congregation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an elder, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to amend our lives, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mystery or secret, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thanksgiving, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freely be loved, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 god is not tempted with evil. He must take and allow in like manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 carcase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grave, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 table etc. 
Ibid.  What is there here that a man can find fault withal as not translated well and truly? and who will not judge him a reprehender to wicked & importune, who when he can find no greater thing, for these faults, which are none at all, pronounceth that all the vulgar translations of our churches are to be rejected & condemned? Haec et ist iusmodi nugae, nostra crimina sunt. These & the like trifles are our faults. This is M.W. defence of their English translations, or rather a friendly assertion, that all things in them are very well, & therefore the whole book of the Discovery is a peevish devise of M. Martin, proceeding only of malice, without judgement, learning or reason.  
To show the falsity and malicious wickedness of the heretics in translating these very words so, were to make an other book, and it is so well done by M. Martin touching every particular, notwithstanding any reply yet made, that to handle the same again were to cast water into the Terns, or light a candle at noon day. Only this will I say in general and prove it, that M. Whitaker in affirming thus much, showeth himself not only to be void of wit, learning and common sense, but also to be void of shame and modesty, that he little differeth from an Atheist or Sadducee, that he is more hard-faced than the most reprobate heretics of this age, the worst of his own brethren.  
And first, what wit or learning will allow him among Christians to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an image, or among Pagans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carcase, more than minister talking of the English ministers a slave or homo a dog. He will say, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his primitive signification and derivation may so signify. Doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so signify a carcase? But leave we the second, talk we of the first, and in that of all other where is like reason. I will not enter in to any new or serious disputation touching this using or abusing of words: when, by what authority, and how far, such mutation is necessary, or allowable. Only resting myself upon the Protestants common and vulgar kind of disputing, that is, upon the first and original derivation and signification of Ecclesiastical words, I will by manifest and plain examples taken from their use and practise, show how absurd and unreasonable their dealing is in this behalf. Upon this ground, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say you is well translated image, and hereupon because we give reverence to images, which reverence is well expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for the distinction between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing, saith M. D. Humphrey, and he refuteth it at large in his book of M. 
L. Humfred. in vita juelli. pag. 145.146. etc.  jewels life: & the rest of the protestants of that sect, commonly are of the same judgement) therefore we are condemned of you justly as Idololatrae, Idolaters for giving honour & reverence to sacred images which in greek are called Idols. Let us note now whether this Idolatry turn not on your own head. Honour not you the Queen in her images, 
The Protestants idolaters.  in her cloth & chair of estate, in her maces, in her seals and letters, in keeping holy her Nativity & Assumption to the crown? I somewhat disadvantage myself, for perhaps this in deed draweth near to true Idolatry. But let it pass with the rest. The Protestants give honour to the images of the Queen. Images and idols are all one, ergo the Protestants are idolaters. Or more briefly and plainly thus. Every prince in his realm is an image of the true god, that is, and idol of the true god. Ergo the Protestants in that they worship & serve their princes, worship & serve idols, and so by M.W. judgement are Idolaters. 
Examples, wherein the Protestants may consider their own fault in profaning ecclesiastical word●.  Again, church you say is well expressed by congregation. What is congregation in greek? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which being a word made English by custom as well as congregation, it can not be any error to use that in place of congregation. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek, is superintendant or overseer in English, & both these translations are used & justified by your English bibles. Now if your knowledge be so good in the English as I take it, you can not be ignorant that an overseer is as properly and usually expressed in our language by this word surveyor, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supra videre to survey.  which cometh directly from supra videre, to oversee. And what of all this? Forsooth that it is no error, when we talk of the bishops of the English church or congregation, to whom you dedicated your latin translation of M. jewel, if we say you dedicated it to the most reverend surveyors of the English synagogue. evangelium the gospel, in greek you wots well what it signifieth, good news or tidings, and testamentum in hebrew and greek, is in English and latin covenant, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  foedus as Beza commonly translateth it, inscribing both his Testaments the greater and lesser printed the year 1565, jesu Christi nowm Testamentum sive foedus. as properly a bible is nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a book, for it is the self same word. If so, then when one cometh to you, and bringeth you good news and tidings that a benefice is befallen you, you may say, he bringeth you the gospel of a benefice, or when your farmer receiveth of you a lease with a new covenant, he receiveth a lease with a new testament, and Lucian's Dialogues, because they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore they are a bible, almost as good as yours.  
But in one example to show, how void of sense & understanding you prove yourself in this discourse, by like reason in every respect as you can justify the aforesaid words, you may and must justify the translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 washing, as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thanksgiving, the use of Baal for dominus, lord, for it signifieth so precisely in the hebrew, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  whence cometh Baalzebub, the idol of Accaron called in contempt, yet according to the true original, and primitive signification of the word dominus muscae, lord of a fly 4. Reg. 1. And what signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diabolus in greek? word for word calumniator, a slanderer. And angeli 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 messengers, as you translate it, Heb. 1. v. 7. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wind, translated likewise so by you, joan. 3. v. 8. and Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the anointed both in greek and hebrew, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  used so by you in sundry places of the bible. These being all alike, so as you can not find any exception to disprove any syllable, and so all approved by your English translations, which now you love more than ever you did, because they are found to be without all fault, let us suppose in our grandfathers time, some Catholic priest or Bishop in our realm to have exhorted his people to charity, devotion, & reformation of their lives. Suppose he spoke unto them in this sort.  
I that am your priest & bishop, placed in this church by the holy Ghost for the feeding of your souls, do denounce unto you in the name of Christ our Lord, that except you with more devotion come to receive the B. Sacrament, and perform better your promise made to God in baptism, you shall be body and soul condemned to hell: your portion shall be with the devils, I say with Beelzebub and his angels. The meaning of this, every Christian doth know, and no doubt it might, and I think would move a Christian audience. Let us now after your translations, turn the same into the phrase and style of the new gospel, and see how it will sound. Let us suppose some of your youthful ministers or superintendents to make the same exhortation. Then thus must it run.  
I that am your elder or surveyor and superintendant, placed in this synagogue by the holy wind, for the feeding of your carcases, do denounce unto you in the name of the Anointed our Baal, that except you with more devotion come to receive the thanksgiving, and perform better your promise made to God in washing, you shall be condemned body and carcase to the grave, with the slanderers, I say with the Lord of a fly and his messengers. How deeply this would sink into the hearts of your evangelical auditory, let their own conscience be judge. But touching you, if you continue as you here begin, and say, all this goeth well, there is no fault in it, I appeal to common sense whether you have not as little wit and capacity, as ever man that bore the name of a Christian Divine.  
I say consequently, that hereof it followeth you have no shame nor modesty. 
The abuse of ecclesiastical words, the ruin of all religion.  For what Christian, had he either of these, would not at the first warning, revoke or moderate so gross & filthy absurdity, whereby must needs follow the contempt, and plain evacuation of the whole Church, of the sacraments, of religion, of Christ? for if the eucharist be rightly expressed by thanksgiving, & baptism by washing etc. then when a man with thanksgiving hath been at a good breakfast, he hath been at the eucharist, and when one of your ministers goeth to be washed & trimmed at the barbers, he goeth to baptism. But what spend I words in such vanity? Shortly thus I say, he that can swallow down such Camels as these, 
Mat. 23. v. 24  and avouch such translations to be faultless, and unworthy of reprehension, 
Pag. 15.  & forthwith condemneth the late translation set forth in this College as the most corrupt that ever was made since the world was created (for so he speaketh) against which himself with all his search and prying objecteth only two faults, and the same not in the thing neither, but both of them rising of his either malice or ignorance, whether this man's face and forehead be made of common matter, and not rather of some harder metal, such as the Prophet Esay describeth, 
Esa. 48. v. 4.  frons aerea frons tua, I leave to the wisdom of the discreet reader.  
Then that he is a very Atheist and Sadducee, bringing in doubt the immortality of the soul & resurrection of the body, this also is as clear and manifest. For if this be admitted, 
To approve the English translations is to approve plain Atheism & deny God.  that when we read in the latin & greek, that the soul goeth to hell, the English without staggering may turn it as the true meaning and sense, that the carcase, or life, or soul is put in the grave, and M. W. as principal professor in divinity, by supreme censure confirm such translation, where shall we have warrant to prove the immortality of the soul, the last judgement, the place of hell, & the eternal pains thereof? See (Christian reader) for thy own sake this corruption in the Discovery, 
Discou▪ ca ● nu. 1.2.3.4.  where thou shalt find the causes moving the heretics thus to do. And this fault is so palpable and monstrous, that the very heretics themselves, I say his own masters and brethren, 
Protestant●diuines against the English translations.  yea those of his own University & perhaps acquaintance, find fault with his pure and faultless bibles, and flatly pronounce that they lead men the high way to very Atheism, worse than Gentility, or the school of Epicure.  
Castalio in his notes upon the Testament against Beza, after many reasons alleged, 
Castal. defence. contra Bezam. pag. 189.  concludeth, that whereas in our common Creed Christ is said to have been first buried, and then to have gone down to hell, here manifestly hell and the grave are distinguished. wherefore it were far better in such hard and obscure places, religiously to speak as becometh an interpreter of the holy Ghost, then whiles we will seem to know all thing, to shut up the way to the truer sense, if perhaps afterwards we aspire to more knowledge. And Flacius Illyricus by diligent comparing of the parts & words of the text, refelling at large all Bezaes' foolish and blind arguments, 
Illyric. in Clau. part. 1. in verbo infernus. pag. 598.603.604.605.  setteth this down as a more assured verity. Non est dubium quin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sheol, sepulchrum, infernus, hic pro ipsissimo loco aeterni exitii ponatur. There is no question, but the hebrew word Sheol here signifieth the very place of hell.  

See D. Hum. judgement after, in the 14. chap.  But what need I to go so far as Germany for authority, whereas there are of your own Universities, D. Humphrey for Oxford, & an other for Cambridge, of which, the one refuteth learnedly your impiety, the other inveigheth eagerly against your passing impudence in this behalf: though the party whom I mean, in any other thing seem as far gone as you. Read M. Carliles' Disputation which publicly he maintained in your University, and printed this last year, directly against the Apostolic Creed, against Christ's descending in to hell, and see whether he proveth not that of you which I say. In one place thus he writeth. job c. 33. v. 
Carlisle in his book, that Christ went not down to hell. fol. 144.  22. it is said, than man draweth near to the grave and his life to the dead. The English bibles have. The soul draweth to the grave and life to the buriers. 
The English translations draw men to think that Christ's soul perished.  what a translation is this, to say, that a man's soul draweth to the grave? do our souls go to the grave? can a soul corrupt? do not all that go to the grave putrefy? why should they translate the text thus? Thus he. whereof it followeth, that our English translators in steed of hell giving us the grave, & placing our saviours soul there, teach that it did corrupt and perish. Yet M. W. saith, all is well, this is no fault, although by this his own doctor's verdict, they say & teach that our saviours soul perished everlastingly. Again David psal. 
Ibid. fo. 117.  30. giveth god thanks for his health which he had recovered, and therefore saith. O lord, I thank thee that thou hast delivered me from the grave. And this place also have they (in their English translations) hitherto corrupted, 
O singular purity of the English Bibles.  depraved the sense, obscured the truth, deceived the ignorant, and supplanted the simple. for it is Sheol which they translate, hell. The Geneva bible hath thus. 
Against the immortality of the soul.  Thou hast brought up my soul out of the grave. And the greatest bible. Thou hast raised my soul up from the grave. What a translation is this? to say that the soul is enclosed in the grave and buried with the body, which is an impiety to imagine? 
Ibid. fo. 120.  One place more I will note out of the same writer. Ps. 86. when David was in great danger of death by Saul, and delivered, he giveth god thanks who had delivered him from present death and from the grave. The Geneva bible translateth it thus. 
So translateth the Bible of the year 1579.  Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave. wherein they offend. For neither can the immortal soul of man be enclosed in a grave, neither a spiritual thing in a corporal place. The greatest bible translateth it thus. 
The English translations lead men to detestable errors.  Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest part of hell. Whereon they ground a detestable error, that they should think that David a man of perfect faith, of singular virtues, and such a one as was written in the book of life, should imagine that he either should or could go to hell. Much more hath he against your bibles which you so love as being perfect and immaculate, and by very many plain demonstrations proveth them to be so filthily corrupted, as they rather resemble Mahomet's Alcoran, than the word of the holy Ghost, and these few (to say the truth) prove it sufficiently. Wherefore upon these faults and many other such, common in the greatest bible, 
Ibid, fo. 116.  and the bible printed at Geneva, he inferreth against your translations and translators with great vehemency, more than M. Martin ever used, that in many places they detort the scriptures from the right sense, they show themselves to love darkness more than light, & falsehood more than truth.  
Now touching particulars, I think it needless to stand upon every word so confidently allowed by M.W. Because M. Mart. showeth by good reason the wickedness of the heretics in the devising of them, & his reasons stand as yet unanswered. Yet because M.W. simple man thinketh there is no more danger in such alteration, then if a man should in translating of Plato or Zenophon use the like liberty, and turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gratiarum actio, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a secret, let him learn of Beza whom he so advanceth, 
Bezaes' true judgement, what harm is like to ensue by abusing ecclesiastical words.  what danger ensueth of such novelty. Beza much detesting in others that fantastical and impious vanity (though he could not perceive the same in himself) thus writeth against them. The world is now come to that pass, 
Beza in Act. c. 10. ver. 46. edit. anno 1556. He (or the printer) hath altered some part of these words in the later edition an. 1565.  that not they only who write their own discourses, refuse the familiar & accustomed words of scripture, as obscure, unsavoury, & out of use, but also those that translate the scripture out of greek in to latin, challenge unto themselves the like liberty. So as whiles every man will rather freely follow his own judgement, then religiously behave himself as the holy Ghosts interpreter, many things they do not convert, but pervert. For which licentiousness and boldness except remedy be provided in time, either I am notably deceived, or within few years, in steed of Christians we shall become Ciceronians, (that is Gentiles) and by little and little, shall lose the possession of the things themselves. In these words Beza teacheth you, that this wanton novelty of placing secrets for sacraments, and messengers for angels, and ambassadors for Apostles, and washing for Baptism, and thanksgiving for Eucharist, and so forth, will come to this end, 
Change of words induceth change of faith.  that in fine you will with the words take away the things signified, Sacraments, Baptism, Eucharist, Angels, Apostles, and all Apostolical doctrine, and so in steed of Christians make us again Pagans. Whereof besides his warning, the world hath to much experience already.  
And if our dear countrymen would judge of things to come, by trial and event of things past, they must in their own memory find and feel this to be true which Beza here telleth them. For look what old words you have upon newfangledness (as it might seem) altered and taken out of the Bible by the working of Satan, those very things you have removed from the hearts of men, and cast out of the churches which you have invaded. With the name priest, went away the office of priest, with the altar, that which was the proper service of God, & done at the altar. with taking away the word penance, you have withdrawn the people from all doing of penance, and in altering the word church, you have cut them clean from the church, & more estranged them from the communion of it, than some barbarous and faithless nations that never heard of Christ. And so likewise for things to come, when they see you prick at the name of angels, and begin to leave out that, and for Christ, to give them the anointed, and for Apostles, Ambassadors, and for hell, a grave, let them assure themselves that your purpose is, to extinguish in them all faith and memory of Angels, Christ, Apostles, Heaven, & Hell, and to bring them in to the same lamentable state wherein their ancestors were, when by blessed S. Gregory then Pope, and S. Austin our Apostle, they were first converted.  
Wherefore seeing reason both humane and divine proveth that to be true which I have said touching their notorious rashness in corrupting the scriptures, 
The sum of such foul and ethnical corruptions, as by reason are proved and by confession of the adversaries are granted to be in the ●nglish translations.  seeing not only reason but also plain experience confirmeth the same, seeing farther the thing is so clear by reason, and experience, and all learning, that the very heretics confess it, whereas their own brethren by plain arguments prove their ttanslations to be most wicked, as which labour to pervert the sentence of the holy Ghost, to detort the scriptures from the right sense, to prefer darkness before light & falsehood before truth, to deceive the simple, to induce the mortality of the soul, to make men think that the soul of Christ was enclosed in the grave and so buried with his body, to plant detestable errors, to overthrow Gods eternal predestination, to take away the belief of hell, and consequently of heaven, of the extreme judgement, and of God himself, to make us of Christians Ciceronians, that is, ethnics and Infidels, & with alteration of words to take from us all our faith: whereas this is evident and confessed, and yet for all this M.W. cometh and saith, all this is nothing, these be no faults, if the Papists can find fault with no other thing but such toys and trifles, I loved our translations well before, but now shall I love them much better, haec et istiusmodi nugae, nostra crimina sunt, these & the like trifles be our faults: I can not otherwise judge of him, but that he is a very Atheist, a plain Sadducee, without any feeling and regard of faith and conscience, & as it may very well be thought, 
The sect of Libertines far spread.  of the profession of the sect of Libertines & Academikes, who of late are so far enlarged, to whom are joined very many of the finest and most elegant Sacramentaries, of whom he may read in Beza, who think all these questions, of Christ & his office, 
Beza de haereticis a civili magistratu puniendis, pa 41.  of his consubstancialitie with the father, of the Trinity, of predestination, of free-will, of God, of Angels, of the Supper, of baptism, of the being of men's souls after this life, 
Right Gospelers. These show us what is the true meaning of only faith justifying.  who think I say all these things to be but trifles & things indifferent and not necessary to justification which is obtained by faith. For these good Gospelers have a faith, and a justifying faith, whereby they apprehend eternal life, without father, son, and holy Ghost, without Christ and his passion, or any of these other matters, which are rather subtle points of the papists historical faith, then of the lively justifying faith, wherewith these evangelical brethren in all security are warranted of the certain favour of God in this life, and assured glory in the next.   

CHAP. XII. M. W. reasons against the latin bible are answered: and the same bible is proved to be in sundry places more pure and sincere than the Hebrew now extant.  
HERE M. W. draweth to that which is his principal scope in this preface, that is to deface the late Translation of the new Testament set forth in this College. For although he spend more words against M. Martin's Discovery, yet he showeth far more stomach against this. whereof before I come to speak, order requireth that I examine his disputation against the decree of the Tridentine Council, 
Concil. Trident. sessio. 4.  which for verity and sincerity justifieth & approveth as authentical, the old common latin edition. Against which decree M.W. thinketh himself to have good advantage, and much honour he speaketh of the fountains, the greek and hebrew originals, and much he disgraceth our latin translation & translator, for differing so much from those originals.  
First of all before I come to his arguments, 
3. things to be noted in this question.  I request the reader to carry in mind three things touching this controversy, whereby he shall the more uprightly & skilfully judge between us and our adversaries. One is, that M. W. discourse in this common place of praising the fountains, maketh against himself and his brethren more than against us. For whereas they pretend to translate after the greek and Hebrew, (as we do not) and yet in sundry places serve from the greek & Hebrew, 
M.W. discourse most against himself.  this his long idle talk convinceth us of no fault, but it condemneth him and his brethren of great and inexcusable corruption, who pretending reverence to the greek and hebrew, yet at their pleasure departed from both. And this is that whereof M. Mar reproveth them in a great part of his Discovery. Example whereof see thou in his preface Num. 16.17.18.23.43.44.45.46.47.48.49.50, 51. and after in every chapter of the book welnie: and so much M. Mar. protested to them in the beginning in plain terms, 
Discou. in prefat. nu. 39  saying. And if they follow sincerely their greek and hebrew text, which they profess to follow, and which they esteem the only authentical text, so far we accuse them not of heretical corruption. but if it shall be evidently proved that they shrink from that also, and translate an other thing, and that wilfully, and of intention to countenance their false religion and wicked opinions, making the scriptures speak as they list: then we trust etc. And of this first riseth a second note, which I wish likewise to be remembered, that their deflecting from the greek, is always in matter of controversy, and so discrieth their malicious wilfulness. If there be any in the latin, it is no such thing, but in matters (for any controversy) mere indifferent, and so quiteth the translator of malice and evil meaning, and justifieth his upright and plain sincerity. And hereof ensueth the third, touching our simple and plain dealing in following the latin, that we decline not from the greek or Hebrew, 
The greek and hebrew more advantageable to the Catholic cause then the latin. Pag. 15.  because it more harmeth our cause then the latin, as the adversaries gladly pretend and M. W. very confidently avoucheth, but only in respect of the truth itself. And thus much also was he told in the preface of the new testament, to wit, that as for other causes we prefer the latin, 
In prefa. novi testamen.  so in this respect of making for us or against us, we allow the greek as much as the latin, yea in sundry places, more than the latin, being assured that they have not one, and that we have many advantages in the greek more then in the latin. And this is there manifested by sundry and very evident examples, touching traditions, priesthood, justification by works, the real presence, fasting, free-will, the mystical sacrifice, and against their only faith and assurance of salvation, wherein the greek is more pregnant for us then the latin. Contrariwise let M. W. frame against the Catholic religion, or any part thereof, one argument out of the scriptures, which we refuse to stand unto upon this pretence, because it is in the greek and not in the latin, and I am content to excuse him here of a lie. Otherwise he can never save himself from a lie, and a lie in sight, to object that unto us, which neither he nor any of his can prove, and we before hand have in precise terms warned him of it, and professed, and proved the contrary.  
And therefore, although in truth (reader) whatsoever he saith, & a great deal more, is answered very sufficiently and abundantly already in the preface of the Testament, as thou wilt confess, if it shall please thee with diligence to peruse it, and I account it a piece of our misery in this time, to be matched with such blunt adversaries whose manner of writing is now to cloy us with cram recocta, coal words twice, yea ten times sodden, & neither themselves can bring any new stuff, nor scour more brightly or otherwise mend up their old, nor refel our answers & confutations made to them, but dissembling any such matter, as though it had never been treated of before, use to run idly, and ministerlike upon a common place as M. W. doth here, which is more against themselves then against us: yet because it is my lot to deal with him now the first time, and therefore am loath to pretermit any thing wherein himself seemeth to put any force, I will take his arguments as new, and suppose that he never read the preface of the Testament against which he writeth, and therefore will likewise hereafter borrow some part of my answer thence.  
Two arguments he maketh against our latin translation, and consequently against us for following the same in our English. The first is, 
M.W. reasons for preferring the hebrew and greek before the latin.  that the fountains, vz, the greek and hebrew, are more pure than the latin, which he proveth by certain sentences of S. Hieron, S. Austin, and S. Ambrose. The other is one particular fault, wherein as he saith, the vulgar translation is universally false, the greek contrary is true. Before his arguments he premitteth certain interrogatories, wherein he seemeth to avouch (if I understand him) 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. That I misreport him not, I will set down his words. 
Pag. 15.  Thus he opposeth us. Quid interpretandum suscepistis? nun scripturas? Quaenam vero sunt scripturae? 
If the latin testament be not the word of god, whose word are their vulgar translations?  quis nescit dei verbum scriptum illud esse etc. What took you in hand to interpret? not the scriptures? and what are the scriptures? who is ignorant but that is the written word of god, which the lord committed to his church in books and letters? and those oracles of god were they uttered by the holy Ghost in latin? or can they better or more divinely be declared in any tongue, then that which the holy Ghost would use? where unto I answer, that if his questions have such meaning & sense as the words bear, and may stand full well with his skill and knowledge, then are they not so much fantastical as phrenetical. For accounteth he nothing the written word of god, but that which is in hebrew and greek, and was written by the prophets and Apostles in that language? Then what meaneth he, and the rest of his evangelical confraternity so perpetually to brag, that they have given us nothing but the pure word of the lord, who have given us nothing but their own contaminated translations in English, French, Flemish, Dutch and such vulgar languages? Is this the word of God M. W? uttered the holy Ghost his oracles ever in Flemish or English? why inscribe you your English testament, The testament of our Lord jesus Christ, 
An assertion both foolish and impious.  if nothing but the greek or Hebrew be the written word and testament of god? But let this pass for an example of his singular foolishness, speaking he knoweth not what. See we herein an other example of his notable impiety. 
The Apostles and Evangelists cited scripture, not according to the hebrew.  Our Saviour Christ, the Evangelists and Apostles when they cited places of the old testament, not according to the fountains & Hebrew, but according to the Septuaginta, cited they not scripture? 
Rom. 10. v. 18. Linea corum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  In omnem terram (saith the apostle Paul) exivit sonus eorum. Their sound is gone forth in to all the world. whereas in the hebrew now it is far otherwise, and otherwise yourselves translate it in your later bible, their line is gone forth. 
Anno 1575.  although in the bible of the year 1577. ye leave the hebrew and follow us. 
Act. 13. v. 41.  Take heed (saith the same Apostle) lest that fall upon you which is spoken in the Prophets: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Heb. in gentibus.  See ye contemners, and wonder and perish. which words in the hebrew are nothing so. Shall we say this is not scripture, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and the Apostle abused his audience, and according to M. W. divinity must needs tell them a lie, when he telleth them, this saith the Prophet, this saith isaiah, this jeremy &c. because he citeth the words not according to the original, but according to the translation of the 70. which many times much varieth from that which we find now in the original? The Apostle S. james reproving the proud and lofty minds of some, bringeth this text of scripture against them. 
jac. 4. v. 6.  deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam, translated in your English testaments thus. The scripture offereth more grace, and therefore saith. God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. which words are taken out of the proverbs of Solomon, 
Proverb. ca 3. ver. 34.  but not according to the hebrew, but after the 70. 
Calvin. in jacob. ca 4.  which Calvin cut clean away and left out of his translation, either for this reason which you give, or because (belike) they agreed not well with his proud and disdainful stomach, 
Calvin mangleth S. james epistle.  notwithstanding they remain in the greek testaments printed at Geneva. But by your argument he doth well therein, and saveth S. james from a manifest lie, who affirmeth the scripture to speak so, whereas by you, it is no scripture. And then it were well done of you to mend your testaments at the next edition, and leave out this so clear a falsehood, except you retain it of policy, that at a need you may have one more reason to refuse this epistle, which we see graveleth you so sore. I will not multiply examples, because it is a thing most evident, and he knoweth little that knoweth not this to be the common manner both of some Evangelists, & of S. Peter and S. Paul generally, to cite the scripture in this sort. Whereof S. Paul's epistle to the hebrews in every chapter almost giveth proof, 
1. Pet. ca 2.3. & 5. Beza in joh. c. 19 v. 37.  as likewise doth the first of S. Peter, and Beza granteth the same of the Evangelists, & the ancient fathers affirm both the one & the other. 
Ireneus l. 3. cap. 25.   
And what need I to press M. W. with sentences, whereas I may dispute against him out of whole chapters and books. For let us suppose some part of the old testament to have been written first in hebrew or chaldee, as is a part of Daniel, and to have been translated into greek or latin, afterwards the chaldee or Hebrew to perish, the greek or latin to remain: as for example we see in the books of Toby, judith, and one book of the Maccabees. 
Hier. prefat. in Tobiam, judith. & li. Regum.  The two first of which, S. Hierom translated out of the chaldee, the third he found (though he translated it not) written in Hebrew. And the like is thought very probably of the song of the three children. Shall we now be so fond as to imagine, that as so one as the Hebrew or chaldee was lost, we lost our scriptures? 
S. Mat. wrote the Gospel in Hebrew.  then what say you to S. Matthewes gospel, which certainly was written by him in Hebrew, as witnesseth 
a Apud Euseb. l 3. c. 33 Irene. li. 3. ca 1. Euseb. lib. 2. ca 18.  Papias, Ireneus, Eusebius, 
b li. 5. c. 19  Pantenus, 
c l. 6. c. 19  Origenes, 
d in argument. in Mat c. in cattle.  Sophronius, 
e Mt. gospel in hebrew set forth by Munster and Quinquarboreus.  S. Hierom and all antiquity. Have we not S. Matthewes gospel, because we have not his Hebrew text? nay presuppose that a gospel of S. Matthew in Hebrew may be found, as you know such a one is extant, and setting aside the authority of the Church, (which to you is nothing) no reason can be brought, but you ought as well to admit that for the original, as the greek of S. Luke and S. john: yet dare you prefer that before the greek, and count that the more authentical, & reform the greek according to that Hebrew? this one example if M. W. had the grace to consider, and the ground hereof, it were sufficient to answer whatsoever he saith in his idle discourse in praise of the greek & Hebrew for defacing the latin. But let us examine his reason wherein lieth the pith of this question.  
Thus he declaimeth for the purity of the greek and Hebrew. 
Pag. 15.  Whereas we covet to attain the meaning of the holy Ghost, how shall we do this more assuredly, then if we hear the holy Ghost speaking in his own words. This is so clear that the Papists themselves confess it to be necessary, if so be the first original copies were pure & uncorrupt. For now they cry that the old testament in the Hebrew fountain, and the new testament in the greek, is most corrupt. & why so? what causeth our Papists so to refuse the Hebrew and greek fountain, and to hunt after the little river of the latin edition? who doubteth, but it is done for that only reason, because they find the fountains to be not so commodious for them. For if they had the fountains favourable enough, they would rather take thence, then from the ditches and dregs of a corrupt translation. 
It had been valiantly done of M. W. by one example to have made this conquest over us.  Now because they know that certain destruction hangeth over their heads, if they be called to the fountains, therefore are they constrained not only to avoid the spring of the purest and most wholesome waters, but also they labour to prove that the little rivers are purer than the fountains. Here (Reader) thou hast many words and little matter, much a do and small reason, much craking and boasting of the pure fountains, by one who from his infancy never drank but of the stinking puddles of Geneva lake. In which discourse of his, three things may be learned. First, that he confesseth of us that we refuse not the fountains, but because we think them to be corrupt. Wherein he saith truly, and whereby thou mayst note, that in following the latin as we do, we are lead not as they are, by fancy and pangs, but by conscience and judgement. The second is, that he affirmeth it as a thing without all doubt, that thus we say, because the fountains be not so commodious for us. once again, because the fountains are not favourable enough unto us. and yet once again, because we know there is no way with us but death and destruction, if we he called to the fountains. whereof because I have spoken already, I will say no more. only this may serve for an example what a lusty courage they can show in bragging, and what a pretty feat they have, in so few lines to vary a lie so many ways. And if M. W. had given but one example, wherein he by his Hebrew & greek text could so plague us, and bring us certam perniciem, assured destruction, he had done somewhat like a professor of this new divinity, and it were a ready way to end all these controversies. Because he doth not (and I dare warrant him he can not) for the contrary part, that the greek is more commodious and favourable to us then to them, see thou (Christian reader) the preface of the new testament, and thou shalt find it justified by sundry manifest examples. and touching the Hebrew somewhat shall be spoken hereafter. Thirdly, wherein is the state of this question, he telleth us that the fountains are most pure and wholesome, the latin edition most corrupt and infected. By the fountains he meaneth the vulgar Hebrew and greek as they are now commonly printed, which they pretend to follow. By the latin edition, that which is used in the Church of Rome, and hath been these thousand years, and is approved by the general Council of Trent.  
To the end thou mayst the better judge of that which shall be spoken, thus much must I warn thee of before, touching the historical knowledge of this controversy, that whereas in S. Aug. & S. Hieroms time, there was marvelous variety of new Testaments in latin, whereof rose some confusion and trouble in the Church, that godly and learned man Damasus then Pope of Rome and ruler of the Church, 
S. Hierom author of our common edition of the new testament, and that by the Pope's appointment.  took order with S. Hierom, that he should correct one before used, which otherwise was least faulty, which afterwards should be commended to the Church by that supreme authority. Thus much S. Hierom signifieth in divers places, 
In cattle. in fine, & praef. in nowm testamentum.  especially in his preface before the new Testament dedicated to the same Pope Nowm opus (saith he) me facere cogis ex veteri etc. You constrain me to make a new work of an old, that I after so many copies of the scriptures, dispersed through the world, should sit as a certain judge, and determine which of them agree with the true greek. And afterwards showing the difficulty of such a work, how dangerous it was and subject to the reprehensions of many, he comforteth himself principally with this: That thou (speaking to Damasus) which art the high priest, dost command it so to be done. Tu qui summus es sacerdos fieri jubes. This work when S. Hierom had accomplished, and delivered up, yet neither was his judgement so absolutely and universally in every part followed, that without farther search and trial it was by & by approved. But at length after due examination and some alteration of lesser points, as we find by S. Hierom himself, being approved by the Pope & allowed by the Church, it grew to a more general usage, and to be most frequented in public writings, commentaries, schools, and all places of Christian excercise. This is that which we call the common latin edition, which, albeit it have some places translated obscurely, some unaptly, some copies corrupted by false writing or printing &c. yet comparing it with the greek now extant, we say it is far more pure and uncorrupt, and nothing so subject to cavilling & wrangling by great diversity of different copies. 
The old testament.  The like we say of the old testament, a great part where of was translated by S. Hierom by order of the same Pope, most of all corrected and brought in to ecclesiastical use: saving the psalms, which could not be done so easily because throughout Christendom, the principal part of the Service in all churches consisted of them, and therefore could not well be altered without much trouble and scandal, 
Aug. de doctrina Christian. li. 2. ca 13. & epi. 10 ad Hieron.  as we gather by S. Austin, and which therefore we retain still as they were used in the primitive church long before S. 
4. things handled in this question  Hieroms time according to the version of the 70. Touching both these Testaments translated and corrected thus, we say. First, that against them M. W. in his long discourse of allegations, speaketh never a word, and so speaketh never a word to the purpose. secondarily, that they are purer than are the fountains which we now have, whereof this man speaketh so much, and (for aught may appear) understandeth but little. Next, that how soever some small faults may be found in them, absolutely they have no error touching either doctrine or manners. Last of all, that to refuse them, and appeal from them to the greek and Hebrew as the heretics do, is the high way to denial of all faith, to Apostasy from Christ his religion, and so to plain Atheism. These four points I will briefly touch in order.  
The first is, that M. W. in all his long talk about the fountains speaketh never a word to the purpose against us, 
That M. W. speaketh never a word to the purpose.  but rather much & all against himself. For if the fountains were so pure in the times of S. Hierom and S. Ambrose, and the church then troubled with the great diversity of their latin bibles, reform 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? not so, saith M. W. 
More probable that the hebrew is corrupt them the latin.  but contrariwise, rather the latin bibles have been corrupted. What reason leadeth him thus to speak? what probability moveth him to imagine, that so many hundred years, Hebrew books could continue without error, being written out by a few, and they for the most part jews, ignorant, enemies of Christ and his Church, destitute of the spirit of God, men given over in to a reprobate sense, rather than the latin publicly read, expounded by thousands in every province of the Christian world, 
The church warranted, that she should ever keep the word of God.  guarded by infinite good men, by Saints for life, and full of the holy Ghost, living in that church wherein properly was fulfilled the prophecy of isaiah made by God to Christ his son, & to his Catholic Church in him. 
isaiah 59  This is my covenant with them saith our lord▪ my spirit which is in thee, and the words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed from thy mouth, and from the mouth of thy seed, & from the mouth of thy seeds seed saith our Lord, from this time forth for evermore. Wherein God promiseth the Church, that she shall be a faithful and perpetual observer of his word and testament. Which warrant you never find made in like sort to the synagogue. But this notwithstanding you perhaps prefer this synagogue before the Church, and jews before the Christians, that is in effect, Moses before Christ, and therefore are content to speak and think more honourably of them with whom you join more nylie, and to whom you bear a better affection▪ yet how soever your mind be therein, S. Hierom commending the Hebrew fountains in his time, maketh nothing in the world for you in these days, except he say, that in all ages to come, the Hebrew should remain still pure and incontaminate, and the latin should again be corrupted, and the Church though warned by the trouble which she sustained in his time about that matter, yet afterwards should contemn so precious a thing as the written word of God is, and run in to a far greater inconvenience than before, & through extreme negligence, neither have the latin bible true which once was reform and made agreeable to the Hebrew, nor yet the Hebrew bible true, by which she might once again mend and correct the latin.  
And here let the reader weigh whether we thinking of the Church as we do, 

joan. 14. & 16.  
Praise of the Roman Church, for holding fast the true doctrine once delivered.   thinking of Christ's promise and the assistance of the holy Ghost as christian faith teacheth us, whereby we are most assuredly persuaded that she never erreth, nor ever can err damnably, whether we, I say, have not great reason to support our opinion which here we defend. 
Calvin. inst. l. 4. c. 6. ¶. 26.  Calvin in his Institutions recounting certain causes why the ancient writers speak so reverently and yield so much to the Roman church, amongst other putteth this for one. That whereas the churches of the East part and of Greece, as also of Africa, wereful of tumults and dissensions among themselves, the Roman church was more quits then other, and less troublesome. 
a Unto this reason drawn from human wisdom, set the Christian reader add Christ's prayer. Luc. 22. v. 32 I have prayed etc. that thy faith fail not.  For as the western people are less sharp & quick of wit than they of Asia and Africa, so much less desirous are they of novelties. This therefore added very much authority to the Roman church, that in those doubtful times she was not so unquiet as were the other, 
Doctrinae semel traditae suit aliis omnibus tenacior.  and the doctrine once delivered to her, she held and retained more fast than did all the rest. This grace of constancy in the faith and truth once received, when as the adversaries yield to the Roman church, 
The Greek church not comparable to the Roman.  and reprove the Oriental and greek church for lightness, inconstancy, & mutability in the same kind, we who believe the same grace of god to have still remained, have just occasion to think that she was as tenax, as constant in preserving the truth of the bibles, as of other parts of religion, wherein by Calvin's verdict she excelled all churches under the sun. And if the greek churches then, in that prime flower, were so mutable and inconstant and so far inferior to the latin, in this respect especially of holding fast matters of religion once delivered unto them, with what judgement or conscience can we magnify the later ages of those Greeks, who much more have deflected from the Catholic & Apostolic faith, have more decayed in learning, virtue, and all good qualities, have degenerated almost in to a barbarism, and are now fallen in to such misery, ignorance, and slavery, as every man seethe: much less can we mention in this comparison the jews synagogue, who having the malediction of god upon them, 
Math. ●5.  as many times our Saviour foretold in the gospel, are not only quite destitute of the graces of god, but also for the most part seem altogether void of the gifts of nature, of wit, judgement, policy, and ordinary human discourse.  
But all this will M.W. say, is but conjecture. and as probably he disputeth against it for the contrary part, that in the Hebrew and greek there is no corruption. For if it be so, 
Pag. 20.  that the Jews and heretics have laboured so much herein, who can doubt but they have attempted this especially in these places and sentences of scriptures, which the Church of Christ most used for confirmation of her faith and religion? There are most evident testimonies of scriptures, by which the Jews and all heretics are refuted. tell us what in them have those men perverted, but that they remain unto us safe and sound. Never would other jew or heretic corrupt the scriptures, except he thought that might be to him some way commodious for the maintaining of his monstrous opinions. Wherefore seeing those places are safe by which the jews are refelled, and the heretics of all times are killed, this must needs seem a feigned tale, uncredible, and false, which you bring, that the fountains are corrupted. To satisfy M.W. longing, who would so feign know wherein the jews or heretics have falsified the bibles, I will severally give him examples, some since S. Hieroms time, and some before, and acknowledged by S. Hierom himself, from whom M. W. taketh most in commendation of the Hebrew fountains.  

That the hebrew bibles are in some places corrupted.  And that those fountains are somewhat infected, and degenerated from that purity which they had in S. Hieroms time and before, I prove by evident reason, manifest experiments, & plain confessions of our more learned adversaries. First touching the Hebrew, S. Hierom read and translated according to the ordinary reading and pointing of his time, isaiah 9 
Esa. 9  Puer datus est nobis, et filius natus est nobis, et vocabitur nomen eius, admirabilis, consiliarius, Deus, fortis, pater futuri saeculi, princeps pacis. A child is given to us, and a Son is borne to us, and he shallbe called Admirable, a Counsellor, God, Strong, Father of the world to come, Prince of peace. And in his commentary expressing every word, he maketh no doubt of any other reading. Forsake the latin, and go to your jews and their Hebrew fountains now, and what find you? pro thesaur●, carbones. Thus. Puer datus est nobis, et filius natus est nobis, et vocabit nomen eius qui est admirabilis, consiliarius, deus, fortis, et pater aeternitatis vel futuri seculi, principem pacis. Whereby is taken from Christ, as principal a testimony of his divinity, as any we find in the old testament. And whence cometh this alteration, but from the iniquity of the jews, who have altered the passive, vocabitur, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  into the active, vocabit, & given other points than were used or read in S. 
Luth. tom. 4. enarration. Esa. cap. 9  Hieromes time. And this, Luther confesseth manifestly. Totus hic textus miserè & sceleratè (saith he) a judaeis est crucifixus etc. 
The jews corrupters and crucifieiss of such places of scripture as appertain to Christ.  This whole text is miserably and vilanouslly crucified, & depraved, and corrupted by the Jews. For as the child himself was crucified of them, so by the same men both this place, and 
a Scriptura eius.  his scripture, (or scripture appertaining to him) is daily crucified. The prophet attributeth six names to the child and son, the jews read the first five in the nominative case, the sixth in the accusative, and they all expound it of Ezechias, 
4. Reg. 19  under whom God gave that great victory against Sennacherib. And in the same place. The text seemeth to have been corrupted by those that put to the points. The letters whether ye read them with points or without points are alone, and the grammar doth bear it well, but the jews most pestilent men, oft times corrupt sentences of the prophets by their points & distinctions. But let it suffice us that the Chaldee interpreter, and the 70. think as we do.  
Thus Luther, condemning of vile corruption on your pure originals, & giving withal this general rule, that the jews most pestilent men have no conscience in that foul abusing, and altering, and crucifying the scriptures, no more than they had in crucifying Christ, and that therefore he preferreth the Septuaginta and Chaldee interpreter before all the hebrew copies. Which reason touching Luther and the Protestants is nothing at al. For the Chaldee interpreter is no more the hebrew original then is Luther's translation. And the translation of the 70. which is now extant, besides that it is full of diversity & not of the Catholics esteemed to be altogether authentical, is much more of Luther and the Protestants condemned. For of them thus he writeth in the same commentary. 70 interpretes digni sunt odio etc. The 70. 
Luth. in Esa. ca 53. v. 11. fol. 282.  interpreters are worthy of hatred, for I can not believe, & it is false that they translated and turned the bible by the holy Ghost: for there appeareth in them manifest vanity, impiety & study to corrupt it. Thus Luther. Where in though he rail to foully, yet hereof appeareth how much he esteemeth of the 70. And the true ground, whereby both Luther and the Protestants hold this so singular a piece of scripture against the jews, is neither the Chaldee interpreter, nor the 70. as Luther pretendeth, nor the hebrew fountain which is worse, but that, whereby we retain all scriptures, that is the church's authority and warrant, who testifieth unto us that this is the letter of the prophet, as Lyra from whom Luther borrowed his answer teacheth. Thus he writeth. In this place of isaiah is proved the humanity and divinity of Christ, 
Lyra. proba. divinitatis & humanitatis Christi contra judaeos, in fine glos. novi testamenti.  but the jews answer saying, it is not in the Hebrew, He shall be called, but, he shall call, and so that which directly expresseth the divinity is not referred to the child borne, but to the true god calling him, and the name of the child is put in the end of the place, that is, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Principem pacis, prince of peace. But they that thus say corrupt the text. therefore we must run to the translations. And first that this is false, is proved by the 70. who translate, vocabitur, he shall be called, and by S. Hierom. And thus it is read in the office of the mass upon Christmas day, and that office for the most part, followeth the translation of the 70. 
Translations, truer than the original text.  And by this translation it is clear that the Hebrew should not be, vocabit, but vocabitur, as these will have it corrupting the text. And the same is proved by the Chaldee translation. Where the church's authority is the supreme ground & stay, for in deed the other convince nothing, as shall better appear hereafter.  
another example of like corruption, and in as high and great a point as this, against the divinity of our Saviour, I give you, jerem. 23. where S. Hierom did read and translate according to the hebrew, thus. 
jerem. 23. v. 5.6.  Ecce dies veniunt dicit dominus, et suscitabo David germane justum, er regnabit rex, et sapiens erit. et hoc est nomen quo vocabunt eum, dominus justus etc. as in our vulgar translation. Behold the days come saith our lord, and I will raise to David a just branch, and he shall reign, as a king, and shall be wise. & this is the name by which they shall call him, Our just lord, or, the lord our justice. where the name Tetragrammaton, attributed to our incarnate Saviour, proveth that he is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or lord god of Israel, wherein the two natures divine and human appear most evidently. S. Hierom in the text putteth a double reading, one after the hebrew, an other after the 70. Upon the place, 
Hier. in jer. ca 23. v. 6.  in his commentary he writeth thus. If we read according to the 70, Vocaverit eum Dominus, the sense is, he shall be called josedech, a just lord: if according to the Hebrew, nomen eius vocabunt, than the sense is, He shall be called the lord our justice. The thing which I note, is the word, vocabunt, they shall call him: which in S. Hieromes time was the hebrew reading, and touching Christ his divinity is of that consequence as hath been said. In the hebrew text now, it is clean otherwise, and upon one point and letter changed, thus it is to be translated. God (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) who is our justice, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  shall call him: whereby is lost all the proof of Christ's divinity, which that so pregnant a place otherwise should yield. And that this fault is likewise committed by the like malice of the jews, and the true reading is to be taken from our latin translation, Lyra in the place aforesaid, showeth in these words. Other names of God are communicable with creatures, but the name Te●ragrammaton is not so, 
Lyra ubi supra.  which signifieth the divine essence, pure & simple in itself without relation to external works or creatures, and therefore whereas Christ is called by this name in the place of jeremy, it followeth that he is true God. 
The jews corrupt the letter of the scripture.  But the jews answer by corrupting the letter, saying, that thus it is in the hebrew, Et hoc est nomen eius qui vocabit eum, Dominus justus noster. And this is the name of him that shall call him, Our just lord: so that the name Tetragrammaton which in our translation is turned, Dominus, is not referred to Messiah the son of David, but to the true God, who called Messiah to deliver his people. And how goeth Lyra against this distinction? saith he the jews are honest men, & have kept their bibles pure and uncorrupted, and in respect of them, all the latin bibles are most contaminate, after the pattern of M. W? Nay, far otherwise. notwithstanding he knew the hebrew bibles and tongue in an other manner of degree and perfection (as being himself a natural borne jew) then M. W. or any of his great clerk who vaunt so much of a little, yet he replieth thus. Contra istam solutionem non potest argui etc. Against this solution a man can not argue, but by showing them that here they corrupt the true letter and deny the truth, because they will deny Christ's divinity. And this might best be done by old bibles which were not corrupt in this passage and in others in which mention is made of Christ's divinity, if a man could come by any such. And thus our forefathers disputed against them out of this place and the like. 
All bibles corrupt in this place.  And although I never yet saw any bible of the Jews which is not corrupted in this place, yet I have heard of men worthy of credit by reason of their life, conscience, and knowledge, who have sworn that they have seen it so in old bibles as it is in S. Hieroms translation. But if a man can not get any such bibles uncorrupt, then must we run to other translations, which the Jews with reason can not deny. And the 70. read as doth S. Hierom, as appeareth by our Ecclesiastical office. Here again M. W. may see the foul & monstrous corruption of the jews in these fountains and originals, universally in all their hebrew bibles. universally I say, for if in our days some one or other print be corrected, that correction hath been made in respect of the latin Church, which hath kept the truth of doctrine, & therefore preserved the true letter, not in respect of the jews, who altogether (as witnesseth Lyra) corrupted the true letter, because they would deny Christ's divinity.  
One example more I give him in an other kind, which nevertheless importeth us as much as do these former of Christ his deity. It is touching his passion and our redemption, and showeth that the Protestants themselves esteem more of our translation, not only then of all the hebrew bibles which are now currant, but also then those that were in S. Hieroms time. And therefore to answer your misapplied allegations by your own English translations, confer you your English bibles in the 53. chapter of isaiah, with your hebrew fountains. Our translation hath thus. 
Esa. 53. v. 8.  Generationem eius quis enarr abit? quoniam abscissus est de terra viventium: propter scelus populi mei percussi eum. Who shall declare his generation? for he is cut of from the land of the living: for the sin of my people have I smitten him. A plain testimony, that God laid upon our Saviour, our iniquities, which is the sum of the chapter: that he therefore was true man, and withal (as before is declared) that he was true God, whose generation was inexplicable. for so do the fathers commonly expound that parcel. So that in this one verse, we have the true effect of Christ's death and passion, besides his divine and humane nature. The 70. translate it thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Hierom. in Esa. ca 53.  for the iniquities of my people, he was lead to death. The hebrew bibles in S. Hieroms time, did read thus. Generationem etc. propter scelus populi mei percussit eos. For the sin of my people he struck them. The hebrew bibles in our time, though in sense agree, yet in reading seem to differ, having thus: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  A prevaricatione populi mei plaga, vel percussio ipsis. Because of the transgression of my people, a wound was given to them. which inverteth the sense, and maketh a great alteration, as every man may see. The English bible of the year 1577. 
Bib. 1577.  translateth it: which punishment did go upon him for the transgression of my people. 
1579.  of the year 1579. For the transgression of my people was he plagued. And this sense commonly others follow, as Castalio, the French, the Geneva bible etc. which is the sense & word of our latin translation, not of the hebrew text. Only the English translator of the year 1562. 
Bib. 1562.  followeth neither the 70. not greek, nor latin, but the brainsick fancy of his own head, making a mingle mangle, and thrusting in a patch of his own. 
The English translations add to the text.  Thus he goeth to work. whose generation yet who may number? he was cut of from the ground of the living, which punishment did go upon him for the transgression of my people, who in deed had deserved that punishment. where in deed he deserveth a whip, & playeth not only a foolish, but also a wicked part, in adding that later sentence to the text, only because he would seem to come somewhat nigh the hebrew, which for all that he toucheth not. Luther, who followeth the error of the hebrew copies, exclaimeth upon the jews for their old spitful & malicious mangling of this text as of many other. 
Luther to. 4. in Esa. c. 53.  Thus he translateth & commenteth upon it. Propter transgressiones populi mei plaga eyes. for the sins of my people a wound to them. This place is somewhat obscure and hard, because of the noun of the plural number, lamo. The 70. read pro sua justitia, vel potius malitia ductus est ad mortem. For his justice, or rather malice he was lead to death. Wherein I marvel at Luther's reading of the 70. For S. Hierom citeth them far otherwise, and far otherwise is it in the common prints now extant, for aught I can find. Which agree with the citation of S. Hier. before noted. But proceed we on. Our interpreter (saith Luther, meaning the latin used in the Church) turneth it thus: propter peccata populi mei per cussi eum. For the sins of my people have I smitten him. An excellent sentence, but the Grammar doth not well bear it. Much here are we beholding to the devil and to the Jews, who have not only depraved filthily, but also confounded this as much as is possible, by their divisions. And those that study hebrew must note this, that the Jews wheresoever they can, deprave the meaning of the prophet by their wicked expositions, where they can not do so, by their distinctions or divisions: as in Daniel, The 70. weeks are abbridged, there a man with his fingers may feel their corruption, where they separate and tear a sunder these things that are to be joined, 
The jews corrupt the scripture, in despite of Christians.  and all this, in despite of the Christians. Wherefore I leave this to those that be studious of the hebrew tongue, that they mark the malice of the devil and the Rabbins, whose only study and labour is to deprave, tear a sunder, and turn upside down the prophetical and Christian sense. In which chapter again he calleth them corruptores scriptorum propheticorum, corrupters of the writings of the prophets. And in this one place besides the authority of Luther, besides the general rules which he deduceth, willing us ever to beware of the Rabbins and jews, whose whole study is to abuse & deface the scriptures in despite of us and our religion, and therefore small reason hath M. W. to make so much of them as he doth: 
●. manners of corruption.  I note two sorts and manners of their corruption. The first is, by plain alteration of points and letters and syllables. For certain it is, our translator and the 70. never translated these hebrew words which now stand in this text, or as we find in S. Hierom. The second, which specially Luther noteth in Daniel, is by dividing words which by the prophet were joined, which is as vile and desperate a corruption as may be. So for example, servetus avoided the authority of the Apostle S. Paul, 
Rom. 9 v. 5.  affirming Christ to be God. For being urged with these words: Ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia deus benedictus in secula: Of whom (that is of the jews race) is Christ according to the flesh, who is God blessed for ever: which contain a sure testimony that Christ was not only man, as servetus would have him, but also God most blessed, he well acquainted with Bezaes' manner of correcting the testament, answered after this jewish trick: that he believed with all his heart what so ever S. Paul that elect vessel of the Lord had written. 
Sixtus Senensis in bibliotheca sancta. lib. 8. pag. 646.  marry it seemed to him that S. Paul said not so, and pleaded his greek testament where thus stood that sentence. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is above al. And there making a full distinction, then followeth the rest as a thanksgiving. The Lord be praised for ever. amen. And thus have the. jews done in very many places of scripture by Luther's verdict.  
Sundry other particular errors could I note unto thee (Christian reader) in the hebrew, had I but a piece of that insolent vain which many of our adversaries have, and wherein they triumph against men of great and excellent learning, such as of whom they & I shall (I doubt) never be worthy to be named scholars (example whereof take thou Charkes scornful abusing of Father Campian in the Tower, for ignorance in such trifles as these are) or were I disposed to disgrace the fountains and originals, which I am not, but honour them as I may, and saving the evident truth and faith of Christ, which standeth fast and unmovable, though heaven and earth fall, much more though the jewish Pharisees and Scribes writ their text amiss, this cause & faith I say foreprised, I esteem of them, as of things deserving much study and reverence: because how soever some gross errors, partly of malice, partly of ignorance, have crept in, yet commonly and for the most part, the text I hold to be true and sincere. And again I suppose this kind of writing can not be but tedious to the English reader, whose profit I principally intent, 
General reasons why the Hebrew text can not be so sincere as the adversary would pretend.  and therefore will go from these particularities so far as I may, to talk of a few reasonable & the same general arguments and questions, wherein M.W. if he have some part of that wit, intelligence, and modesty, which a scholar & divine should have, will not I hope much stand against me.  
And first gladly would I learn of him, what reason he and his fellows have, why they should think the hebrew text to be so inviolate, so sincere, and upright? is it because of God's promise and providence, or of man's circumspection and wisdom? if because of God's promise, where find they any such? how many examples in the scriptures have they to the contrary? wholebooks of the prophets are perished, books of singular commodity, & made by Gods own appointment, and they perished then, in that time of the synagogue, when jacob was the peculiar people of God, and Israel the lot of his inheritance, 
Deut. 52. v. 9  
Exod. 19 v. 6  when of all nations they were to God a holy nation, a kingly priesthood, 
Act. 14. u· 15.  when all other people were suffered to go their own ways, & the jews only were in God's special protection. For touching the books of the ancient prophets sometime extant, and now not appearing, we read commonly in the old testament. as of 
a Num. 21. v. 14.  Liber bellorum domini, The book of the wars of our Lord, 
b joshua 10. ver. 13. 2. Reg. 1. v. 18.  The book of the just men, 
c 2. Paral. 20 v. 34.  The book of jehu the son of Hanani, 
d ibid. 12. ver. 15.  The books of Semeias the prophet, and Addo: and 
e 1. Reg. 10. vers. 25.  Samuel written in a book the la of the kingdom (how kings ought to rule) & laid it up before our lord, 
f 2. Paral. 9 vers. 29.  and the works of Solomon were written in the words of Nathan the Prophet, and in the books of Ahias the Silonite, and in the vision of Addo the Seer, 
The jews have lost many & whole volumes of their Prophets: much more may they lose or alter points, letters and syllables.  and many other which were to long to rehearse. Which entire books of the wars of our lord, of the just, of those excellent prophets, of jehu, of Semeias, of Addo, of Samuel, of Nathan, of Ahias and others, are quite perished, and perished then, when the jews were so chosen a people, such a kingdom, in such order & government, of Kings and princes, and Senate, & ecclesiastical regiment. And now when they are no people, have no government, no king, no Priest, no comparable regiment, may we reasonably think their divine and ecclesiastical books to have been so warely kept, that every part is safe, every parcel sound, no points, letters or titles lost, all sincere, perfect and absolute. If the protestāns will claim this to them by man's wisdom and policy, see how notably they contradict themselves. All the bishops, and princes, 
Most unreasonable absurdity, and contradiction.  and states of Christendom were not wise enough by the protestants opinion, these thousand years past, to keep themselves in the true religion and Gospel of Christ. But whereas until 600. years, (as we learn by M. jewels challenge) they were protestants and enemies of the Mass, of the Real presence, of the Pope of Rome, and (as M. W. telleth us here) universally protestāns quo ad praecipuas religionis parts, 
Whit. pag. 9  in the principal parts of religion, they fell from that pure protestant-Gospel to serve Antichrist, to worship bread and wine for God, to adore Images, which is most gross idolatry, in steed of a true bible and word of God, to have our common translation, which is most impure & fullest of corruption. All this M.W. telleth us, and he telleth us in this book, and it is the common song of them al. And therefore how is it credible that all this while the jews should be so wise, so prudent, so politic, and circumspect that they admitted no faults, kept their bible so sincere and immaculate that there only the water of life was reserved, 
Whit. pa. 15.  and the mind & meaning of the holy Ghost was to be found nowhere so assuredly as there: what is this but to make the Christians all this while more brutish than beasts, and the jews almost equal to Angels.  
Again, so great likeness and similitude is there between some hebrew letters, 
Similitude of letters.  that excellent learned men have been deceived by mistaking one for an other, as appeareth by comparing the old translations of the bible with the later, 
Hieron. in Osee. c. 2.  and S. Hierom affirmeth the same of the Septuaginta. This if a man would declare by examples I think he might gather some hundreds out of the psalter. I will note only one verse of a short psalm which also may serve for a higher point. In the psalm 109 after our translation thus we read with the Septuaginta. 
Psal. 109. v. 3  Tecum principium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanctorum: ex utero ante luciferum genuite. The Protestant's for the more part (as we see by Marlorate, 
Marlorate in Psal. 110.  following therein Bucere, Musculus, Caluine and Pomerane) translate it thus. Populus tuus cum voluntariis oblationibus in die exercitus tui, in pulchritudine sanctitatis: ex utero ab aurora tibiros adolescentiae tuae. 
Of the year 1579.  The english bible of the last edition differing notably both from old and new, from us and the Protestants, translate thus. Thy people shall come willingly all the time of (assembling) thine army in holy beauty: the youth of thy womb shall be as the morning dew. which translation is farthest from the hebrew, farthest from all sense and reason. for who would make youth to rule womb and join them together being sundered so far? 
Of the year 1577.  and the bible given out two years before, hath scant one word like, and touching the later part is clean opposite. for thus it translateth In the day of thy p●w●r shall the people offer thee free-will offerings: the due of thy birth is of the womb of the morning. there is, youth of the womb, and, due of the morning: here is, dew of the birth, or youth (for that is one word in hebrew) and, womb of the morning. If a man would translate it precisely, using only the liberty to make choice of divers significations which the hebrew words yield, and draw it so far as the hebrew will bear, to the sense of the Septuaginta, which I take to be the best, than word for word thus it should stand. Tecum principatus in die potentiae tuae, in decoribus sanctitatis: ab vter● à Lucifero tibi ros nativitatis tuae. How ever it be framed, great difference will rise of necessity amongst divers interpreters. And whence proceedeth that? one great cause is the divers signification of one word. The first, which the 70. turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tecum, with thee, others, populus tu●s, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  thy people, is in the hebrew one word, with so small a difference of one point, as is possible. The next expressed of the 70. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principatus, may be as well signified by the hebrew, as spontanea oblatio. The third, which the 70. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, S. Hierom, fortitudinis, the Protestants, exercitus, may truly signify them all, power, virtue, strength, liberality, and army: and so aurora or Lucifer is the same word. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  But that which chiefly I note in this sentence, whatsoever other difference was between the old hebrew text and the new, is the diversity of sense rising through diversity of reading, upon occasion of similitude in the hebrew letters. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  as for example. The Septuaginta read in sp●endoribus, or decoribus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in brightness, whom commonly all the Protestants follow S. Hier. in mentibus, in mountains, the difference cometh of the likeness of two hebrew letters dale and resch. The last word, the 70. rendered by genuite, I have begotten thee. Which word of how great strength & force it is in this place, may be perceived by view of the Apostle Paul's argument, 
Hebr. 1. v. 5.  who out of that verse word proveth the eternal divinity of our Saviour. S. Hierom translated that word, adolescentiae tuae, as commonly do the Protestants. What is the occasion of this difference? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the great likeliness of two words: the Septuaginta read the first, S. Hierom the second. The prints now used though in sense follow S. Hierom, yet miss one of his letters, and therefore come nearer to the reading of the 70. And this verse letter vau for iod, hath certainly made disagreement in some other places. As where the Septuaginta read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fortitudinem meam ad te custodiam, 
Psal. 58. v. 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  my strength will I keep to thee, and so S. Hierom read and translated. now it is in the hebrew, fortitudinem eius, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  his strength will I keep to thee, to the great perverting of the whole sense and sentence. A like error to that Genes. 3. 
Genes. 3. v. 15.  (if it be an error, as many very probably rather think it is none) ipsa conteret caput tuum for ipse or ipsum, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  about which the Protestants keep such a stir.  
But what should I rehearse examples of such small errors committed by learned men, by Rabbins, by S. Hierom, by the Septuaginta, whereas the protestants stick not to charge directly the very Apostle S. Paul with error in this kind. For whereas S. Paul writeth, That neither eye hath seen, nor ear heard, 
1. Cor. 2. v. 9  neither hath it entered in to the heart of man, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  what God hath prepared for those that love him, iis qui diligunt illum, whereby we prove that heaven is prepared as a reward for charity and the works thereof, and so refel their mathematical solifidian fancy, 
Pretty answeeres & interpretations.  many pretty answers they give us: as that S. Paul doth after his fashion very finely writhe the place. 
Luther in Esa. ca 64. Illyric. in 1. Cor. ca 2. v. 9  So Luther, Paulus sententiam commodè detorsit. Illyricus, That to love, is as much as to believe, and so charity as much as faith, and then, to be saved by only faith, why may we not interpret it, To be saved by only charity? Qui diligunt (saith he) p●nitur pro iis, qui ad eum supplices fide confugiunt. Fides per effectum suum dilectionem declaratur. Those that love him, that is those that by faith humbly fly unto him. Faith is noted by his effect, that is charity. But Peter Martyr goeth an other way to work, and thinketh that the Apostle read not right. Thus writeth he. Diligentibus se, habet Apostolus, 
Martyr in 1. Cor. ca 2 fo. 46.  Propheta vero dixit expectantibus: et diserimen agnoscitur provenisse a magna similitudine duorum elementorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. The Apostle hath the word loving, the Prophet hath, 
S. Paul miss in reading Hebrew.  trusting or expecting: and it is well known that this difference grew from the great similitude of two hebrew letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  for so much as among the Hebrews the same verb written with one letter signifieth to trust or expect, with the other, to love vehemently, which Paul followed In which censure (Christian reader) besides his sacrilegious contempt in divinity (wherein thou mayst learn to care the less for their condemning and railing at the fathers, when they are so saucy with this singular Apostle) besides this profane wickedness in divinity, I say, he foully belieth the Apostle against all humanity. For the second word, which he objecteth, hath no such signification: & if he meant some other word somewhat resembling the first, as other of his brethren guess, yet neither can they serve his turn, for so much as the grammatical rules will not bear such construction, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  as against Erasmus and him, 
Beza in 1. Cor. ca 2. v. 9  Beza hath truly noted. But grant we to P. Martyr, that which he would have, let S. Paul, I will not say endued with the holy Ghost so abundantly, 
The Protestants attribute more to the jewish scribes, then to S. Paul the Apostle.  Paul that pillar & foundation of the Church, so directed by God, as he could not err: but only Paul brought up from his infancy in the law of Moses, in continual study of the law and Prophets, at the feet of Gamaliel, 
Act. 22.  so noble a schoolmaster, let this Paul be deceived in reading the Hebrew, then how intolerable is their perversity, who will not suffer so much to be judged of the common, base, vulgar & ignorant scribes, so maliciously bend against Christ and all Christianity, as before is noted.  
But howsoever M. W. speaketh of his fountains and originals, know thou (Christian reader) that other of his side far more skilful than he, without any contradiction acknowledge what soever I say. 
Castalio defence. suae translatio. pag. 227.  Sebastianus Castalio by occasion defending himself against such a one as M. W. seemeth to be writeth thus. Videtur esse in ea opinion (sicut et plerique omnes judaei, et nonnulli hac in part judaizantes Christiani) ut in hebraicis bibliis nullum usque mendum irrepisse putet etc. 
M.W. opinion touching the Hebrew uncorrupt, is luysh.  This good fellow seemeth to be of that opinion (as in manner all Jews are, and some Christians drawing to judaisme in this respect) that they think no error ever to have crept into the hebrew bibles, that God would never suffer that any word should be corrupted in those holy books: as though the books of the old testament were more holy than those of the new, in the which new, so many divers readings are found in so many places, or as though it were credible that God had more regard of one or other little word or syllable, than he had of whole books, whereof he hath suffered many, I say not to be depraved, but to be utterly lost. This judaical superstition etc. Hitherto Castalio. And D. 
Humfre. lib. 1. de rat. interpre. pag. 178.  Humphrey in his first book de ratione interpretandi, saith. judaismus quot locos depravauerit etc. The jewish superstition, how many places it hath corrupted, the reader may easily find out and judge. 
Lib. 2. pag. 219.  And in the next book. I like not that men should to much follow the Rabbins as many do. Nam quae Christum verum Messiam promittunt et annunciant, ab●istis turpissimè c●nspurcata sunt. for those places which promise and declare Christ the true Messiah, are most filthily depraved by them. And Conradus Pellicanus sometime professor of hebrew in Zuricke, writing upon the 8● psalm and those words of our translation, Conuertuntur ad c●r, where, 〈◊〉 cor, the protestants according ●o the hebrew prints now, have 〈◊〉 guesseth well, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  & no doubt rightly that the difference came through the great likeness of two letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and prefers our reading before the hebrews & withal accuseth the jews of all times not only since Christ, but also before, of negligence in cō●e●uing thei● holy books. Thus he writeth. The old interpreter seemeth to have read one way, 
Pelican to. 4. in psal. 85. verse 9  whereas the Jews ●ow read an other. which I say, because I would not have men think this to have proceeded from the ●gnorance or slothfulness of the o●d interpreter. Rather we have cause to find fault for want of diligence in the Antiquaries, 
The jews at all times negligent in conserving the scriptures.  and faith in the Jews, who both before Christ's coming and sithence, seem to have been less careful of the psalms, then of their own talmudical songs. And again in the same volume, upon that verse of the psalm 108. Quis deducet me in civitatem munitam? 
Idem ibidem in psal 108. vers. 11.  quis deducet me in Idumaeam? who will bring me in to the sensed city? who will bring me in to Idumaea, writeth thus: The Syriake interpreter, either following, or finding out, or i●er●asing the fables of the Jews, translateth this verse after this s●r: who will bring me in to that wicked Rome? who will bring me in to that Constantinople of the Idumeans? sol centiously do the Rabbins of the jews abuse their authority, 
In vulgo legend is legis suae translationibus.  not only in their commentaries, but also in the translations of their la, which commonly are to be read, whereby the miserable people reading so, is easily seduced. Where besides our principal purpose, we may learn withal, 
The Protestants & jews resemble one the other in many points both of faith and manners.  that the jews have one trick of the Protestant's, vz, in to their bible & communion books or such like wherein is cont●yned their manner of Service, to thrust beside the text, glances against the Pope and Church of Rome: as ●n deed the hatred of Christ, Christianity, and that Church, commonly runneth together. The like testifieth Munster alleging these words of Ab●n Ezra against the Christians. F●w there were that believed in that man, 
Munster. in Gen. ca 27.  whom these (Christians) have made their G●d, and when Rome did believe in the time of Constantine a●d altered the whole la, and put in his banner the sign of the crucified man, by the persuasion of that Monk of Idumaea, that is the Roman bishop (so Aben Ezra expoundeth it) there were none through the world, that observed that la, besides a few Idumeans: and here of it cometh, that the kingdom of the Romans is called the kingdom of Edom. Wherein a man may see and compare together the judaical and Protestantical vain in railing at the Roman Church, and those that live in the unity of it. To the I●wes we are Gentiles, to the Protestants we are Idolaters. In the jews speech and sense, it is all one to say, a Roman, a Catholic, or an Idumean, that is a Gentile: so is it in the speech and sense of the Protestants, save that in steed of Catholic, sometimes they use the word, Papist. The Jews pervert their divine Service with the manifest abuse of scripture, 
Where is now become the canon of Carthage Counsel. 4. cap. 47. so much urged by M. jewel, that nothing should be read or sung in the church beside Canonical scripture?  against the Roman faith and Church: and do not our jewish Protestants much more? Cal to remembrance (Christian reader) their Geneva, or rather Gehenna psalms sung in their congregations, where (as they tell us) nothing soundeth but god's word & the Canonical scripture, & see whether in any old Greek, Hebrew, Latin, or English psalters they find praying against the Pope, & to be delivered from all Papistry. That the Pope, as well as the Turk, would thrust our of his throne, 
Bad time, & worse reason.  our lord jesus Christ, God's dear son. whether in any old Creed, either Apostolic, or made by Apostolic or honest men, they are taught to believe, release & pardon of their sins (which is in these men's divinity, perfect & entire justification) and that only by faith, as in their rhyming Creed without rhyme or reason they sing. Finally as the jewish Rabbins thrusting once in to their people's ears, that Rome is Edom, and the Roman an Edomite, m●ke that all scripture spoken against Edom, soundeth against Rome: even so the Protestants telling their people, that Rome is Babylon, and the Pope Antichrist, make them forthwith believe, that whatsoever the scripture hath ●gainst Babylon & Antichrist, that maketh just against the Roman Church, the Pope and Catholics.  
But to return to our original matter, and to draw to an end of this question, touching the pure fountains & originals: for plain and evident demonstration how true that is, I refer M.W. to these two general experiments, which at his leisure he may view and consider of. One is, the great diversity of reading, which in many places of the hebrew old testament we find. 
Great variety in the Hebrew bibles  For example whereof, let him peruse Exod. ca 2. losue 22, and 23. judic. 3. the first of Samuel ca 10, 17, 22, 28. 2 Samuel 7. Esa. 14, 33, 54, etc. and Munster's notes upon those chapters, where he shall find the reading and sense oftentimes as far disagreeing as black and white. And Munst. in his preface forewarneth the reader thereof. 
Munster in praefat. bib. ●omi primi.  Sometimes (saith he) even amongst the hebrews in one sentence I have found divers reading. For sometimes dissensions are sound amongst them, some thinking this to be the true reading, some thinking contrary.  
another experiment is, that the hebrew prints want now somewhat, which certainly was in the first originals. Example whereof may be the Psalm 144. 
ps. 144.  which being made according to the hebrew alphabet and having the verses in number answering to the hebrew letters, the first beginning with Aleph, the second with Beth, the third with Gimel, etc. (as doth the Psal. 
ps. 33.  33.) & therefore should certainly have 22. verses, as hath that other, this lacketh one verse in all hebrew copies, & so wanted it even in S. Hieroms t●me. 
The Hebrew bibles unperfit.  and evident it is, that the error is in the hebrew, where lacketh the 14. verse which should begin with Nan, as it is very plain by the translation of the 70, and by our common Psalter. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Fidelis Dominus in omnibus verbis suis, & sanctus in omnibus operibus suis. Which verse in hebrew should have begun with that letter, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  which of all the alphabet only misseth. So as most certain it is, that the hebrew is faulty. And thus to end this matter of the hebrew fountains & originals, I will gather that which I have said in to a few conclusions & withal answer M.W. allegations.  
The first is, that this opinion of the Protestants detracting so much from the latin bibles, 
The protestants opinion injurious to the holy Ghost.  and yielding so much to the hebrew, is judaical, injurious to the Church, to the holy Ghost and state of the new testament, as whereby they profess to think more religion & care of God's word to have been resident in the jewish synagogue, them in all the Kingdoms, Princes, Pastors & Provinces of Christianity, for these thousand years.  
The second, that albeit S. Hierom in his time so soon after the great persecutions, the Church being troubled with that most busy, terrible and potent heresy of the Arrians against the divinity of Christ and the holy Ghost, 
Although S. Hierom appealed from the latin to the Hebrew, yet the like reason is not for us now.  when as yet the Canon itself comprehending the sacred books of scriptures, by general authority was not confirmed and received, when (as saith S. 
August. de doctr. Christiana. lib, 2. ca 11.  Austin) there was innumerable variety of latin translations. (Qui ex hebrae● lingua scripturas in graecam verterunt, numerari possunt, latini autem interpretes nullo modo) and they infinitely differing among themselves, as in the same place he noteth, when for these causes there was not, nor well could be any one uniform translation approved: although at this time S. Hierom might justly appeal from them all to the hebrew as in comparison being most pure & incorrupt: yet neither than were the hebrew copies simpliciter faultless, as hath been showed by plain examples and demonstrations, by the very Protestant bibles, and by confession of the best & learnedst among them. and S. H●erom, though M. W. seem to ground himself most upon him, acknowledgeth so much. 
S. Hierom thought the hebrew bibles to be in some places corrupt and faulty.  For examining two places of Deuteronomie urged by the Apostle S. Paul in his epistles, both differing in that point which he most presseth, from the hebrew bibles extant in S. Hieroms days, he resolveth in fine, that the hebrew was corrupted, otherwise then the Apostle read it. The one place is: 
Gal. ●. v. 1●. Deuter. 21. v. 23.  Scriptum est, Maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno. It is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on tree. in which short place compared with the original in Deuteronomie, there is somewhat to much, and somewhat to little. To much, because here is omnis, every one, and in ligno, on tree, which are not now found in the Hebrew, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  though both in the Greek of the Septuaginta. To little, because there is in the hebrew, Elohim, which wanteth in S. Paul, maledictus Deo or Dei, cursed of God is every one so hanged. S. 
Hiero. in ●al c. 3.  Hierom answereth thus. My judgement herein is this, either that the old books of the Hebrewes had otherwise then they have now, or that the Apostle put the sense of the scripture not the words, or (which I rather suppose) after the passion of Christ both in the Hebrew and in our books, the name of God was added by some man, that he might make us more infamous, who believe in Christ accursed of God. The other place is this. Scriptum est, Maledictus omnis, 
Gal. ● v. 10. Deutron. 27. v. 26.  qui non permanserit in omnibus quae scripta sun● in libro legis, ut faciat ea. Cursed is every one that abideth not in all things which are written in the book of the la to do them. Where the Apostles argument hanging principally upon the two words omnis and in omnibus, every one, and in all things, both which are in the Septuaginta, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither in the hebrew, he thus answereth the matter. 
Hier. in Gal. cap. 3.  I am uncertain, whether the Septuaginta added, omnis homo, and in omnibus, or whether it were so in the old hebrew, and afterwards put out by the Jews. Thus t● suppose I am moved for this reason, because the words, omnis, and in omnibus, 
The jews convicted by S. Hier. of corrupting of the scriptures.  all, and in all, as necessary to prove that they be all accursed, who are of the works of the la, the Apostle skilful in the hebrew tongue, and m●st cunning in the la, would never have so set down, had it not been so in the hebrew. Wherefore I perusing the hebrew volumes of the Samaritans found there written the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much to say, as omnis sive omnibus, all or in all, and so that to agree with the Septuaginta. In vain therefore have the Jews razed that out, lest they should seem to be accursed, whereas the more ancient examples of an other nation, testify that it was written so. Thus S. Hierom.  
Thirdly this I gather, that since S. Hieroms time much more have the hebrew books been corrupted, and that not in small indifferent matters, which might better be borne, but in very high points touching the divinity and humanity of our Saviour, touching his passion and the redemption of the world. And therefore when S. 
S. Hierom praising the hebrew bibles of his time, nothing justifieth these of our time.  Hierom speaking of the purity of the bibles before his birth, is applied to justify the copies written so many ages after his death, and so consequently to justify all their new English, Flemish and German interpretations made according to some hebrew copies as they pretend, this is as just as Germans lips, according to our english proverb, whose hearts & minds & religions we see to differre infinitely. This is to answer of chalk, when the question is proposed of cheese.  
Next this we see that the condition of the hebrew tongue is such, that errors are very soon committed therein by reason of small points of distinctions, of letters so nighly resembling one an other. Whereunto join we the malice of the Rabbins. their hatred of the Christians and Christian religion, whom Luther confesseth to be as very crucifiers of the word of Christ (especially such places as most appertain to him) as they were of Christ himself, and that they employ their study hereunto. And if we consider withal, how in time of the law through their default they lost whole books & volumes of their divine Prophets, we shall find small reason to move us to believe, that since Christ, they should become so holy, and devout, & watchful, & circumspect, as M.W. by commending their fountains and originals would make them.  
Finally all this hath been declared not only by plain reasons, facts, examples, demonstrations, but also by plain confession of those, whom our adversaries principally reverence and honour, and in this matter were most skilful, by Munster, by Pelican, by Sebastianus Castalio, by Luther and such others.  
And hereof may the reader easily learn an answer to that question, 
An argument commonly made for the purity of the hebrew bibles  which many frame as a matter of intricate difficulty, when these corruptions should come in to the hebrew bibles, whether before Christ's time, or between that and S. Hieroms, or from S. Hieroms time to us. Not the first say they, because then Christ would have objected that unto them, as he did other faults. Nor the second, because S. Hierom had the hebrew verity, as he often speaketh. Nor the third, because our hebrew bibles agree with those of S. Hierom. The answer I say is easy, 
The answer.  because whether part of the three so ever a man take he can not miss. For errors grew in those bibles, some before Christ, more after Christ until S. Hieroms age, and yet more from S. Hierom afterwards. 
Very probable, that Christ noted the jews for corrupting the text of scripture. joan. 21. v. 25  And well it may be that Christ objected the same unto them, though it be not recorded in the Testament, as certain it is, many things he preached unto them and reproved in them, whereof no written record is extant. And well it may be that both Christ objected and the Euangilist noted so much, when he writeth as spoken of our Saviour, informing his Apostles, and rejecting the doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees: You have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not kill. Exod. 20. v. 13. 
Mat. 5. v. 22. v. 28.  you have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not commit adultery. Exo. 20. 
32.  14. It was said also, Whosoever shall dimisse his wife, let him give her a bill of divorcement. Deut. 24. ●. Again you have heard that it was said to them of old, 
34.  Thou shalt not commit perjury, but shall perform thy oaths to our Lord. 
38.  Exod. ca 20. v. 7. You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, & a tooth for a tooth. Exod. 21. v. 24. You have heard that it was said, 
43.  Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thy enemy. levit. 19 v. 18. Where our Saviour joining this later precept, Thou shalt hate thy enemy with those other precepts of the law & written in the law as, Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. He that divorceth his wife, let him give her a bill of divorcement. Thou shalt not commit perjury. Thou shalt perform thy oath. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: showeth plainly that the pharisees taught this later to be the law of god as well as the former, & therefore no marvel if they put it unto the law with the rest, as by Christ's words it seemeth most likely they did. And whether this were so or not, certain it is, through the intolerable negligence and iniquity of Priest, 
The whole law for many years together lost by the jews  Prince and People, that in the time of Manasses, not one piece or parcel, but the whole law was lost for many years together, as appeareth in the book of Kings, 
4 Reg. c. 22.  & at length, as it were by great chance was it found out again in the time of josias, which crime our Saviour for aught we read, never charged them with al. And therefore if likewise he never charged them with this, it were no great marvel.  
More corrupted might it be after Christ, by how much that nation was more alienated from the favour of God. And S. Hierom himself acknowledgeth some corruption, howsoever in comparison he truly account the hebrew most pure and sincere in such sort and for such reason as hath been touched. And S. justinus the martyr in his conference with Triphon, talking of the very hebrew bibles, not of the translation of the 70. only, as some answer (Ex scripturis quae pro confessis apud vos habentur testimonia petam, 
justinus martyr tom. 2. pag. 141.  saith he, I will bring proofs of that which I say from those scriptures which yourselves acknowledge for such) of their corruption he giveth three examples. 
S. justine the Martyr convinceth the jews of mangling the scriptures.  One out of Esdras. A second out of jeremy. A third out of the Psalms. Out of Esdras, this. Esdras spoke unto the people. This Pascha is our saviour & refuge. 
Esd. ●.  And if you shall persuade yourselves, and this shall enter in to your hearts, that you shall humble him upon the wood, and after hope in him, this place shall not be desolate for ever, saith our lord of hosts. But if you will not believe in him, nor hear his preaching, you shall become a scorn to the nations. which place is in like manner cited by Lactantius. Apud Esdram ita scriptum est. 
Lactant. lib. 4. cap. 18.  Et dixit Esdras ad populum. Hoc Pascha salvator nost●r est et refugium nostrum etc. The place out of the prophet jeremy is this. Ex Ieremiae responsis haec verba recîderunt. 
jerem. ca 11.  Ego ut agnus qui ad sacrificandum etc. Out of jeremies' answeres this have the Jews cut away: 
Whole sentences cut out of the bibles by the jews.  I as a lamb that am lead to be sacrificed, and against me they devised counsels saying, come, let us cast wood upon his bread, and let us take him away from the land of the living, and let there be no more memory of his name. Which place containeth the prophetical foreshowing of a double verity. First of Christ's crucifying upon the cross, to which purpose the words are plain. 
The real presence.  Then of his true presence in the blessed sacrament. for the Prophet calleth Christ's natural body upon the cross by the name of bread, in respect of Christ first promising the same body for everlasting food to his Christians in form of bread, 
John 6.  and then after accomplishing the same promise by actual delivery of the same body in such form at the time of his last supper. 
Mat. 26.  And the place is so expounded by the ancient fathers, 
Hierom. in jeremis. ca 11. Tertul. in lib. contra judaeos. Oecolamp. in jerem ca 11.  as for example by S. Hierom, and by Tertullian most evidently. And Oecolampadius in his commentary upon these words, confesseth it to have been the common sense and interpretation of the ancient and Primitive church. The third place out of the psalms, is this. 
Psal. 95.  Ex nonagesimo quinto etiam Davidis psalmo haec pauca verba recîderunt, a ligno. Cum enim scriptum esset etc. Also from the ninety and fifth psalm of David they cut away these few words, From the wood. For whereas it was written, Declare ye among the nations, that our lord hath reigned from the word, they left thus much only, Declare ye among the nations, that our lord hath reigned. Of these three places thus defaced by the jews, the first at this time is extant in no hebrew bibles, nor to my knowledge in any greek translation. The second is in all the hebrew now corrected & restored by the Christians. For S. justine noteth that it was not clean abolished out of all hebrew bibles, & the fault was but freshly committed in his days. Resectio istae saith he, 
justinus ubi supra, pa. 142  ex Hieremia, ad huc in quibusdam exemplaribus quae in judaeorum asseruantur synagogis, scripta reperitur. Non enim ita diu est, quod haec verba recîderunt. This piece so cut of from jeremy, is as yet found written in some of. those copies that are kept in the Jews synagogue. For it was but of late, that they cut away these words. By which words also it is evident that he meaneth the very hebrew bibles, not the translation of the 70. only, whereas he so precisely nameth such as were preserved in the Jews synagogues, 
In quibusdam exemplaribus.  some of which retained still that parcel, but most wanted it. and manifest it is that the jews neither in our time keep so honourably the translation of the 70. in their synagogues, & much less did they ke●pe it in S. justines' days, when (as appeareth by the whole discourse and manifest words of this author in this same place) they much more detested it. The third, a ligno, is wanting in all greek and hebrew bibles, & is only reserved in our ecclesiastical breviary, & certain Doctors, as Tertullian, Lactantius, Cassiodorus, 
August. in Psal. 9●.  and S. Austin, who notwithstanding so readeth it, as though it were the common reading in the churches of Africa in his time, and maketh no mention of any other reading, where those words should be left out.  
And from S. Hieroms time until our days very probable it is, that these errors and corruptions have multiplied, not only for the general and particular reasons already touched, but for this especially, that whereas since that time the jews obstinacy, barbarousness, impiety, and ignorance in their own tongue hath much increased, the Christians notwithstanding have not had any great occasion to handle much or exercise that language, & therefore have had smalller regard to books written therein, without which as first of all, they perfectly received the Christian faith, and planted it in these parts of Christendom, so without it, have they as perfectly continued in the same, and now enlarged it even to the extreme corners of the world, 
Our first preachers & forefathers perfect Christians without hebrew bibles  and without the which they have for these thousand years lived most christianly as saints, & christianly as saints finished their temporal lives, & after lived with Christ for ever.  
And now touching M. W. 
pag. 19.20.  question demanding how the Church hath faithfully conserved the books of scriptures, who thus findeth fault with the hebrew bibles as corrupt, I answer as before, 
The church hath faithfully conserved the scriptures, notwithstanding the corruption of the hebrew bibles.  that the Church hath most faithfully conserved the scriptures, albeit not in this or that tongue, which the wanton curiosity of every fantastical heretic coveteth. We have the true word and gospel of Christ, though perhaps we have not ten words in that language which our Saviour spoke. And then why may we not have the law & the prophets, though there were never an hebrew bible in the world? Again unreasonably demandeth he of our church for hebrew bibles uncorrupt, which perhaps never had any such, and never undertook to keep the word of God in that language more than in Arabike or Syriake, no more than she undertook to keep S. Matthewes Gospel in hebrew, or S. Paul's epistle to the Hebrews. But if she deliver faithfully to the Christians, 
●he office of the true Church.  that which she received of Christ and his Apostles touching all parts of Christian faith and religion, be it written or unwritten, in one language or other, she performeth that, which Christ committed to her charge, and which is sufficient for the salvation of every Christian, and whereby she proveth her self to be the House and Church of the living God, 
1. Tim. 3. vers. 15.  the sure Pillar and ground of truth, the Spouse of Christ, 
Eph. 5. c.  and faithful mother of all Christians.  
M. D. 
D. Whit. in the defence, etc. tract. 2 pag. 87. tract. 7. pag. 257.265.266.285.287.289.  Whitgift thinketh it untolerable that the English ministers should appoint, what manner of apparel is convenient for themselves to wear, what ceremonies or rites should be used in their poor Service. He by many arguments taketh from them all authority in such matter, & will have the whole ministery altogether to depend & be directed by the superior magistrates, the Queen and the Lords of her Council. 
No more reason that every particular man should prescribe the church in this, then that every subject should prescribe the prince how to rule his realm.  Then how much more untolerable is it, that some one or other single minister should appoint the universal Church & governors thereof, in what manner and fashion the word of God must be kept, in what language, as it were in what kind of paper or parchment he will have it written. As if some busy headed fellow in a common wealth not contented to be ruled & preserved by his Prince in true religion, justice and quiet possession of his own, should farther take upon him to prescribe what manner priests, how qualified, and in what University brought up, should preach unto him the word of God, & minister the sacraments: what sort of men should execute unto him justice, and examine his cases of law: by what captains, of what birth, country and experience, by what kind of defence, open force, or secret policy, fight by sea, or rather land, strength of horsemen or footmen, he will be maintained in peace and quietness.  

The protestants can not possibly believe any bible delivered them by the Cath. Church in what language so ever.  And what meaneth he to require for pure bibles in any language of our Church, which he holdeth for Antichristian, and the prelate's thereof and all other Catholics, for members of Antichrist. For whiles he thus thinketh, what soever bibles, hebrew or not hebrew, Greek or Arabike we offer him, he can by reason yield no more credit unto them then to our latin, no more then to our traditions, or any other thing proceeding from warrant and credit of such professed enemies of Christ: as well and learnedly proveth S. 
August. de util. credendi ca 14.  Austin in his book de utilitate credendi. Much more agreeable to reason & Christian divinity is it, for him and his to resort to their own church of elect & predestinate, or how so ever he list to term them, which hath so flourished these many hundred years, by witness of their ecclesiastical stories, by report of M. Fox in his Acts and monuments. 
Fox acts & monuments edit. 1563. pag. 44.45.91.101.102.103.108.141 140.235.251  Let him resort to the brethren of Lions, to Wycleffe, and the Wycleffis●es, to Robert rigs, john Purvey, Henry Crompe, john of Chlum, john Scut, William Hawlam, Richard Which, john Hus, alias john Goose, the Hussites and Thaborites of Bohemia and such other, 
The protestants church and succession.  who (as they tell us) were glorious pillars, & doctors, and maintainers of their church and Protestant-gospel, and like glistering stars shined in the face of the Christian world. And that I tie him not to particular men, or one only province of Bohemia, in many other provinces and kingdoms of the world hath their church continued, as most confidently writeth D. 
Whit. in the defence. etc. tract. 8. chap. 6. pag. 465.  Whitgift against T. C. who framing an argument against the Archbishop's authority drawn from this supposition, What if the whole church be in one province or in one realm, which hath been, 
Act. cap. ●.  and is not unpossible to be again, M. D. Whit. answereth it thus. To your supposition if the whole church etc. 
How standeth this with the invisibility & general, suppression of the Church, which the Tower disputers so painfully labour to prove? The second days conference.  I say that if the sky fall you may catch larks, as the common proverb is, making it as unpossible a case to have the church of Christ in one only kingdom, as it is unpossible for the sky to fall. And presently in the same page: Do you not know, that the church of Christ is dispersed through the whole world, and can not now (after Christ's ascension) be shut up in one kingdom much less in one province, except you will become Donatists? He that is not wilfully blind, may see in to what straights you are driven when you are constrained to use such impossibilities for reasons. And M. W. in this book telleth us, 
Whit. contra Saunder. p. 47  that there never wanted mighty States, & Princes, and nations, who withstood the bishop & Sea of Rome as they do now. Nullis temporibus defuerunt (saith he) nec Episcopi, nec Presbyteri, nec Imperatores, nec populi etc. There never wanted at any time, neither Bishops, neither Priests, nor Emperors, nor nations, nor Private men, which had not rather be condemned of your church for heretics, then to maintain the Catholic communion of your Apostasy. wherefore having so large a scope, let him repair to that his own church and succession of Protestants, and of them seek for the true written bible, of whom he receiveth the sense and meaning of the same, not to our church and succession of Catholics, whom he chief condemneth for erring in the true sense, and then reproveth as bitterly for corrupting the true text.  
The conclusion of all is this. if as a Christian, as an obedient child of the Church, and willing to learn, 
A short and true answer to M. W. demand.  if thus he demand of the Church for true bibles, she can serve him with more variety of such, & in more languages, than it will stand with his ease to read. 
Such demaunders will never be satisfied, neither can they, while they remain so minded. Mat. 22. v. 18. Mat. 7. v. 6.  If he demand this as an heretic, as a rebellious Apostata, as to pick quarrels and maintain strife, the Church hath nought to do with him. She answereth as our saviour answered the Pharisees. Quid me tentatis hypocritae? & as he taught his Apostles: Nolite dare sanctum canibus. She sendeth him to his own scattered and divided congregation, in to whose communion he hath thrust himself, & under whose false banner he fighteth against her, whom the universal Christian world, in all times and ages until our days, hath acknowledged, for the only, true, catholic & apostolic church of Christ.  
And hitherto of the hebrew fountains and originals, wherein I have sta●ed somewhat the longer, first of all that the reader may see that not without just cause I charge M.W. with a manifest lie, 
pag. 16.  in saying we flee the hebrew, for that we know it to contain the assured bane and destruction of our cause. He may here perceive in part, 
We honour & esteem of the hebrew bibles notwithstanding we altar not our faith upon pretence thereof.  what reason, what argument, what conscience moveth the Church thus to prescribe, and us to follow the Church's ordinance herein. That we neither fear, nor contemn, nor refuse it, but for the understanding of the true sense, study and honour it as much as he, though we hang not our faith upon it so, as if the jews deprave a text touching Christ's divinity, we therefore will deny him to be God, and if they raze out the only text, that foreshoweth the manner of his passion and crucifying, we will not for all that give over our faith, that in such sort he was crucified for us.  
secondarily thus I have done to satisfy M· W. demand, who challengeth us so confidently, to show any error in the originals. who affirmeth so peremptorily those places to be safe and untouched, which appertain to the proof of our Christian religion. Which how true it is he now seethe, if he will believe either reason, or his own masters. Besides that his argument is over slender, when he will conclude those originals to be pure, because there is no corruption in matters of controversy, as though there could be no errors, but those which proceed of wilfulness and malice against Christian religion: 
The Protestants, partial judges for the jews against the Christians and Church Catholic.  as though the jews could not err by negligence, ignorance, and other human infirmity, by which Caluine, Beza & the rest of that knot can imagine very many, and the same very gross errors to have crept in to our latin bibles. But true is the old proverb, Graculus graculo, Like will to like as I have said. Of the jews for near alliance and brotherhood they judge so divinely, as though they were half gods, who never erred. either of malice▪ either of wilfulness, or ignorance, or slowthfulnes, or want of due consideration, or through any kind of like either sin or imbecility. But of the Christian Catholic Church, of the Bishops and Pastors, by whom they have that piece of Christianity which yet they retain, they deem most wickedly: them they account more dissolute, more irreligious, more careless & negligent in matters divine, than the worst people that live under the cope of heaven. These in the same kind have erred, both of malice, and of wilfulness, and of contempt, and of negligence, by all manner of faulting, voluntary & involuntary, whereunto a man may possibly fall.  
Thirdly, some reason moving me thus to do, was because neither M. Martin in his Discovery, much less the preface of the new testament (handling only such things, as were incident to that book, that is, giving reason why in that translation the latin vulgar edition was followed before the common greek testaments) had any occasion to treat of this matter. For albeit M. 
Discover. c. 22 num 9.10.11.12▪ & in the preface nu. 39  Martin proveth errors in matters historical to be in our common hebrew bibles, yet he maketh no stay therein but rather presupposing the hebrew text to be altogether true, as the adversaries pretend, he so much the more discovereth their wilfulness and perversity, who in their translations depart sundry times from those hebrew originals, which they seem to magnify as altogether faultless and unspotted.  
One principal corruption of great moment and importance he objecteth out of the 21. psalm, 
In the preface to the reader, nu. 44. and c. 22. num. 9  where the prophet saith in the person of Christ, They have pierced my hands and feet, which by the jews being maliciously altered by mutation of one or other letter in to, As a lion my hands and feet, without wit, reason, or common sense, whereby is evacuated the best and clearest prophecy in the whole body of scripture touching the manner and fashion of Christ's crucifying, who besides M. W. would so blindly have dissembled it, & yet still sing us the old song of the pure fountains?  
It is written that not long sithence, certain evangelical anabaptists lately converted from judaisme, reading that place of S. Peter in Castalios translation, 
Act. 2. v. ●5.  jesum Nazarenum scelestis manibus comprehendistis, et ad palum alligatum sustulistis, jesus of Nazareth you have apprehended, and binding him to a post or stake, so made him away, 
Sixtus ●enens. in Bibliotheca sancta. lib. ●. pag. 648.  upon this text fell to a great and dangerous contention among themselves in their congregations, whether Christ were pierced hand and foot with nails as the Church believeth, or were only bound hand and foot to a gibbet, as the fashion among the Turks is now a days, & as the other two thieves were done to death which were crucified with him. And remove the tradition of the Church (which these good fellows care not for) and this place of David, 
The Protestant's secretly begin to disprove the Church's faith touching the manner of Christ's crucifying.  and certainly out of the old testament it can not, perhaps neither out of the new, be clearly proved to a contentious heretic, that he was crucified in such sort as the truth is, and we believe. For as the heretics now a days at home in our country gladly abhor the name of the cross, & all signs or memories there of, & both in private talking & public preaching and writing, 
Calfh. against the cross.  rather use the name of gallows or gibbet: so others abroad in their commentaries upon the scripture much urge the same, and willingly take and prosecute all conjectures and guesses, that tend to the proof thereof. 
Marlor. in Psal. 22. v. 17  So for example Marlorate favouring (as it plainly appeareth) Castalios translation and the jewish reading, writeth expressly. De foss●one manuum ac pedum Christi, in historia passionis Christi, nihil memorarunt Euangelistae. Of piercing Christ's hands and feet, in the story of Christ's passion the Evangelists make no mention. as much to say, as therefore we are not bound to believe it. For by these men's doctrine, we are bound to believe nothing, which is not proved by scripture. And the self same affirmeth Wolf. Musculus, vz, 
Muscul. io Ma●. cap. 27.  that the Evangelists make no declaration that Christ should be put to death in any such manner. And it may well be that M. W. accounteth this for a trifle, neither careth greatly which way Christ died, so that he confess him to have died one way or other. 
Bucer. in Psal. 22. v. 17.  For so touching this place writeth Martin Bucer that great rabbin and Apostle of Cambridge University in the sacramentary heresy, & M.W. first predecessor in that profession & chair which he now possesseth. His words are these. Although it be now in the hebrew bibles, As a lion my hands & feet, yet Felix Pratensis witnesseth, that he read, Foderunt, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  They pierced my hands and feet in a certain commentary, where unto the Jews give as much credit, as to David himself. Sed cum judaeis ob voculam ego nunquam contend crim, But I for my part (saith Bucer) would never contend with the Jews for so trifling a word. And Zuinglius in his Tigurine translation in deed contendeth not, but striketh it quite out, and putteth in for it, Tanquam lo, As a lion, translating it more like a jew and sworn adversary of the gospel, than a Christian. For whereas the evangelist writeth, applying it to our saviour, Os non comminuetis ex eo, 
joan. 19 v. 36.  A bone of him you shall not break, he translateth this place of the psalmist clean opposite to the evangelist thus, 
Zuing. tom. 3. in E●chirid. psalmorum. Psa. 21.  Concilium pessimorum frangit manus meas et pedes meos instar leonis. 
The Tigurine translation, wicked and juysh against the crucifying of Christ. to like purpose is the translation of Leo judae Cinzit me, ●cu lo manus meas, etc.  The assembly of wicked men breaketh my hands and feet like a lion. By that wicked interpretation secretly also furthering the detestable opinion of other his brethren before touched, against the manner of Christ's crucifying.  
But to let this pass which requireth a larger discourse, how soever M. W. like or dislike the opinion, here of I conclude, that these fountains, which he calleth, 
Pag. 16.  Most pure and wholesome, are in many respects impure and pestilent, and have in them far greater errors maliciously thrust in against matters of such height, them he and his fellows shall find in our latin bibles so long as they shall be able to read one letter in them. 
The conclusion.  They have errors against Christ's divinity, they have errors against his humanity, errors against his passion, errors against the force of his redemption, and many other errors against other parts of our religion. These errors Luther himself confesseth, Lyra a jew borne acknowledgeth, reason and experience convinceth, S. justine to Triphon a jew avoucheth and approveth, S. Hierom by plain demonstration showeth: and to pass by others, Castalio accounteth M.W. half a jew for thinking so superstitiously, as here he pretendeth. And except he can bring better arguments, than hitherto he hath, he giveth us occasion to think him not only scarce half a Christian, but also scarce half a wise man, who of so difficile & hard a point pronounceth so rashly, so unprobably, and so unreasonably. Whereof I infer, that not so lightly as these fellows imagine, but with great and divine wisdom, the general Council authorized the ancient latin translation so corrected and amended, as in the Canon of the same Council it is appointed: although peradventure when those fathers so decreed, they intended not this comparison, in to which by the importunity of our adversaries we are now drawn.   

CHAP. XIII. Of the purity of our latin testament in respect of the greek copies now extant. Item a comparison of our translator with all other● of this age, with an answer to those objections which M. W. deviseth against him.  
IT resteth now that I finish the other two parts which as yet remain of the last chapter, touching the exact verity of our latin translation, & the impiety in appealing from that to the greek and hebrew. But before I come thither, reason requireth somewhat to be spoken of the new testament in greek, as hath been spoken of the old in hebrew. And it may be that the Protestants find more fault with us, for that at the least in the new testament we leave not our old latin and follow the greek, in which tongue the evangelists written. To justify our doing herein, much may serve of that which hath been said in the last chapter, much more may be seen in the preface before mentioned of the new testament, whereof as I said I will make my advantage for brevities sake, because I perceive this trifle riseth and increaseth between my fingers more than either myself, or others would have it. Wherefore I will gather to M. W. hands the sum of that which is there spoken, 
The preface of the new testament.  because he seemeth never to have read it, and after add one or two short observations of mine own & so pass away.  
Ten reasons there shall he find, 
Reasons to justify the latin testament, in comparison of the Greek.  why we in our translation followed rather the latin than the greek: the tenth reason whereof may be subdivided in to ten reasons more at the least, proving the latin to be purer than the greek, by most clear examples, fortified with the authority of Tertullian, of S. Hieron, of the Ecclesiastical history, of Calvin, of Beza, of Erasmus, of the English translations and translators themselves. Which discourse is concluded with this approbation of that excellent man Theodorus Beza. 
Beza in praefat. novi testamenti anno 1556.  How unworthily (saith he) and without cause doth Erasmus blame the old interpreter, as dissenting from the greek? he dissented I grant from those greek copies which Erasmus had gotten, 
The greek prints now in use are not sufficient to disprove the Latin testament.  but we have found not in one place, that the same interpretation which he blameth, is grounded upon the authority of other greek copies, and those most ancient. Yea in some number of places, we have observed that the reading of the latin text of the old interpreter, though it agree not some time with our greek copies, yet is it much more convenient, for that it seemeth he followed some truer and better copy. After this, follow eight other reasons showing our latin translation to agree generally with the greek or with more grave & sufficient authority than are the greek copies now extant: after which follow many examples wherein Beza particularly chargeth the greek copies of corruption, whom in that case the english translations follow. All which maketh most evidently for us & justifieth our doing. For if in truth (even by the confession of our greatest adversaries) our latin be purer than the greek, if our latin be framed exactly though not to the vulgar greek examples now usual, yet to more ancient and perfect examples as Beza hath observed, if the greek testaments have in them many faults, errors & corruptions, as Beza in word avoucheth and by manifold examples showeth, if this be so true that our english translators themselves at their pleasure leave the greek and follow our latin, with what face, reason, or conscience, can M.W. cry upon the pure and uncorrupt originals, which himself and his masters prove to be so impure and contaminated? With what honesty can he call us to the greek, from which themselves depart so licentiously? Unto these I will join only three short observations, which the diligent reader perhaps may amplify by very many particular examples, and so will come to confer our translator with our adversaries.  
The first may be the difference of our greek copies now, from the old, whereof let this be an example. 
Beza in joan, ca 7. v. 53.  Beza rejecteth the whole story of the adulterous woman whereof mention is made in the eight of S. Ihon. His reason is, 
Veteres illi reiecerunt.  because the old fathers did so, and it was not in the old greek testaments: which he proveth by the authority, of S. Chrysostom of Theophilact, of Nonnus, and S. Hierom. and amongst 17 old copies of Henry Stephen, one wanted it, the rest had it, but so, 
Beza doubteth of a part of S. john's gospel.  that in their reading there was marvelous variety. whereof he inferrteh, Tanta varietas lectionis facit ut de totius istius narrationis fide dubitem. This great variety of reading maketh me to doubt of the truth of the whole matter. Yet notwithstanding this contrary practice of the old Greeks and greek testaments, and infinite variety in the copies, the new prints have it (for aught I can find) universally and agreeably: and in all our english testaments (translated after the greek) it is as canonical as any other part of S. john's gospel. So that herein appeareth a great diversity between the old greek testaments and the new, and therefore dangerous it is to follow these new, if we can not do it but with condemnation of the old: & yet as dangerous is it to follow the old, if we can not do it without condemnation of that which the church holdeth for a part of S. john's gospel. 
Bez. ad Eph. 3. vers. 14.  The like noteth that same writer in the epistle to the Ephes. the 3. chap. 
In graecis no extat.  a parcel whereof in S. Hierons' time Was not in the greek books, but only in the latin. but (saith Beza) In omnibus veteribus libris et scholiis quoque graecis haec particula additur. Now it is added in all the old greek copies & scholies also.  
A second observation may be the rash & unconsiderate additions which have been made in the greek text. 
Additions rashly made to the greek.  an example whereof may be taken from the same Evangelist and the end of the same chapter, 
joan. 8. v. 59  where in the greek is added this piece, Exivit e templo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Transiens per medium illorum, et sic praeteriit. touching which thus writeth Beza. 
Beza in joan. cap. 8. v. 59  These words are found in very ancient copies, but I think as doth Erasmus, that the first part is taken out of Luke the 4. v. 30. and crept into the text by fault of the writers who found that written in the margin, and that the later part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was added to make this chapter join well with the next. And thus to think I am moved not only because neither Chrysostom neither Augustine make any mention of this piece, but also because it seemeth not to hung together very probably for if he withdrew himself out of their sight, how went he through the midst of them? etc. & so forth disputeth against this part as altogether unprobable & not likely to be true. Yet is it now generally in most greek copies, howbeit the english translators leave it out of their testaments. 
Of the year 1561. 1562. 1577. 1579.  The reason I take to be, because howsoever they brag of their greek and hebrew originals, the truth is, 
No certainty in the English translations  they translate neither the one nor the other (except sometimes some few words for a show) but only take that, which Beza in latin delivereth unto them. And yet (whereof I marvel) the freshest translation which professeth to follow Beza, 
anno 1580.  & inscribeth the book thus: The Testament of our Lord jesus Christ translated out of greek by Theodore Beza, and Englished by L. T. putteth this in, which Beza leaveth out and against which Beza disputeth so earnestly that it can not be scripture, 
Scripture made Canonical & not Canonical according to Bezaes' fancy.  as being contrary to itself. But for excuse of the English translator it may be (and true it is) that Beza one year thought thus, an other year thought otherwise. 

Of the year 1556.  
Of the year 1565.   And so in one Testament of his, held that for false & Apocryphal, which in an other Testament he gave out & authorized as sacred & Canonical. Unto this place thou mayst refer that piece which the Protestant's so gloriously sing and say in the end of the Lords prayer. For thine is the Kingdom, the power, and glory for ever and ever. Amen. which as Erasmus disliketh, confessing it notwithstanding to be, 
Eras. in Annot.  In omnibus graecis exemplaribus & nulla latino, In all greek testaments and no one Latin, so Bullinger himself counteth it to be a mere patch sowed to the rest, by I know not whom, and alloweth well of Erasmus judgement, 
Bulling. decade 5. ser●. 5.  reproving Laurentius Valla for finding fault with the latin edition because that lacketh it. Non est (saith he) quoth Laurentius Valla stomachetur etc. There is no reason why Laurence Valla should take the matter so hotly, as though a great part of the lords prayer were cut a way. Rather their rashness was to be reproved who durst presume to piece on their toys unto the Lord's prayer. 
Assuere suas nuga●.   
A third observation may be, 
Parcels of importance heretically left out of the greek.  that the greek testaments omit upon light occasions, often times that which they should not, and which the latin retaineth for authentical & canonical. 
Before cap. 10. pa. 248 Luc. 1. v. 35.  Example where of may be the place before noted of the incarnation. Quod nascetur ex te sanctum, vocabitur filius dei. That (saith the Archangel to our blessed lady) which of thee shall be borne holy, shall be called the son of God. In which sentence the two syllables, ex te, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what force they carry against the Anabaptists hath been declared. Now consider the general corruption of the greek cop●es in that behalf. Of them thus writeth Carolus Molineus a great Protestant in his new testament. 
Carol. Molin. in nou. testament. part. 1.  I have read, exte, in most ancient bibles, of which one copy I have, printed at Lions▪ the year 1479. and that is the old undoubted reading. for so read the old and new breviaries and Roman offices. But Erasmus, whom Bucer and Bullinger follow, seemeth only to have fallen upon a copy in this part vnp●rfite, the error whereof is spread a broad in many copies both greek and latin printed at Basil, Zuricke, Paris, and Lions, you and at Geneva also in the ordinary gloss upon the three first Evangelists set forth the year 1549. and 1554. but now of late the genevians, especially Theodorus Beza have acknowledged and mended this error. 
See the greek testament of Basil print of the year 1536. 1540 1543. Zuri●. 1547. Geneva 1565. 1576.  how it is mended I know not, but sure I am in the text of any greek copy I could never yet for it, and Beza in his mending doth show so notable a trick of an Anabaptist as may be. In the annotations of his testament, he writeth of this piece well and christianly thus. 
Beza in testament. 1556. in Luc. 1. vers. 35.  Exte, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of thee. so I found it written in some books of the old edition, and in the book of Complutum, and in many places of Epiphanius. And Athanasius in h●s epistle to Epictetus' bishop of Corinth, showeth that so we must read. For thus writeth he. The Angel said not simply that which shallbe be borne in thee, but of thee, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that we should believe that which was borne, by nature to have been form of her. By which reasons he proveth that to be the true reading in the greek, the latin testaments generally concurring therewith. 
Beza furthereth the anabaptists against Christ's incarnation of the blessed Virgin.  But how now amendeth he his testament? thus. whereas before it was in the margin of some greek testaments, as appeareth by the print of john Crispin the year 1553. he left it clean out both of text and margin of the greek testaments which after this were printed in Geneva, as appeareth in the two prints of the testament set forth by Beza himself the year 1565. in greek and latin, and the greek testament printed after that by Henricus Stephanus the year 1576. so that the other true reading remaineth only in the latin, which against an Anabaptist, or any other Protestant making no account of the latin, farther than it agreeth with the greek, is nothing worth. And therefore the english bible of the year 1561. in this point drawing towards Anabaptisme, as also the bible printed the year 1577. leaveth it clean out.  
another error of like quality, though not of like quantity and greatness is in the 36. 
C●rol Mol. in testament. par. 64.  verse, ca 17. of S. Luke which (as the same man saith) wanteth in Euthimius an ancient greek writer & in Theophilact, and in all the copies printed at Basile, and in the translation of Zuricke, and in the bibles printed at Geneva, neither Erasmus, nor saints Pagninus, nor Bucer, nor Bullinger, nor Brentius, nor Calvin, read it. sed habetur in meis antiquis, et in vulgari aeditione. but it is in my old bibles, and in the vulgar edition. Hereof it riseth, that Erasmus in sundry places would leave out verses, because they were not in his greek copies, Beza contrariwise would put them in, because he found them in his. For example. 
Mar. 11. v. 26  Of that sentence Mar. 11. v. 26. Quòd si vos n●n dimis. ritis, nec pater vester qui in caelis est, dimittet vobis peccata vestra, Erasmus writeth, 
Beza in illum locum.  that in the greatest number of greek testaments this verse is not read, neether in Theophilacte. Nos tamen in plarisque vetustis exemplaribus reperimus, atque ad●● in Theophilacto Romano (saith Beza) yet I found it in most of the ancient copies, & in The ephilact printed at Rome. A sm●le student with mean diligence may enlarge this by very many examples, & the greek testaments of our time for the greater multitude coming through the hands of heretical printers, specially in the beginning of this tragical heresy, ministereth great store & variety of cutting of, and leaving out, and such like false practices.  
But the last and principal reason why we prefer our latin translator before all other, is this which I shall now speak of. Flacius Illyricus finding fault with the church which was about 400. years after Christ in S. Ambrose and S. Chrysostoms' time, for ignorance in the hebrew tongue▪ treating of this matter how the testament should be faithfully translated, 
Illyric. in clau. par. 1. praefat.  unus (saith he) popularis meus Hieronymus linguarum egregiè peritus fuit etc. Only my countryman Hierom was marvelous cunning in the tongues. 
If S Higher & the Church in his time were destitute of these helps, is Illyricus & the rest of that cru● furnished with them?  he endeavoured to illustrate the scriptures, both by his translations and commentaries. But he in deed being ignorant of man's sickness & Christ the physician, and wanting the key which openeth the scripture, that is, the difference between the la and the gospel, being also destitute of Christ who openeth the door, he did little good. The like defect was in Lyra not long before our time, whereas otherwise he took great pains to setforth and expound the holy bible. Out of which censure this I gather, not how arrogantly and impiously these men despise and contemn the principal doctors and Primitive church, but that all skill & knowledge of tongues serveth not to make a man interpret the testament as he ought, 
Religious sincerity principally to be regarded in an interpreter of the scripture.  except withal he be of sound religion towards God, endued with his grace and spirit, void of partiality and affection, and with single & sincere mind coveteth to express the sense and meaning of the holy Ghost.  
If by these rules we examine and scan our old interpreter, we shall manifestly find that he is to be preferred both before all the interpreters of our time whosoever is counted best, yea put them all together, as also before the greek testaments which now are currant. For that his knowledge was sufficient in the greek tongue, and therefore erred not for want off kill, the thing itself speaketh, and it is confessed by all his and our adversaries, Pelican, 
Our old interpreter had variety & choice of good greek copies.  Beza, Castalio, Molineus, as shall appear hereafter. That he had good store of greek copies, & those truer and perfecter than we have commonly now, Beza likewise in plain terms confesseth. his words are cited before. 
Pag. 362.  & he giveth this general rule of him, that amongst the old greek examples which he used to the furnishing of his new testament, two he had which he calleth, The second & the eight, which lightly never disagreed from our vulgar translation. Upon the first of S. Mark he writeth thus. 
Beza in Mar. ca 1. vers. 2.  In prophetis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so we found it written in all our greek books, saving the second & the eight, in which we read, 
Hiero. de optimo genere interpretandi. c. 3. Augu. quest. 57 vet. & nou. test. Epiph. contra haereses. li. 2 Chrisost. ca 1. Marci.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Isai the prophet, and so did the old interpreter translate the place. And that it should be so, is proved most clearly by the Syriake bible, S. Hier. S. Austin, S. Epiphan. & S. Chrysost. specially defending this place against Porphitie. Again in S. Luke, Eiectis for as omnibus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Bez. in Luc. cap. 8. v. 54.  the old interpreter read not this, yet we found it in all our old books, excepting the second and eight, quorum mirificus est cum vulgata editione consensus. Between which and the vulgar edition there is a wonderful consent.  
But because all this serveth not in this divine work, 
The religious fidelity & sincerity of our old interpreter.  except the mind be rightly guided and void from all passions, in this part principally our interpreter by all reason must needs be judged sovereign and excellent, because living so long before the names of Papists and Protestants were known, he could not unequally bend to one side against the other. and his preciseness and religious vprigh●nes is often times singularly commended by the adversaries themselves. Vetus interpres (saith Beza) videtur summa religione sacros libros interpretatus. 
Beza in 1. c. Lucae v. 1.  The old interpreter seemeth to have inteepreted the holy books with marvellous sincerity and religion. And Molineus. 
Molin par. 30.  I gerrimè a un gari consuetaque lectione recedo, quam etiam enixè defendere so●eo. I can very hardly departed from the vulgar and accustomed reading, which also I am want very earnestly to defend. And ●o use one domestical witness, 
Humfred. de ratione interp lib. 1. pag. 74,  D. Humphrey thus speaketh of him. Proprietati verborum satis videtur addictus vetus interpres, et quidem n●mis anxiè, quod tamen interpretor religione quadam fecisse, non gnorantia. The old interpreter seemeth sufficiently bend ●olow the propriety of words, and he doth it in deed to carefully, which notwithstanding I suppose him to have done not of ignorance, but of religion and conscience. Hereby is well and perfectly justified the sincere and upright dealing of our interpreter, whose fault either is none, or if it be any, it is this, that in following the exact signification of the greek word, he was to scrupulous and careful, to full of conscience and religion, which is a very good fault, if it must be called a fault, and commended and justified else where by D. Humphrey himself. 
Humfred. ibid. pa. 175.  Liberius (saith he) in aliis prophanis licet expatiari & degredi a verbis: in canonica scriptura nulla licentia est tolerabilis. non enim concessum est homini dei linguam mutare. In profane writings a man may range abroad more freely, & departed from the words: in canonical scripture no such licence is tolerable. for man may not alter the tongue of God.  
Against this man so learned, 
Protestant translators of the new testament all partial, in favour of their several heresies, and so all false & corrupt.  having good greek copies, & following them exactly and with such religion let now any Protestant oppose any of his new translators, whom by manifold reasons, trials and experiments, I can not disprove and plainly show, that for one error of our interpreter, he hath at least a score. And in reason how can it be otherwise, whereas they all being heretics, and each addicted to some peculiar sect (saving Erasmus, who notwithstanding was far out of the way) and therefore full of pride, arrogancy, selfwil, and given to that partial humour whereof his heresy most consisted, drew all places, especially indifferent, to serve that vain. Luther's excellency in interpreting, is of the greatest number of Protestant's thought very singular, so as not only the Lutherans but even the zwinglians give him great praise, 
Sleid. li. 17. in fine.  as we learn by Sleidan. 
Brent. in Apolog. conf. Wirten. cap. de horis canonicis.  Habemus sacra biblia (saith Brentius in the Apology of the Wirtenberg Confession) a Luthero in Germanicam linguam divino beneficio tam perspicue conversa etc. we have the holy bibles through the great bènefite of God turned by Luther in to the german tongue so clearly, that his translation yieldeth to none, either greek or latin. Yet how elegant and sincere a translator he was, we may conjecture by Emserus, 
Bey viertz●hin hundert ketzerlycher lugen. Lindan. dubitant. dial. 1. pa. 79.  who gathered out of his translation Fourteen hundred foul lies and falsifications. But because the authority of this man being a catholic weigheth not much with M.W. and to write out those lies were to fill up a good book, which I am not disposed to do at this time, to make short work, both in this & the rest I will stay myself upon the authority of such men, as I know M. W. honoureth for singular instruments of the Lord in setting forth the gospel, such as he well knoweth, speak not of partiality but of conscience. And who can judge of Luther better than his coapostle Zuinglius, 
Luther's translation full of corruption, in favour of Lutheranisme.  who is so far of from approving his translation, that he accounteth him a foul corrupter and horrible falsifier of scripture to make them serve his heretical fancies, and in that kind reckoneth him for a very Arrian and Marcionite. Thus he writeth. 
Zuing. to. 2. ad Luther. lib. de sacramento fo. 412  Thou dost corrupt (Luther) & adulterate the word of God, following herein the Marcionites and Arrians, who of old were want commonly to raze out of the scriptures such places as seemed to be against their doctrine. This fault he exemplifieth in Luther's translation thus. Whereas these words of Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 john 6. he should have translated thus, That flesh profiteth nothing, there he left out the German article, (das, that) answering the greek article (●) to the intent those words should not precisely and determinately be referred to the self same flesh, of which Christ had spoken a little before, and spoke of still, for thus he translated it etc. And after many words spent against Luther for his malicious wickedness, he thus concludeth. See how thy case standeth Luther, 
Ibid. fo. 143  that in the eyes of all men thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter, 
Manifestus & publicus sacrae scripturae corruptor & adulterator.  and perverter of the holy scripture, which thing thou canst never deny before any creature. How much are we ashamed of thee, who hitherto have esteemed thee beyond all measure, and now try thee to be such a false fellow. 
Two fit Apostles for such a church as they erected  Between which two (most excellent Apostles of the english congregation) thus chiding, I know not who is of us, more to be abhorred and detested. whether Luther, who playeth the part of an Arrian and Marcionite in mangling & defacing the scriptures, or Zuinglius who so eagerly striveth to prove that the flesh and humanity, and consequently the incarnation of our most blessed Saviour is worth nothing.  
But to let that pass, and proceed to talk of our translators, M. W. because he is a Zwinglian, therefore by likelihood reckoneth them for more exquisite in giving forth their testaments. 
No translation of scripture made by a Zwinglian▪ can possibly be good.  Grant that be so in the judgement of him and his companions: how can we be induced so to think of them, whereas Luther their common father, holdeth them for most ignorant and foolish, & (to use his own words) as senseless and brutish, as is any stock or beast, in giving the true sense of the scripture. who calleth them commonly touching d●uinitie and matters theological, stultos, srolidos, stupi●os, stipites, asinos, 
Ibid. apud Zuingl. fol. 388.389.  truncos, antichristos, impost●res, stipites, asinino intellectu, and so forth many like railings unworthy to be heard amongst the vilest creatures that live, much less amongst two such Arch apostles, had they in them any parcel, 
Particular translations of divers protestants.  I will not say of Apostolic or Christian, but of civil or humane gravity. But I will descend unto some of their particular Testaments set forth by zwinglians, to find out if it may be, one whic● may be preferred before our common. That which was set forth by Oecolampad us (as I suppose) and the Divines of Basi●e, 
The translation of Basile wicked.  is of many well allowed. And will you have us refuse our old, a●d take that? but Beza chargeth us in any case not to do so, and giveth his rea●on, 
Bez. in resp. ad defence. & responsio. Castalion.  because that Basile translation is in multis locis impia, & a spiritus sancti sententia prors●s discrepans, In many places wicked, and altogether disagreeing from the mind of the holy Ghost. Will you wish us rather to take Castalio, whom D. 
Humfred. de rat. interpret. li. 1▪ pa 62 63.189.  Humphrey matcheth with the best, and praiseth his bible as most painful, most diligent, most thoroughly conferred, 
Gesner. in Bibliotheca Sebastia. Castalio.  examined, sifted, and polished? and Conradus Gesnerus simply preferreth it before all, as the best that was ever yet set out by the Protestants. Vertit biblia (saith he) ita diligenter ac summa fide ad hebraica & graeca exemplaria etc. ut omnes omnium versiones hactenus aeditas longo post se interuallo reliquisse videatur. Cast alio bathe translated the bible so diligently, and with so singular fidelity according to the hebrew and greek, that he seemeth far to have surpassed all translations of all men what so ever have hitherto been set forth. Yet this notwithstanding, 
Beza in test. an. 1556. in praefat. & in Mat. c. 3. 1. Cor 1. Mat. 4. Luc. 2. Act. 8. & 10.  we can not possibly so esteem of it, considering that Beza in so many places of his notes condemneth it not only for false, corrupt & perverse, but also for pestilent, sacrilegious Ethnical, & Turkish, such a one as containeth the very seed, 
The translation of Castalio, Ethnical,  & layeth open the high way to manifest Apostasy from Christ. To come nearer home, Calvin I suppose by M. W. judgement should succeed in place of our old. but so should we make as evil a change as if we took any yet mentioned. 
Calvin in his translation, altereth and addeth to the text of the gospel.  For Calvin whatsoever grace or good quality otherwise he had, was as saucy and malapert in altering the text of scripture as any of his fellow sectaries. so writeth of him, his own brother Carolus Molineus. 
Carol. Mol. in sua trans. testam. novi part 11. fo. 110.  Calvinus in sua harmonia textum evangelicum desuitare facit sursum versum, ut res ipsa indicat, vim infert literae evangelicae, et illam in multis locis transponit, et insuper addit literae. Calvin in his harmony (which is the very letter of his translation) maketh the text of the gospel to leap up and down, as the thing itself showeth. He useth violence to the letter of the gospel, and in many places clean transposeth it, and besides this he addeth to the text. that is, he giveth us a text of his own making.  
What remaineth for us to do now, but to stick to our old, seeing the Protestants themselves thus dissuade us from taking any new? But there remaineth yet one sure fellow whom I suppose M. W. could be content to substitute in place not only of our ancient edition, but of Luther, Occolampadus, Castalio, yea and Calvin himself, that is Theodore Beza, whom the english congregation seem most to follow. 
Bezaes' translation more disagreeing from itself and worse than any of the rest.  But he must tell us what testament? of what year? of what date? because certain it is, that the first editions d●ffer notoriously from the middle and the middle from the later, as hath been touched before, & of all testaments set forth by any her●t●ke, no one hath been more refuted & convinced of fowl and wilful corr●ptions▪ and that by the ver●e heretics themselves, than those of Bezaes'. 
Before c. 10.  witnesses whereof are (besides Catholic writers noted before) Selneccerus the German, and the University of jena, 
Carol. Moli. in testam. part 8 13.14 21.23.  Se●astianus Casta●io in a whole book, and Carolus Molineus in very many places of his not●s upon the new testament which he set forth. Where often times he reprehendeth Calvin and Beza. 
Part. 26.30.40.64.  often times of Beza he saith, that he, de facto mutat textum. Altereth the text not only in sense, but in the very word and letter. Again, Theod. Beza Mat. 
Part. 64.65.66.74.99.  10. v. 10. & Luc. 9, 3. defacto mu●at textum, 
A pretty way to roconcile places that seem to disagree.  ut hos ita conciliet. Sed non p●acet mutari textum qui ab omnibus et antiquis et recentioribus doct●ribus retinetur, quum sacile conciliari possint. Beza in S. Matthew chap. 10. v. 10. and S. Luke chap. 9 v. 3. actually changeth the text, so to make a reconciliation between the evangelists. But I like not that, so to change the text which is retained of all doctors both old and new, and otherwise they may well be reconciled. and whether they may or may not surely that is a very mad way of reconciliation. And commonly that writer preferreth our vulgar edition, before Erasmus, 
Molin. in Luc. 17.  Bucer, Bullinger, Brentius, the Tigurine translation, Pagnines, etiam johannis calvini et omnibus aliis, yea before john calvin's to, 
Our old translation better than all Protestant translations Carolus ●olincus.  and all other. And in the same place. Here Erasmus did well to follow the old edition, and it had been better for Beza to have done so to. And again, Peccat Beza antiquam versionem mutans, johannis 3. v. 
Vide ibi. in joan. 7. v. 35.  19 et 43. And the like is very common in Castalio, Beza malè reprehendit veterem interpretem. 
Castalio in defence. pag. 179. 174.18●.183.188.198.202.206.213.  Melius transtulerat vetus interpres. Iniustè reprehendit veterem interpretem etc. unjustly and with out cause Beza reprehendeth the old interpreter. The old interpreter had translated it better before. And touching Beza he saith, 
Castal. defence. trans. pag. 176.  that to note all his errors committed in translating the new testament, Opus esset nimis magno l●bro, It would require a very great book. And having noted certain faults of Beza committed only in the first ten chapters of S. Matthew, 

Ibi. pag. 182 183.  
Bezaes' innumerable corruptions in the new testament.   thus he concludeth. In his decem Matthaei capitibus (in quibus tamen plurimae quae merito reprehendere potuissem praetermisi) quam prolixum passem etc. I trust I have showed sufficiently by these ten chapters of S. Matthew (in which notwithstanding I have omitted very many things which justly I might have reprehended) what a long register of his errors I could gather out of his whole work. For this is true, that oft times he erreth not only in words (which is not so dangerous, and might be tolerated) but also in things, and the same most weighty: and oft times he enforceth by writhing not the sentences only, but also the words of the holy writers to serve his error. So john 1. v. 12. he corrupteth a most not able place and of greatest moment touching free-will etc. And in few to speak all (for I should write out whole treatises & books, if I would show the vile abusing of scripture committed by that wretch of damnable memory, 
Before c. 10.  whom our english Protestants chiefly extol, as by M. W. we learn) thus much Castalio noteth and showeth by manifold examples, 
Beza then especially corrupteth the text, when he thereby may most dishonour Christ.  that Beza then principally laboureth in perverting the scripture, when it appertaineth most to the benefit & virtue of Christ's passion and our redemption. Thus he writeth upon the 6. chapter to the Romans, and these words of our latin text, 
Rom. 6. v. 6.  Vt destruatur corpus peccati, in the english translation, That the body of sin may be destroyed, both agreeing exactly with the greek, 
Castalio ubi sup. pa. 192.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Beza (saith Castalio) turneth the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eneruetur, may beweakened, and reprehendeth the old interpreter, Erasmus, and me, for translating, may be destroyed. for this honest man, will not have sin to be destroyed by Christ, but only weakened, wherein he doth plainly diminish the benefit bestowed upon us by Christ, Id quod multis aliis in locis eum facere animaduerti. which thing I find him to do in many other places.  
I will not bestow time in disproving our english bibles, which for the most part are nothing but corrupt gutters, flowing from these forenamed corrupt and stinking lakes. 
English translations set forth in schism, all faulty.  Yet if otherwise any man list to disprove them all and singular, there is nothing more facile & easy. For whereas in our time since the gospel (as they call it) began in our country, 
King Henry's bibles.  we have had three kind of divers bibles, under king Henry, king Edward, and the Q. 
King Edwardes.  Majesty that now is, king Henry's bibles as corrupt, were corrected by king Edward & the duke of Somersets' appointment, as by comparing them is easy to see and the Protestants I think will not d●●y Eduardus sextuo (saith D. 
Humfred. de sat inter. li. 3. pa. 523.  Humphrey) procerum consi●is, et suasu episcoporum, biblia emitti curavit castigatiora et purgatiora, ac legi publicè et omnibus in templis baberi mandavit. King Edward by the advise of his noble men, and m●t●on of his bishops, caused the bibles to be set forth more corrected (than were his fathers) and more purged of faults, and commanded the same to be read publicly, and to be had in all churches. 
The bibles set forth in our time.  Next, that the bible set forth by the queens authority, correct those of king Edward, is showed in many places of the Discovery, & requireth for proof, no more but that the reader confer one or other epistle of S. Paul, for example's sake that to the Romans, 
The year when it was printed, is not put in the print.  in The new testament of our Saviour jesus Christ, faithfully translated out of the greek, and perused by the commandment of the Kings M. & his honourable council & by them authorized, & printed●ly R●ch. jug, with the same epistle in The new testament of our lord jesus Christ, translated out of greek by Theodore Beza, and englished by L.T. and printed by Christofer Barker the year 1580. Cum gratia et pri●ilegio. and now that all these are very falsely translated, and the best contain wicked, and horrible, and ethnical errors, this hath been showed before at large by manifest demonstration, 
Before c. 11.  and the confession of our adversaries themselves, and so no ways are they to be opposed to our bibles.  
And what can M.W. now say against us? or whom would he have us to follow? Perhaps his last counsel is that at least we should ourselves fall to translate, and so according to the original greek, fashion ourselves a new testament, seeing we can like none of theirs. 
Not possible to put forth any translation more indifferent than our ancient.  But neither may we thus do. First, because we believe our testament to be truer than the common greek copies now extant, wherein as he seethe we stand, and that not without reason. Secondarily, because we are persuaded that had we true originals, we could never make a translation in these partial times, more sincere, upright, indifferent, and freer from reprehension then is this which we have already.  
Finally and for a conclusion, 
Note this.  let the Christian reader note this, 
Few faults are found by any protestants in our old translation, which, by other Protestants are not iustsied.  that whereas commonly every sect of our adversaries, in words & general terms findeth fault with our translation, few or none of them show any error or fault in particular, but lightly there is some one of their own brethren which standeth with us in defence of our testament against that reprehender, which no doubt proceedeth of the manifest sincerity which our translator used, and the invincible force of truth which so breaketh forth in despite of her adversaries. Laurentius Valla first of all carped at out common edition, 
Bulling. decad. 5. serm. 5.  but his rashness is justly reproved by Erasmus, Bullingere, Beza, and sundry others. Erasmus next fell in to that vain, 
Bez. in praefatio. novi testamenti an. 1556.  but how unreasonably let Beza speak. Quam immeritò (saith he) multis in locis reprehendit Erasmus ve●erem interpreteni tanquam a graecis dissentientem? How unjustly in many places doth Erasmus reprehend the old interpreter as dissenting from the greek? Then came Luther for the Lutherans, and Castalio and some other for the zwinglians, and every one had some tooth against our interpreter. But both in particular, Beza doth justify those points, which they accounted erroneous, as may be seen in very many places of his notes, 
Supra. Our old translation better than any of the protestants▪ Beza.  and in general, preferreth him before any interpreter that he ever saw. Vulgatam aedu ionem (saith he) maxima ex part amplector, & caeteris omnibus antepono. The vulgar edition I embrace for the greatest part, and prefer it before all other whatsoever. There remain only certain faults which Beza imagineth, & which in his notes sometime he reprehendeth, but they for the greater number, and such as be aught worth, are so well defended by Castalio, and Carolus Molineus (to let pass our own writers) that if M. W. would gather in to a heap all the faults which are objected against our testament, and afterwards take away those which are to be taken away by the judgement of Beza, of Calvin, of Castalio, of Molineus, and such other protestants who have set forth their own new translations against others of their brethren, I ween the number remaining would be so small, that it would shame M. W. himself as obstinate as he seemeth, to compare with that, any of their English testaments which soever is most exquisite.  
Wherefore to conclude this, as before touching the hebrew, so here touching the greek, and all other translation, the reader may see a few rea●ons amongst infinite, 
The Council of Trent.  why the holy Council of Trent having in it multitude of excellent godly & learned men (with whom to compare any, or all these divided and scattered synagogues of Lutherans, zwinglians, anabaptists, or such like, were impiety and sin before God, and intolerable injury before man) decreed as in the Canons we read touching the old ancient translation. which decree standeth upon many clear and most evident reasons, whether we compare it with the hebrew and greek now extant, or with any of these new heretical versions, be it of Luther, of Oecolampadius, of Basile, of Geneva, of Calvin, of Castalio, of Beza, of Molineus, 
The later translations of heretics as likewise all other their proceedings, are worse than the former, according to S. Paul's prophecy, proficientes in peius. 2. Timo. c. 3. v. 13.  of the English after King Henry's allowance, or King Edwardes, or that which the english congregation now best alloweth, which of all other is the worst, most contaminate, and most draweth to Paganism and Atheism, as hath been showed. And that we esteem more of our old translator than any of these, not only reason, experience, conscience, divinity and humanity requires us so to do, not only our duty to the Church of God, our honour to our holy and learned forefathers, our faith in Christ's promise & assured confidence of the assistance of his holy Spirit requireth the same, but also in this our opinion we are warranted by the manifest approbation of our most capital enemies, 
In approving our old translation, we are warranted by the Protestants themselves.  those that have some learning more than the rest, of Luther, of Zuinglius, Castalio, Beza, Molineus, D. Humphrey & others, whom M. W. dare not control (as I suppose) how well soever otherwise he think of himself.  
And now may I with more facility answer his second reason, and wherein for some part I ground the exact perfection of our latin translation, & affirm, that howsoever some small fault may be found in it, absolutely it hath no error, either touching doctrine or touching manners. For why should I not so gather, when as I see the adversary being so eager, yet with all his search and study findeth one only fault in it. which I will set down in his own words, because I will not diminish the force of his argument. 
Pa. 17.18. M. W argument against the old translation.  Very absurdly have you done (saith he) when in translating the testament in to English, you had rather follow the latin translation then the greek original, and that so obstinately that although all the greek examples read otherwise then is in your vulgar edition, yet you prefer that before them al. I will give you one example. In 1. Cor. 15. v. 54. Paul saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This parcel in your translation is omitted. for what reason? because it is not in the latin vulgar edition as they call it. But it is in the greek exemplars, & in the most ancient edition Siriake. and what if Hierom read it not? yet Chrysostom and Ambrose himself read it, which men whereas they lived with Hierom, hereof it followeth assuredly, either that Hieron dealt not faithfully here, or that his version was corrupted afterwards. unto which thus I answer. 
The answer.   
First, that this omission if it be any, could not proceed of malice or set purpose, for so much as there is no loss or hindrance to any part of doctrine by reading as we read. for the self same thing is most clearly set down in the very next lines before. for thus stand the words. 
1. Cor. 15. v. 53.54.  This corruptible must do on incorruption, and this mortal, immortality. And when this (corruptible hath done on incorruption, and this) mortal hath done on immortality. where thou seest the words which I have put down enclosed within the parenthesis to be contained most expressly in the sentence going before, which is in all our testaments, so that there is no harm or danger either to faith, doctrine, or manners, if it be omitted.  
secondarily, if we prefer our latin edition before the greek, and think that piece repeated, not to be of the text, what reason we have so to do, hath been showed in part, and Beza by his example justifieth our doing. For so himself doth more than once. upon S. 
Beza in Luc. ca 20. v. 28.  Luke he thus writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Omnia quae vidi exemplaria ita scriptum habent. All the greek examples which I have seen, 
Beza praeferreth our latin translation before all greek examples.  read so. But the old interpreter readeth otherwise, et rectius ut opinor, and better as I suppose. Again in the same gospel. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Haec verba deerant in omnibus vetustis cod●cibus, 
Ibi. c. 7. v. 31  quae tamen prorsus videntur requiri. These words wanted in all the old (greek) books, which for all that seem necessary. 
Testament of the year 1577, 1579. and 1580. & the Scottish great bible of the year 1579.  And therefore he supplieth his text with them out of our translation, and so do the english translators, who seldom depart from him but like good scholars turn in to english, his latin.  
Thirdly, that it was of old in some greek copies as we read, is plain by S. Hier. who translated thus. And why should M. W. suspect any unfaithfulness in him, seeing he put the self same words and sense in the next line immediately going before? and that it was not corrupted since, appeareth by the common reading of most men in all later ages. And how unlearnedly argueth he against S. Hierom from the authority of S. Ambrose and S. Chrysos●om reading otherwise? Must therefore S. Hierom be unfaithful, or the Church after him, because S. Chrysostom or S. Ambrose have those few words more than he? why may he not far more reasonably, more like a logician and like an honest man to invent an other part and make a better division, that either S. Hierom dealt not faithfully, or else his greek copies had not that piece repeated, which I think to be most true & certain.  
Again why should he rather correct S. Hierom by S. Chrysostom and S. Ambrose, then contrariwise th●m by S. 
S. Hieroms translations more authentical than the reading of many doc●ora.  Hierom? whereas by common intendment and probability, S. Hierom framing a public translation for the Church by supreme authority, had more variety of copies and examined the same more narrowly, then doth ordinarily any other, who expoundeth the scripture, either by way of homilies to the people, as doth S. Chrysostom, or by way of commentary, as doth S. Ambrose. And truly writeth Beza, that whosoever by such authority of one or other father, would go about to alter the ordinary translation, except he use an other manner of judgement, wisdom, and diligence, than we see used by our adversaries, he will rather corrupt the scripture then correct it. And his reason is very good & pregnant. 
Beza in praefat. nou● testamen. an. 1565.  Neque enim (saith he) scriptores illos seu graecos seu latinos, existimandum est quoties locum aliquem citarint, toties vel libros inspexisse vel singula verba numerasse. For it is not to be supposed, that those writers either greek or latin, when they had to cite a place, always either viewed the book, or numbered the words. For this had been a matter of infinite labour & not necessary etc. To which infinite labour notwithstanding, and viewing the book, & numbering the words S. Hier. in his translation was of necessity bound, as was neither S. Amb●n or S. Chrisost.  
And yet S. Chrysostom maketh little for you, if you compare well his own discourse and text together. Nay he maketh clean against you and approveth our reading. For though he have those words in the second place yet he hath them not in the first, and repeateth them not, 
S. Chrys justifieth our latin reading.  but only once readeth them in his text according to our latin. And thereunto agreeth his commentary, & therefore qu●te overthroweth ●l that you would build upon his credit. Thus they stand in him. For this corruptible must do on incorruption. 
Chrysost. in 1. Cor. ho. 15  And when this corruptible shall do on incorruption & this mortal immortality, them shall be fulfilled etc. And whereas you add that S. Ambrose readeth as you do, 
S. Ambrose untruly cited.  you must pardon me, if I believe mine own eyes better than your report. Certainly S. 
Ambros. in 1. Cor. 15.  Ambrose in his commentary upon that place readeth as we do. So readeth S. Austin de civitate Dei, cited by S. 
Beda in 1. Cor. ca 15.  Bede in his commentary upon the same chapter, though S. Austin read also as M. W. would have it according to the greek. And with S. Bede, and after S. Bede so read the rest of the Catholic interpreters and doctors, Haymo, Anselmus etc.  
furthermore in this very place as I think▪ most appeareth the sincerity of our latin translation. For as we keep our text according as S. Hierom and the Church then delivered it, so notwithstanding because the words ob●octed by M. W. are in the ancient greek example whereof the church hath due regard, the same particle is added commonly in the margin of every latin testament which the Church useth, as may be seen in divers prints of Paris, Louane, and other catholic Universities. And if there be any fault in our english translation, it is this, that this parcel was not added in the margin, as it was in the latin which we followed.  
Wherefore this proveth no corruption but rather great fidelity in our latin testament, that it agreeth with S. Hierom, & consequently the greek examples which he interpreted, with S. Ambrose, S. Austin, S. Bede, Haymo, S. Anselmus, and the rest of the latin writers, which in a matter not doubtful, and otherwise in no respect prejudicial to any verity of Christian profession, are of that authority that Beza himself in this case would not disallow our doing. and M.W. himself also in justifying his english translations for pure and perfect, doth consequently approve and justify ours, & so answereth ●im self in this objection. for the later clause before noted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the lord said, they have added to their english testaments after Beza upon the only authority of our latin against all the ancient greek, (albeit now it is thrust in to the common greek prints of Geneva, Basile & Zuricke) & therefore he should not be offended if we attribute so much to our testament who profess to honour it, seeing he & his fellows do as much, who profess a perpetual hatred against it.  
And this I trust may suffice for these few words, to quit our testament of any fault, considering that first they concern not any controversy: them, that the sense of it is in word and deed fully & evidently comprised in the same place. again if we preferred our latin before all greek, we do no more than doth Beza, then doth M.W. then do all the English and Scottish congregations in their own pure and immaculate bibles. Last of all, our reading is confirmed not only by all the later ages of the church, these seven or eight hundred years, as by S. Anselmus, Haimo, S. Bede and others, neither only by the more ancient latin fathers, S. Austin, S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, but also it was according to the greek copies which S. Hieron had & the same agreeing in substance with S. Chrysostom & no doubt many other, and therefore hath sufficient ground to defend itself: although we confess the other reading to be used of many father's, which we therefore mislike not, & yet rashly presume not to thrust it in to our text. And this is the only fault and yet all the faults which M.W. findeth in our latin testament.  
The rest, he supplieth with a lusty brag, that there are at the least, 
pag. 18.  Six hundred other, wherein against the faith of all the Greeks and their perpetual consent, the errors of the latin translation are retained of us. Of which reckoning, I dare at first without any farther stay, strike out five hundred & yet the sum which remaineth is sufficient to convince him of a main lie. But for a farther refutation, 
pag. 20. Benedictus Ar●as Montanus a Catholic priest.  he turneth us over to Benedictus Arias Montanus a good priest, one that serveth in the Catholic kings court, and submitteth all his labours to the judgement & censure of the University of Lo●ane, and therefore very unlike it is that either he will bestow so unfruitefully his labours, as to write against the Sacred Tridentine Council, or that that University will approve his endeavours if he should so heretically employ them. & whatsoever shall become of him hereafter, in his hebrew bibles already set forth, we see that in the places before noted, he altereth not the latin according to the hebrew, but letteth it stand as authentical. What speak I of him a catholic man and a priest, whereas yourselves though otherwise most obstinate and stony hearted against the truth, yet dare not alter it according to the hebrew, but leave it as you found it in our bibles.  
And therefore why you call us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Bible-beaters.  bible-beaters, I wonder, and muse what brainsick conceit you have therein, or what reason moveth you thus to rail. Because we defend the sincerity of our bibles against your peevish, and unlearned, and fantastical, and contemptible talking (for what one tolerable argument bring you?) because we defend the inheritance left us by our forefathers, because we prefer the Church & Spouse of Christ before the synagogue of the jews, because at their wicked appointment we will not raze out so many places touching our saviours honour and the truth of our religion, is this the cause why your wisdom termeth us Bible-beaters? Nay let the reader consider, and the world judge, 
Never since Christ's time were there such manglers & defacers & corrupters of the bible as are the protestants of our age.  whether sith Christ's time or before Christ's time, there were ever any beaters and circumciders, and gelder's, and manglers, and defacers, and corrupters of those holy books comparable to you and your sect. Who have rend out of the bible so many parts which our ancient fathers delivered us, and we hold fast as sacred and canonical. Who have rejected out of the old testament so many entire books as I have noted in the beginning, the prophecy of Baruch, the story of judith, of Tobias, of Hester, of the Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus: who in the new testament have cut out S. Paul's epistle to the hebrews, S. james, one of S. Peter's, two of S. john's, S. Jude and the apocalypse, and the whole gospel of S. Luke. who in those other which you pretend to keep, have lopped of great pieces, so many as pleased your arrogant and heretical spirit, pieces of S. john's gospel, pieces of the prophet jeremy, pieces of the prophet Daniel, pieces of the book of Chronicles or Paralipomenon, 
See example before pag. 288  besides many lesser parcels, pared away both in the epistles and gospels, and all the rest by your translations miserably corrupted. Who by the same reason & authority by which you judge and condemn these books, give like authority & liberty to every fantastical minister to contemn and condemn the rest. 
The protestāns lay the way open for any man to deny the scripture at his pleasure  For think you a lying reason may not be found against the gospel of S. john, as well as against the gospel of S. Luke? Or may not a man pretend as good arguments of human spirit to be in the second epistle to the Corinthians, or to Philemon, as in that of S. james, or to the hebrews? Or may M. William Charke oppose himself against the universal Church of Christ by the mouth of those most holy and Apostolical fathers gathered together in the great Council of Nice, 
Hier. prefat. in judith.  
M. Charke hath a deeper insight in scripture, than all the bishops & fathers of the great Nicene Council.  acknowledging for Canonical the book of judith, and may not any other minister of like quality and learning do so by like example? Because the book of Toby maketh expressly for the patronage of angels, may you say disdainfully, We pass not for that Raphael mentioned in Toby, 
Whit. contra Camp. pa. 17  neither acknowledge we those seven angels whereof he maketh mention. All that differeth much from Canonical scriptures which is reported of that Raphael, and savoureth of I know not what superstition. 
Light reasons to disauthorize received parts of scripture.  Nether will I believe free will although the book of Ecclesiasticus affirm it a hundred times etc. and may not a Lutheran, an Anabaptist, a Suinkseldian say the like with as good countenance against other parts of scripture, which stand as plainly against their conceived heresies? Is Beza to be allowed, 
Before pag. 364.  pronouncing peremptorily touching the story of the adulterous woman in the 8. of S. john, upon the diversity which is in the greek writers and testaments, that so great difference he found in that narration, that he doubteth altogether of the whole story, which is as much as to take from it utterly all authority Canonical, and is not every man else to be allowed, upon like warrant giving like censure upon other parts of scriptures? Read S. 
S. Hier. ad Edibiam quaest. 3.  Hierom writing to Edibia, and see whether a part of S. Marks gospel may not by like reason be called in question: yea read Bezaes' notes upon the sixth chapter, 
Beza in joan ca 6.18. & 19 & Luc. 22.  the 18. and 19 of S. john, and 22. of S. Luke & see whether that divine sermon of our Saviour and his very passion by such argument ought not so to be cut out of the testament. The like is to be said of very many places of S. Matthew and S. Paul's epistles. Then judge thou Christian reader whether these men be not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bible-beaters, or rather in deed, bible murderers. For the first presupposeth the having of a bible, whereas they have none. For that which they call their bible and word of God, 
The protestates bible is no more a bible, than a headless man is a man.  is in deed no word of God, no bible at al. For how can a man call that the bible and word of God, which hath in it so many foul and filthy corruptions, so many wicked, Ethnical, and judaical errors, as I before have noted in their bible by confession● of their own brethren. Is that the bible of God, which hath in it so many places maliciously perverted against the eternal truth and testament of God? Can we call him a man whom we see to lack head, hand, foot, heart, and other principal and essential parts of human nature? and how then is that a bible that lacketh (for canonical) the writings of so many Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists S. Luke, S. Paul, S. james, S. Peter, S. john, S. Jude some of which no bible ever wanted since Christ's time, nor can want, remaining a bible. The rest were ever true scriptures, though not ever in all places so accounted, as neither was the Godhead of our Saviour, the dignity and office of his Apostles, of all and always at first acknowledged. But all have been so accounted for these thousand years and more, by general & provincial counsels, the great and Apostolic council of Nice, of Laodicea, of Carthage, by the supreme pastors of Christ's church, by the general consent of the same Catholic Church in most times & ages. These men therefore (good reader) following the steps of their old fathers Martion, Cerdon, Carpocrates, the Arrians and Manichees, despising and rejecting so many books of sctipture, are in deed not beaters, but manglers and defacers, and extreme murderers of the bible. And that not only for this plain and evident reason now given, but also for their profane & irreligious variety of translations, whereof now in the last part I have to speak.   

CHAP. XIIII. That to leave the ordinary translation of the Bible appointed by the Church, & to appeal to the hebrew, greek, and such new divers translations as the protestants have made, is the very way to Atheism & Infidelity.  
IN this later part this have I to show, that whosoever taketh to himself that liberty which the heretics give, & here M.W. most busily striveth for, that is, to refuse the latin, and appeal to the greek and hebrew, and these new translations, which (as they bear us in hand) are framed according to the greek and hebrew, he taketh the high way to denial of all faith, to Apostasy from Christ, and plain Atheism. This to do, the fittest way were historically to declare, how certain known Sects of the Protestants, principally upon this very reason of pretending the greek and hebrew verity, and therefore running to infinite variety of divers translations, and resting in no one, have fallen to despise all Bibles, & Scriptures, and concluded as a most assured evangelical verity, that nothing is certain, but every man is to be left to his own fancy, to believe as he list. Such is the sect of the Swinkfeldians, Anabaptists, and academics, and it is the very drift of Castalio (so much commended of many) in the preface of his Bible to King Edward the sixth: although he beat prettily upon an other point much of like effect, vz, that the Messiah promised in the law, is not yet come, 
Castalio in praefat. ad Edovardum sextum Angliae regem.  but will come hereafter according to the jews expectation. Thus writeth he. Profecto si verum fateri volumus, est adhuc nostrum soeculum in profundis ignorantiae tenebris demersum: 
A true confession of a principal protestant.  cuius rei certissimum testimonium sunt, tam graves, tam pertinaces, tam perniciosae dissensiones, tam multi et irriti conventus de hisce controversiis etc. 

The protestate church drowned in gross ignorance.  
A sure proof thereof.   Truly if we will confess the truth, this our age is as yet drowned in extreme darkness & ignorance: a most assured proof whereof, are these so grievous, so obstinate and so pernicious dissensions, so many, and the same so unprofitable meetings about these controversies, so great number of books every day set out, and the same differing one from an other so far, as heaven differeth from earth. And prosecuting this his plain and irrefutable argument, whereby he proveth the Protestants notwithstanding all their latin, greek, and hebrew, to be most ignorant in true divinity and matters spiritual, thus he addeth. For if the spirit of God be one, 
The protestāns void of the spirit of God and all truth  & truth one, it must of necessity follow, in whom that one spirit & one truth is, that they also be one among themselves, & of one judgement in matters spiritual. And if the day of the most clear truth (of the gospel) shined unto us, we would never lighten so many darksome & obscure candles of books and writings. 
Their light of the gospel, is the night of the gospel.  The which reason concluding this evangelical state and age to be full of ignorance, gross & gross again, Crassa, crassa (inquam) saecu●um tenet ignorantia, 
The end of their religion is Atheism, every man to believe what he listeth.  and that there is no certain way to find out the truth and come to an end of these controversies, hereof he inferreth, that every man is to be left to his own judgement, & suffered to believe as he list. Thus he speaketh, 
Vbi supra  addressing his words to the king. Cum haec it a sint, o rex, et cum aetas nostra in tanta adhuc ignorantiae caligine caecutiat etc. 

Mark this plain confession approved by so manifest reason, against their common vaunting of the clear light of the gospel.  
Scripture applied to prove Atheism.   Whereas these things are so, O king, & whereas our age as yet is blinded in so great darkness of ignorance, I think we ought to use marvelous diligence, lest by error we offend. And if there be any controversies in the case of religion, (as there are very many) in these I think it good that we follow the example of judas Machabeus & his fellows, who when they knew not what to determine touching the altar of the perfit sacrifice, they laid the stones thereof in the mount of the temple in a convenient place, 
1. Mach. 4.  until there came some Prophet, who should declare God's oracle, what was to be done with them: or rather the example of Moses, 
Num. 15.  unto whom notwithstanding God had in precise words given commandment, that if any man of purpose broke the la, he should suffer death therefore, yet the man who gathered wood upon the sabbath day, he would not put to death, until he had particularly received answer from God so to do. And after many other places of scripture brought for this purpose, as Act. 5. v. 
Act. 5. Rom. 14. Mat. 7.  38. et 39 Rom. 14. v. 1. et 4. Mat. 7. v. 1.2. thus he concludeth. Expectemus justi judicis sententiam etc. Let us attend the sentence of the just judge, and employ our diligence not to condemn other men, but to providen that ourselves do nothing why we should be condemned. Let us obey the just judge, and suffer the cockle until the time of harvest, lest while we will seem to be wiser then our master, perhaps we pluck up the good corn. For the later end of the world is not come as yet, neither are we angels, unto whom that office is committed. Unto this Atheism & indifferent approbation of all manner faiths & religions very many learned & smooth Prootestants are already grown. and whether those Atheists whereof M. 
D. Whitg. defen. tract. 3. c. 6. pa. 178  D. Whitgift saith the english congregation is full, appertain to this order, yea or no, themselves best know. But it not possible that this daily and infinite multiplcation of contentions, sects and schisms, new and divers translations of testaments and bibles, should have any other end. 
The protestants manner of preaching, the right way to Atheism  For (to speak the truth, and pass over all the rest) what certainty of faith or religion can a man have, when as he is taught to neglect at his pleasure, all antiquity, all ages past, all Synods and Counsels of fathers and doctors old and new, 
See the preface.  and suspend his religion upon the only testament translated after the new guise, (& interpreted after every man's particular new fancy) where he findeth far more variety, than there are colours in the raynebow. And if M. Whitaker speaking so much of his pure greek and hebrew originals, or latin or english translations, should be required to answer directly, which greek, which hebrew he understandeth, especially which translation latin, english, Scottish, French, or Dutch, he meaneth, when he so magnifieth them against our vulgar testament, I ween it would put him to more trouble than he is aware of.  
But to disadvantage myself of this manner of discourse, and keep myself more precisely to the argument which I have begone, I say, that to give liberty of appealing from one certain latin text appointed by the general Council, to diverse greek, hebrew, latin, & vulgar, as the heretics do, is the very introduction to apostasy for this reason: 
Impossible to do good with any kind of heretic, so long as he may have liberty to flee to divers translations and interpretations.  because putting the case of religion to stand in those terms, to which now the heretics have brought it, it cutteth away all persuasion, all ground, all proof of Christian faith. For how can you deal with any heretic to bring him to the way of salvation? To be so short as I may, and in one example to give the reader occasion to recall to memory hundreds, which he may easily do, suppose I had to deal with one of the sect famous and well known in Germany, by the name of Antinomi, Enemies of the la. 
Antinomi a sect of protestants.  I rather name them of Germany then of England, although England hath store of them, because M.W. shall consider of it more quietly. They being in other things common Protestants, believing that man in matters of life eternal hath not free will, that he worketh not his own salvation, and that good works are of no value in that respect, join unto that common opinion this one consequent. Ipsi statuunt (saith Sleydan of them) quaecunque tandem fit hominis vita, 
Sleid. li. 12. anno. 1538. fol. 199.  & quantumuis impura, justificari tamen eum, si modo promissionibus evamgeliis credit. 
The true conclusion of only faith justifying.  This they put as a sure principle, that howsoever a man live, live he never so filthily, yet he is justified, if he believe the promises of the gospel. And this is the very conclusion of the Protestants common and general doctrine of justification by only faith. Suppose now I have to draw such a one from his wicked opinion, 
The protestāns manner of answering the Catholics.  and would move him to be either sincere in faith, or honest in life, what way could I take with him.  
First, I should perhaps require him to regard the most grave authority of Christ's Catholic Church, uttered to him in S. 
All fathers & Counsels contemned  Bernard, S. Gregory, S. Austin, S. Hierom, and ancient synods of learned bishops: the sum of whose teaching is comprised briefly in these words of the late Council of Trent. 
Concil. Trident. sess. 6. cap. 9  If any say that the wicked man is justified by only faith, understanding it so, that no other thing is required that should cooperate for obtaining the grace of justification etc. Anathema be he. But this is nothing, for against a thousand Augustine's, & a thousand Cyprians, and as many general Counsels consisting of men, 
See before chap. 3. & in the preface  such a Protestant is many ways armed by M. W. and his brethren. And therefore this will not serve.  
Well, mount we then at one step, over the heads of all fathers, Counsels, 
S. james refused.  and Churches, even to the Apostolical age, and scriptures themselves. there we prove that men must cooperate and do good works by the authority of S. james. But S. 
Before c. 1.  james is flat against S. Paul, he abuseth scripture, he disputeth ridiculously, he savoureth nothing of an Apostolical spirit, he quite overthroweth that which S. Pau. had well built & therefore he is no more worth than S. Austin, & so not to be objected.  
At least S. Paul himself is of good authority, who in many places, especially of his epistle to the hebrews, is as vehement in this, as is S. james, & useth much like arguments. That is true, and therefore without question that epistle was never written by S. Paul. so say Beza and Calvin, 
Calvin & Beza in commentar. ad Hebr. in argumento, & ca 2. v. 3.  touching the denial of the author, and touching the whole epistle thus say others. Sed quum his rationibus quibus utitur author epistolae jacobi, et epistolae ad Hebraeos, neque utatur Christus, 
Cent. 1. li. 2. c. 4. col. 328.  neque caeteri apostoli, et hae epistolae apocryphae sunt, ut suo loco dictum est, pro stipulis iure ista habentur. But where as neither Christ, nor any of his apostles, use such reasons, 
S. Paul's epistle to the hebrews rejected.  as doth the author of james his epistle, & the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, & again, whereas these epistles be forged & apocryphal as hath been said in place convenient, these reasons are not to be esteemed worth a straw, 
jew. defence of the Apolog. par. 4. c. 19.20. ¶ 1.  saith Illyricus (with his colleages) one of the best learned men of this age, by M. jewels verdict.  
Proceed we on, let us find out some text without this exception, and what better than that of S. 
2. Pet. 1. v. 10  Peter. Wherefor● brethren labour the more, 
S. Peter's second epistle may be denied.  that by good work you may make sure your vocation and electic But this is more easily avoided the any of the rest. For first it stands upon courtesy whether this epistle sha● be authorized or no. for being doubted of in the primitive Church by some, we may doubt of it now. 
The fourth days conference, see before cha. 2.  This is a case ruled in the Tower disputations. Again, admitting the epistle for canonical, the place availeth nothing. 
A place of S. Peter refused, ●●cause it wanteth in many greek pri●●es.  For notwithstanding it be in all latin copies that ever were, & many greek, and therefore put in the first translation of the Protestants, as namely, that which was appointed to be read in the english church the year 1561, and Luther otherwise an immortal enemy to good works, in his commentary saith expressly, Petrus hortatur, 
Luth tom. 5. in 2 Pet. ca 1. fol. 487.  ut vocationem et electionem nostram bonis operibus certam et stabilem reddamus, Peter exhorteth, that we make our vocation and election stable, 
Testaments of the years 1577.1570.1580. & the Scottish bible.  firm, and assured, by good works, yet because those words want in the later greek prints, and therefore are not put in Beza his translation, and therefore are left out in the later english versions, this text is not scripture, and so the argument taken thence is nothing worth. This answer giveth Vergerius in his dialogs against that great learned man Cardinal Hosius. 
Vergerius dialog. 1. de Ofio. ●0. 27.  Hosius objecteth unto me that Peter saith etc. Possum respondere illa tria verba, nempe (per bona opera) non reperiri in font graeco: I may answer him, that those three words (by good works) are not found in the greek fountain.  
Therefore leaving this, search we farther. And to this purpose, very pregnant is the place in the first epistle of the same Apostle S. Peter, where he exhorteth Christians to live as be cometh men of so excellent a vocation, Castificantes animas suas in obedientia charitatis, 
1. Pet. ca 1. v. 22.  Purifying their souls by obedience of charity, 
Ibid. v. 17.  remembering always that God without acception of persons judgeth every man according to his works. And this place at lest convinceth the adversary, first, that we have free will working with the grace of God: then that we purify & cleanse ourselves from sin: thirdly, that good works are necessarily required of Christian men. For by many divine arguments S. Peter urgeth this conclusion, Vt animas nostras castificemus, That we purify our own souls. And against this epistle there is no exception, as being never doubted of, and therefore by the Protestants is not refused. And all greek copies have this text most clearly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & so translateth that man of god Luther. Castificantes animas vestras per obedientiam charitatis. 
Luther tom. 5. in 1. Petri ca 1. fo. 451. Illyricus. Tigurine translation.  & Illyricus, Qui animas vestras purificastis, and the Tigurine translator hath the same words, and according to this was translated the testament in King Edward his time. For as much as you have purified your souls. and the first of the queens reign. 
Year 1561.  That ye might have faith and hope towards God, even ye which have purified your souls. So as this place standeth strong for proof of our faith and those several points which now I noted. 
S. Peter notably corrupted in the later protestants translations against free-will & good works.  But (saith my Protestant) howsoever Luther or the Divines in king Edward's time or in other times and places read, it should appear that either some greek copies have otherwise, or at least our masters deliver otherwise unto us. For Theodorus Beza translateth it in this manner. 
Testament of the year 1556, & 1565  Animabusvestris purificatis obediendo veritati per spiritum. which the later bible printed by C. Barker, printer to the Q. 
year 1579.  majesty, and translated according to the hebrew & greek, rendereth in these words, Seing your souls are purified in obeying the truth through the spirit, and so translateth the english bible printed at Geneva, 
year 1561. year 1579.  and so doth the Scottish printed at Edemborough: so that these words make nothing at all either for free will, or cooperation, or value of good works. 
S. Peter's words clean inverted.  Nay rather they make much for the contrary side against free will and our working with God's grace, and prove that in our justification we work not, but active are wrought, we cleanse not our selves, but are cleansed, we are not active and doers, 
Cone. Trid. sess. 6. ca 4.  but passive and sufferers: which is the very opinion of Luther and the Protestants, and for such condemned in the Tridentine Council.  
Wherefore leaving this, and wishing the reader to remember by this example amongst many, how madly and furiously our adversaries are bend to coin us a new testament of their own, who translate thus, having no greek or latin copy in the world favouring them, but even in the very same place, when they give us this latin, yet there leave they the greek as they find it agreeable to our latin, & therefore controling them of desperate falsification, proceed we to some other text concerning the same verity: & that shall be out of S. Paul, who handling the fame argument and making the like exhortation, willeth the Christians not to be afraid of the adversaries of Christ, 
●hisi. 1. v. 28  
Sophistical quarreling.  though they persecute never so terribly, Which to them is cause of perdition, but to you of salvation. where he maketh good works necessary, and so the causes of salvation, 
Beza annot in illum locum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as sins are the cause of damnation. But Beza replieth, that the old interpreter was overseen translating so, Quum nusquam fidelium afflictio dicatur salutis eorum causa, sed testimonium, 
Testament of the years. 1577. 1579. 1580.  Because the affliction of the faithful is never called the cause of their salvation, but the testimony, and therefore he translateth it, Inditium, and the english translators his scholars, a token: although the first testament before noted, translate it as we do, a cause, & so doth Erasmus, 
1561. ●ood works the cause of our salvation  & so doth the Tigurine translator. And the Apostle matching sins with good works, these leading to heaven, as the other do to hell, convinceth the sense to be so. & Theodoretus a greek father gathereth so much of that word. 
Theod. in Philip. ca 1.  Id enim illis exitium, vob is autem salutem conciliat, saith he, That procureth to them destruction, but to you salvation. And to pass over S. Primasius, S. Hier. S. Aust. & the other latin fathers, how false the reason of Beza is which moved him to alter the text, hath been showed else where sufficiently.  
And our Saviour showeth best of all other, 
Before ca 5. pa. 98 & in sequentib.  when he thus speaketh of Marie Magdalen, Remittuntur ei peccata multa, quoniam dilexit multum. 
Luc. 7. v. 47.  Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. Against which no man living can cavil by greek, hebrew, or latin, but that works of charity are a cause why sins are forgiven, and so a cause of our justification and salvation, for so saith and meaneth our Saviour most evidently, & the latin and greek, word for word agreeth with this english, and in hebrew the Evangelist never wrote. But Beza hath a shift for this also, thus he translateth. Remissa sunt peccata eius multa. 
Beza transl. anno 1565. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quoniam. because. The years 1579. 1580.  Nam dilexit multum. That is according to our english translation, Many sins are forgiven her▪ for she loved much. And what difference is there between these two translations? howsoever it seem to thee (Christian reader) the difference is as great, as is between our doctrine & theirs. And first they make a wilful fault and corrupt the text, by making a fuller point, than either the greek or latin beareth. And Beza doth somewhat more desperately, who maketh a down & full point, thereby more dividing and distracting the later parcel from the former, as though it contained not a reason of that which went before, as it doth, but were some new matter: wherein he is controlled of fowl dealing, by his own translation set out the year 1556, and by the very greek prints of 
a 1553.  Geneva, 
b 1547.  Zurick, 
c 1536. 1540 1543.  Basile & other German cities, who point it as doth our latin and english. But the reason of his and their turning Quoniam, in to, Nam, Because, in to For, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  describeth yet more their obdurate hearts against Christ and his word. For where as Christ by S. Luke's report saith in effect thus, because she loved much therefore many sins are forgiven her, they by this perversion and mispointing make a clean different and almost contrary sense thus: because she had many sins forgiven her, 
Christ's words clean inverted.  therefore she loveth much, & this love following was a token of the remission which she by only faith had obtained before: so turning the cause in to the effect, the antecedent into the consequent, and hereby utterly spilling the doctrine which Christ by his words and reason giveth, and the Church of his words & reason gathereth. That this is the true ground & reason, why they so lucifer-likely alter the speech of Christ, Beza plainly confesseth. Thus he writeth. Nam dilexit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For she loved. The vulgar translation and Erasmus turn it, Because she loved, 
Beza in Luc. 7. vers. 47.  but I had rather interpret it as I do, that men may best understand in these words to be showed not the cause of remission of sins, but rather that which ensued after such remission, & that by the consequent is gathered the antecedent. And therefore they which abuse this place to overthrow free justification by only faith, are very impudent and childish. wherein he speaketh very truly, 
Intolerable pride & malice in abusing the scripture, to help only only faith.  the words and sense being so as he hath framed them. But if he had not played the part rather of a devil then of an heretic, to alter in pointing, word and sense, the speech of our Saviour, and so taught him his lesson what he should say, it had not been impudency for us thus to argue, but it had been more than brutish ignorance in him to have denied that charity is required as well for obtaining remission of sins as is faith: which both in this place our Saviour most divinely conjoineth, saying of charity, Many sins are forgiven her, 
The sense of Christ's words according to the ancient fathers.  because she hath loved much, and adding strait way, Thy faith hath made thee safe, go in peace.  
And so of this text gathered all the ancient fathers, who were for all that neither impudent nor childish. So S. Chrysostom. 
Chrys. hom. 6. in Mat. Sins purged by works of penance & clarity,  As first by water and the spirit, so afterwards by tears and confession we are made clean. And he proveth it by this place. So S. Gregory expounding the same place. Many sins are forgiven her, 
Greg. hom. 33. in evang  because she loved much. as if it had been said expressly, He burneth out perfectly the rust of sin, whosoever burneth vehemently with the fire of love. For so much more is the rust of sin scoured away, by how much more the heart of a sinner is inflamed with the great fire of charity. And S. Ambrose upon the same words. 
Ambros. in Luc. lib. 6. c. 7. de mulicre peccatrice.  Good are tears which are able to wash away our sins. Good are tears, In quibus non solum redemptio peccatorum, sed etiam refectio est justorum, wherein is not only the redemption of sinners, but also the refreshing of just men. And S. Austin debating this story in a long homely saith. 
Aug. hom. 23. inter 50.  This sinful woman the more she owed the more she loved, the forgiver of her debts our lord himself affirming so, Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much. And why loved she much, but because she owed much? Quare fecit illa omnia, nisi ut dimitterentur sibi peccata? Why did she all those offices (of weeping washing &c.) but to obtain remission of her sins? I omit other fathers, all agreeing in the self same verity, all making her love to be a cause going before, nor only an effect or sequel coming after the remission of sins. And this was the gathering of the ancient fathers, S. Chrysostom, S. Gregory, S. Ambrose, & S. Austin etc. who were ever reverenced for holy and learned fathers by the children of Christ's Catholic Church, until this Chams brood and profane generation invaded their rooms, who now condemn them for impudent and childish.  
But let me with thy leave and patience (Christian reader) prosecute in one word more, their wonderful tossing and turning and inverting this short sentence of our Saviour. And in this one allegation which I will now produce, thou shalt see the very image of Atheism, of contempt of God and man, of impossibility to do any good by scriptures, so long as this licence of framing new translations is allowed. Thou seest what stir Beza hath kept, and to serve his turn, what fowl and detestable corruption he hath used. But to make up the matter, and reconcile Christ's words a little better to this new solifidian gospel, 
An example of singular & notorious wrangling.  cometh in Wolfgangus Musculus, with a deeper fetch after this manner. First because S. Luke's words be very plain, and he can not so probably wrangle upon them in greek, he in his own fancy imagineth what Christ either did or should have spoken in hebrew. 
Good grounds to expound and correct scripture upon.  Next, that fancy he putteth to be true. and forthwith according to the same he correcteth S. Luke, and so concludeth that all matcheth right with their Lucianical only faith. For now by this time, with his good help not one word in effect standeth as Christ spoke it, at least by S. Luke's report. Thus he discourseth. 
Musculus in locis communibus ca de justificat. num. 5.  Ecce (inquiunt) manifestò datur dilectioni remissio peccatorum. Ergo non sola fides justificat etc. Behold (say the Papists) remission of sins is attributed to love. ergo faith alone justifieth not. but we answer, that love in this woman, was not the cause of remission of sins, but a token & declaration thereof. Remission of her sins she obtained by faith in Christ. 
Luc. 7. v. 47.  Therefore whereas Christ saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as witnesseth Suidas) is a Dorical word, & signifieth not in the imperative, Remittantur, Remitted be they, but in the preterperfect tense, Remissa sunt, Have been remitted. Next the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth here, not the cause, but the probation of that which is put before. Thirdly, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath loved, 
Yet S. Luke took it otherwise. dilexit.  is an hebrew phrase by which the preterperfecttense is put for the present. For the hebrews speak thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, because she hath loved much, in steed of, because she doth love much. And plain it is, that Christ spoke not greek or latin, but hebrew. Therefore whereas Christ said, Many sins have been forgiven her, he proveth it by that which followeth, because she loveth much. as if he had said, That she loveth me much it is no marvel, she hath good occasion so to do. For many sins have been forgiven her. So we say that he hath obtained that which he desired, because he is merry & laugheth: he is very hungry, because he eateth much etc. I will not bestow time in examining this answer▪ who told him that Christ used the preterperfecttense for the present, whereas S. Luke so flatly affirmeth the contrary, or that S. Luke in this phrase, so strangely affected the Dorical language, with the rest of his bold assertion, but wanting all reason of reasonable conjecture to support them. this only I wish thee to consider, 
Note the wonderful tearing and renting of this short sentence.  whether thou didst ever see a little sentence so racked, and torn, as this is.  
For comparing this sentence as it is now fashioned by them, with the same sentence, as it was first pronounced by our Saviour, not one word of any moment remaineth in such sort as Christ uttered them. Christ said, Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much: now with their correction thus it is. Many sins have been forgiven her. For she loveth much. Where first they rend in sunder & make that two, which Christ joined and spoke as one. Then they wrist one of Christ's words, & bring it to a Dorical phrase of speech. And by and by, back again, they make the next which signifieth a thing passed in greek, to signify a thing present by the hebrewe manner of speech, which hath no present tenses, the clean contrary whereof is avouched in the other Dorical word going immediately before. Afterwards they enforce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to signify a cause antecedent, but a sign or effect consequent. And finally in all and every of these tricks, S. Luke's authority is under foot, and lieth dead. For neither Beza nor Musculus in this tossing and turning, ever consider what S. 
No spirit but the spirit of Satan could teach the protestants this desperate manner of interpretation.  Luke wrote, what sense the Apostolical Church gave, and the holy Ghost in the same hath always continued, what the very letter of the greek requireth as now it standeth: but how it may possibly be wrested, if a man will follow the spirit of contention, if he will fetch the pointing of the sentence from Geneva, the meaning of one word from Dorica in one corner of the world, of an other from Jerusalem, of a third from Swytzerland, & the entire sum of all, from the deep pit of hell. For except the devil himself stood by them, & suggested to them such construction, I think the nature of man having some regard of honesty, of learning, of modesty, of Christ & his evangelists, could never break forth into so much monstrous absurdity.  
Of all which this I conclude, that allowing men this liberty unto which now by this libertine-gospel they are driven, I say, there is no possibility, to contain men in faith, or to reduce men to faith, or to prove any parcel of Christian faith. 
Protestant shifts to avoid scripture when it is plain against them.  For setting aside church, Doctors, Custom, Counsels, and resting in the only Scriptures & private exposition of the same, this one example giveth us a pattern to care nothing for all scriptures. For it is a marvelous flat text which a man of mean learning by one of these shifts may not avoid, either by refusing it as not Canonical because it is rejected now of Protestants in these days: or hath been doubted of by Catholics in old time, which cutteth of a number of books: or by objecting some one or other greek example in which the words want, which is easy to find, heretics of divers sects having now the printing of most greek testaments, and every one being content to favour his proper gospel and heresy: or by producing some false translation and sticking to that, with store of which every province is pestered: or by hunting out divers significations of the greek word, and taking that which maketh most for his advantage: or if that serve not, then by corrupting one word, by conferring an other with the greek of this or that dialect, a third with the jews, or Chaldees, or Suitzers manner of speaking, and so patching up a sense, partly Christian, partly German, partly Ethnical, and partly judaical, and finally, (which is all in all) reserving ever to himself supreme judgement of all senses, interpretations, scriptures, and languages.  
As in this very place whereof I speak, Zuinglius following neither the words of the Evangelist, nor sense of the Church, nor Commentary of the ancient fathers, nor invention of Beza, nor any of those manifold shifts of Musculus, willeth us rather for dilexit, to put, credidit, for charity, faith, and then giveth us the meaning of Christ's words thus. 
Zuing. to 4. in Luc. 7.  Quoniam dilexit multum. Ego puto dilectionem hic pro fide accipi, 
Proper expositions. dilexit, id est credidit. works, that is, faith. the sun, that is, the moon.  quòd tantum mihi fidit, tantum peccatorum ei remittitur. Name post a dicit, sides tua te saluam sec it. Because she loved much. I suppose that love is here put for faith. because she hath so great affiance in me, so many sins are forgiven her. for he saith afterwards, thy faith hath saved thee, that is, hath delivered and absolved the from thy sins. which one distinction answereth all the places that in this controversy we bring out of the scriptures to refel their only faith.  
By these few heretical sleights (& M. Whitaker knoweth his brethren have many other as bad as these) used in one particular controversy, any man may guess how likely it is to tie an heretic having some wit and learning, and sight in tongues, with any text that gainsaith his opinion. How true we find by experience that which Tertullian so many ages ago spoke of the heretics of his time, and prophesied as it may seem, of the heretics of our time. 
vertul. de praescripti. num. 5.  Ista haeresis non recipit quasdam scripturas etc. These (Zwinglian, Lutheran, Puritan, Anabaptist, Trinitarian &c.) heretics admit not some books of scriptures. and those which they do admit, by adding to, 
The agreement between the protestants of our time and ancient heretics touching their behaviour about scriptures.  & taking from, they pervert to serve their purpose. And if they receive some books, yet they receive them not entirely: or if they receive them entirely after some sort, nevertheless they mar them by devising divers interpretations. In this case what will you do that think yourself most skilful in the scriptures, when as that which you defend, the adversary denieth, 
Not possible to do good with an heretic having this liberty to discourse.  that which you deny the adversary defendeth. Et tu quidem nihil perdes nisi vocem de contentione, nihil consequeris nisi bilem de blasphematione. And thou truly shalt lose nothing but thy words in so contentious a brawling, thou shalt gain nothing but grief and anger in seeing an heretic so to blasphene.  
And now if I should show the like in the hebrew, and by examples manifest the same, I should trouble myself much, and the reader much more. Because I must be driven to talk of titles, and points, and rules of the Rabbins, 
The hebrew tongue open to infinite cavilling, and so unfie to bind a contentious heretic.  and readings of the Massoreth and such other obscure matter, troublesome for me to lay together and write out, and not intelligible for a common reader. I will therefore put down only certain propositions, exemplifying them in one or two words, whereby the learned shall understand how true that is which I affirm, and the unlearned shall be able to conceive somewhat. I say therefore, that of the hebrew far less hold can be taken in binding a contentious heretic then of any other language.  
The reason is, first because their tongue having in it no great store of words, every word almost is used in very divers significations, 
Hebrew words have great diversity of significations  far more than is found in latin or greek or many vulgar languages. and therefore if you press him with one translation or sense, he forthwith hath sundry and divers senses to flee unto. Hence cometh that diversity in the Psal. 
Psal. 54. v. 21.  54. Extendit deus manum suam in retribuendo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the 70. God hath stretched forth his hand to reward or recompense, as the church readeth, which place the catholics both of late and ancient times use to prove the reward and recompense of good works. The english bibles turn it thus. He hath laid his hands upon such as be at peace with him, the more common Protestant translation, 
Marlorate.  as it appeareth by Marlorate, Misit manus suas in paces suas, He hath laid his hands upon his pieces. This diversity riseth of the same hebrew word, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence cometh. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  but having divers senses.  
An other reason is, because their substantives being in manner all derived of verbs, often times one substantive may have divers derivations from divers verbs, which bringeth as great variety as is possible. So the church readeth ps. 59 Dedisti metuentibus te, 
Psal. 59 v. 6.  significationem ut fugiant a fancy arcus. Thou hast given to those that fear thee, a sign that they flee from the face of the bow, according to the 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so was the hebrew in S. Hieroms time, as we see by his translation. The Protestants, Luther, Bucer, Calvin, as we see by Marlorate, will have it, Dedisti metuentibus te vexillum, ad vexillandum propter veritatem. Thou hast given to them that fear thee a flag, to flag for truth. the english of one year, 
The year 1577.  thou hast given a token for such as fear thee that they may triumph because of thy truth, of an other, 
1579.  Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee that it may be displayed, because of thy truth. This difference in one part cometh of the 2. radical hebrew verbs, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the old church, the 70. & S. Hieron following one, the new congregation of the Protestant's rather liking the other. The difference in the other part bow and truth no doubt came thence, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that the old hebrew books had that word written with one kind of T, the later with an other.  
Again touching the literal sense of the hebrew words what masters shall we follow? The old Rabbins, David Kimhi, 
A hard difficulty, what masters we must follow touching the true signification of the hebrew words  Aben Ezra, and such other. Thus to say, Beza, Munster, Calvin, Castalio & the Protestants commonly induce us. But Master D. Humphrey holdeth the contrary, and not without reason, if we had a good pilot to rule the stern and contain us in mediocrity. 
Humf. lib. 2. de rat. in't pa. 219.320.  We ought not to credit (saith he) in my judgement the Rabbins touching the very exposition & derivation of the hebrew words. Christ pronounceth of them that they are blind, & guides of the blind. Therefore this is not the way to interpret rightly, neither may we follow them, except we will prefer darkness before light, errors before truth, doubtful things before assured, dangerous before safe, and wicked and blasphemous before Godly and Catholic. 
The protestāns following the jewish Rabbins: translate wickedly.  By which rule all your new hebrew translations are called in to question, yea are pronounced to be darksome, erroneous, doubtful, dangerous, wicked, & blasphemous. For your best and greatest translators, whom did they follow in the sense of the hebrew words but their common dictionaries? And out of whom are they drawn? look upon the title of Munster's. 
Dictionary Munsteri printed at Basile the year 1564.  Dictionarium Hebraeum ultimò ab autore Sebastiano Munstero recognitum, et ex Rabbinis, praesertim ex radicibus David Kimhi auctum et locuplet a tum. This hebrew dictionary is now last renewed by Sebastian Munster, and increased and enriched out of the Rabbins, especially out of David Kimhi. And Munster in his translations (which is accounted most exact to the hebrew) protesteth that he regarded therein no Christian fathers but only the judaical Rabbins. 
Munster. in praef. bibli. tom. 1.  Nobis (saith he) in animo fuit talem parare aeditionem scripturae, quae per omnia hebraismo esset comformis, ideo solos hebraeos consuluimus scriptores. And here perhaps I might propose unto you an Insoluble, an argument that you will never answer, saving the honour of your masters & doctors. Your master Beza correcteth the new testament generally, and draweth the greek citations in the same, and all doubtful words to the sense of the hebrew and the Rabbins. Doctor Humphrey on the contrary side will have the hebrew words of the old testament drawn to signify as the Apostles cite them according to the 70. in the new testament, and condemneth your translators for doing otherwise: and namely whereas in the 2. of the Acts your English bibles, after Beza translate Sheol, Grave, he acknowledging that in hebrew and according to the Rabbins, It may so signify, & many things beside, 
Humf. ubi sup. pa. 225.  as pit, the state of the dead and damned, death, a ditch, the east or birth, and hell: this last, saith he, must we follow by authority of the holy Ghost, Act 2. interpreting a place of the psalm 15. Where you see one will have the hebrew word in the psalm translated, Hell, because so it is in the greek, Act. 2. the other will have the greek, Act. 2. translated Grave, because so may be the signification of the hebrew, ps. 15. et sic in caeteris. where, by the way you may note that your pure and undefiled bibles, are not altogether so judged by this writer, a man of such credit and name in your congregation, yea that he judgeth them corrupt in so great a matter as a principal article of our faith cometh unto.  
And yet all this which hitherto I have spoken, is nothing touching the true controversy which is about the hebrew originals, that is, whether we must take them as now we have them given us with the ordinary points and vowels put to by the Jews and Rabbins: or whether we must take the consonantes only, and put to the points or vowels by our own discretion. If the first, than all those horrible absurdities must stand, 
Before chap. 12.  which before I have noted against Christ's Divinity, Humanity, Passion▪ & Incarnation. If the second, then must the Protestants fall to translate a fresh: for all their bibles hitherto are little worth, because they generally (though not in every place) have followed the common points and vowels, according to which they frame us their common Gloss, Commentaries, and Dictionaries.  
But this very point is a sea of disputation and writing, and therefore for a final conclusion to show that the Protestants appealing to the hebrew will shortly fall to very plain Atheism, I demand of M. Whit. this question, whether he think it flat Atheism and Turkerie to deny that Christ was borne of a virgin? I trust he will confess with us, that this denial is the denial and abnegation of all Christianity. For though they care not greatly whether men think our Lady to have remained a virgin in Christ's birth, 
Bez. in praef. Test. novi ann. 1565. principi Cond. dica●i. & Molinae. in a. Luc.  or after Christ's birth, yet they seem to believe most assuredly that she was a virgin when she conceived him. That being granted, that this denial is plain apostasy, 

Christ's incarnation of the virgin can not be proved by scripture according to the protestants manner of expounding it.  
Mat. 1. v. 23.   I require of him what scripture he hath to prove that verity? for church, Tradition, Fathers, & such other, I know he contemneth, and we are bound to believe nothing say they, but that which is in plain scripture. The only place that may serve the turn, is the first of S. Matth. (for the allegories of Ezechiel convince not) where it is said, Ecce virgo concipiet etc. Behold a virgin shall conceive & bring forth a son. But this place proveth nothing by M. W. own rule, by Bezaes' common kind of scanning such citations, and by the Protestants interpretation of this place: either because the translation is framed according to the 70. 
Before pag. 286.287. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Munst. in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  not the hebrew, and so it is no scripture by M. W. or if it be, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 virgin, according to the hebrew must signify a young wench, adolescentula, sive virgo sive maritata by Beza his rules (and so saith Munster) as well virgin as not virgin: or because the most precise judaical Protestants translate it so, to put the matter out of doubt. So for example translateth Oecolampadius in the bibles of Basile, 
Oecolamp. in Esa. ca 7.  which Bullinger in the preface so much commendeth, Ecce adolesentula illa praegnans, 
Translation judaical & Antichristian.  et partens filium, Behold that young wench great with child, and Munster precisely according to the hebrew as he saith, Ecce virgo illa impraegnata, Behold that virgin gotten with child. And howsoever M. W. may cavil upon the later, the first is mere judaical, no ways Christian, 
Luth. tom. 2: ad Amsdorf. de Eras. fol. 485.  and the perversion rather of a monster then of a man, as Luther pronounceth against Erasmus for the like cause. and yet I acknowledge according to the heretical manner of examining citations, the hebrew word may bear that sense which Oecolamp. yieldeth, & so did those old renegates and enemies of our religion, Aquila Ponticus, 
Iren. lib. 3. cap. 24. vide Euseb. li. 5. ca 8 Epiph. haer. 30. justin. in dialog. eum Tripho●e.  and Theodotion translate that word, upon which translation afterwards the beggarly Ebionites founded their beastly opinion touching the manner of Christ's incarnation.  
And here (Christian reader) I have to request thee, not so to interpreete me in any thing which I have spoken, as though I coveted to disgrace the study of greek and hebrew (as this man would have thee to conceive of us) & condemned those languages, which I confess to be great helps to the attaining of the true sense in sundry places of scripture, & condemn myself for knowing so little as I do in either of them both. 
The hebrew and greek knowledge, much advanced by Catholics.  And manifest it is, what pain the catholics have taken in setting forth the bible most perfectly and diligently in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and Arabike languages. what labour they have taken about the Greek translation of the Septuaginta. How continually, and at this present, most honourable Prelates, and Cardinals, & other men of great name, employ them selves in the same kind of study, to the end they may procure all helps so far as is possible, for the perfit understanding of the sacred scriptures. How in most Catholic Universities, men excellent for skill in these languages, flourish and are maintained, to the great advancement of the faith & Church Catholic: with the list or catalogue of whose names I think it needless to trouble the reade●, because otherwise they are well known to the Christian world. But this I say, & thou shalt find it true when soever thou comest to examine these matters with that advisedness and maturity of judgement as the thing itself requireth, 
A man must have a settled faith before he come to confer greek and hebrew else shall he never have any faith. Vide Aug. de Gen. ad lit. lib. 1. ca 21. & tract. 18. in joan.  that who so will go about to pick his faith out of the greek and hebrew testaments without a settled and constant form of faith before, and from which he must not be drawn by any pretence of greek & hebrew, his greek & hebrew will never make him a Christian, will never establish him in any true faith. Aquila Ponticus, first a Christian, after a jew, was very perfect in the hebrew, and translated the bible so, as S. 
Hier. ep. 138 Marcellae. & 1●5 Damaso. quaest. 2.  Hierom calleth him to his praise, Diligentissimum verborum hebraicorum interpretem, A most diligent interpreter of the hebrew words, and yet how good a Christian he was, is noted before. The Arrians, Trinitarians, anabaptists and Lutherans of our time, 
Many great Grecians and Hebraicians are wicked and detestable Christians.  want they greek or hebrew? No doubt their arrogancy and pride which for their greek & hebrew they conceive, is a great cause of their continual alteration from one heresy to an other, as we see in the stories of Melancthon, Blandrata, Bernardinus Ochinus etc.  
Before we were Grecians, or Hebritians, or in deed Englishmen, or understood any letter of any language, first of all we were Christians, 
First we must be sure of our faith  we were graffed into the Catholic Church the mystical body of Christ, and made members of the same, and by solemn vow we bound ourselves to honour, love, reverence, and cleave to her as 
a Timoth. 3. vers. 15.  the pillar & firmament of truth, 
b Ephes. 5. vers. 25.  the spouse of Christ, 
c Gal. 4. v. 26.  our divine mother, 
d 1. Pet. 3. vers. 20.21.  the ark of Noah 
e Mat. 13. saepe.  and kingdom of God, 
f See before chap. 6. pag. 117.  without which there is no way but death and damnation. Let us hold this fast, and then our greek and hebrew may do us some good. Let us departed from her, talk we so long as we list of our greek and hebrew, as S. 
Act. 8. v. 20.  Peter said of Simon Magus money, so that will be to us, In perditionem, To our everlasting destruction, it will never do us good. 
Aug, confess. lib. 8. ca 8.  And as S. Austin saith, in the mean season while the unlearned rise & get possession of heaven, Nos cum doctrinis nostris ecce ubi volutamur in carne et sanguine, We with our greek & hebrew & what other learning so ever, shall always be tumbling in flesh & blood, in continual brawls and contentions, which will set us the right way to hell.   

CHAP. XV. How M.W. inveigheth against the new testament lately set forth in this college, with a clear refutation of such faults as he findeth in the translation thereof.  
Here now is the place to speak of our late English translation set forth in this college. For though M. W. upon passion and heat, disorderly before he had spoken of the originals and in respect of them condemned our latin, reproved us for translating according to the latin, yet to make all sure, here again he repeateth his former accusation, and in particular chargeth us with certain faults committed both in the testament itself, and in the annotations made upon the same. His words albeit they show far more stomach than wit, more malice than reason, and therefore are the more loathsome to read, yet because they may be an example of an heretical spirit than most vaunting, and triumphing, and swelling a high in loftiness of words, when in deed he is under foot, and standeth upon no ground at all, I will put them down as they are. Thus he speaketh.  

pag. 14.15.  There is now abroad a certain english translation of the new testament, 
M. W. invective against the late Catholic translation of the new Testament.  set forth & laboured by that new college at Rheims, to which I am right glad that our translation is nothing like. For since the first creation of the world, there was never found any translation like to that which you have of late published, & by common judgement commended to your countrymen. For whether we consider the unaccustomed and monstrous novelty of words, or the profane corruptions and outrageous boldness to pervert every thing, never any heretics at any time have done more violence and injury to the sacred testament of Christ jesus our lord. They that thus translate the scriptures into any language as you have done in to ours, may rightly be thought not to have intended that the people should understand the will of God declared in the word, but that they should mock and contemn it. And truly so far is it that I think this your translation will any ways harm our cause, that I wish it might be read also of strangers, that when they consider this your new kind of translation hitherto unheard of, they might acknowledge the madness & desperateness of the Papists. It is altogether framed according to the form of the old latin edition.  
This is his accusation of us (good reader) uttered as thou seest in such terrible words, as if some counterfeit Ajax Mastigophorus, or Hercules Furens, or some tragical Tereus or Thyestes, after the eating of their own children, were raging upon a scaffold. Here thou hast, The creation of the world, Unaccustomed and monstrous novelty, Profane corruptions, and outragius boldness, Never heretics at any time did the like violence and injury to the sacred testament of Christ jesus, The word of God mocked and contemned, Madness and desperateness of the Papists. and so forth, as if we were guilty of (or himself as boldfaced as he is, durst object unto us) any one of those wicked, Profane, Heretical, & Turkish corruptions, of which we have proved him & his brethren to have committed many. Which seeing he doth not, neither can do, thou mayst undoubtedly take this for Brutum fulmen, 
Affected hypocrisy  a pang of vile hypocrisy, such as when they are disposed, now and then they use in their pulpits to make the people imagine they have in them some dram of religion, whereof they are quite destitute. And if thou wilt know where these thundering terms may be truly verified, recall to memory, not words, but facts, experiments, change of words, alterations of sentences, oppositions against Christ himself and the Evangelists, errors Ethnical, judaical & Diabolical confessed to swarm every where in these men's new bibles, in those very same, which this vehement orator praiseth as undefiled and most pure. Record this Reader, & thou shalt find, where these oratorial terms so unaptly applied, may be sincerely and truly bestowed. And that we are altogether guiltless of any such fault, and withal that he practiseth not only manifest lying, but in deed very gross hypocrisy in this accusation, our own conscience before Christ & his Tribunal-seate, and the work itself perused by any indifferent man acquitteth us in the first, and his own words and writing in this place convinceth him of the second.  
I have showed before how well the learneder protestants esteem of our latin translator, that Molineus, 
Before pag. 372.373.374.383.  
Our English translation following so precisely the old latin, can not be so corrupt as M.W. imagineth.  and Castalio commonly defend him against Beza, that D. Humphrey much commendeth his sincere fidelity, that Beza acknowledgeth him to have used great conscience and religion, and preferreth him before all other translators, Caeteris omnibus antepono, that this eager Ar●starchus, with all his study, malice and conference, findeth one only fault in him: and of what quality that is, hath been declared sufficiently.  
This being so, how can our english translation possibly be so monstrous, so horrible, so heretical, so outrageous, etc. as this man feigneth here, of which himself saith, that it is Expressa tota ad veteris latinae aditionis formam, 
Pag. 15.  wholly framed & fashioned to the form of the old latin edition, which is by the verdict of his masters, so pure, so sincere, so religious, and Caeteris omnibus anteponenda, Better than all other? Is it possible (I say) that this translation should be so horrible and absurd, being wholly form after the old edition, which in comparison of all other is so perfit & absolute? Seest thou not here the very image of old Caiphas crying out, Blasphemy, and renting his garments when Christ spoke of the judgement, that They should see the son of man sitting at the right hand of God, 
Mat. 27.  & coming to judge in the clouds of heaven? by which kind of strange behaviour, he moved the people to think that he did so upon great zeal of religion, whereas he being a Sadducee, believing the soul to die with the body (to which opinion Master W. pure bibles lead men the ready way) and therefore contemning as trifles, heaven, and hell, and judgement to come, only by that histrionical dissimulation sought to abuse the simple people, when in the mean season himself cared nothing but for his own belly commodity, Ne forte venirent Romani, 
joan. 11. v. 48.  lest perhaps the Romans their lords should put him & his besides their good feeding, which under the title and pretence of religion they enjoyed. 
The end of the new gospel, carnal liberty.  And he that judgeth otherwise of these carnal gospelers, and the final scope of their gospel, he much deceiveth himself, and knoweth not what they by their gospel mean.  
And let us view, whether the several parts of this invective be not agreeable to this general intention. You have given us (saith he) a translation of the new testament, such a one as there was never found the like since the world was first created. 
The true grace of this amplifying figure.  What kind of amplification is this? what figure, but of most gross and ridiculous hypocrisy? form substance thus he speaketh. It is now 5000. years and more since the world was created, in which time many translations of the new testament have been made: yet these 5000 years and upward, no man ever translated the new testament so profanely and wickedly as you have done. And is this true? and hath he examined all the translations made these 5000 years? belike he hath, or else he could never give his sentence so peremptorily. Of the first 1000 years, or second, under the patriarchs and until Moses, how many new testaments hath he perused and conferred with ours? I trow not very many. And of the third and fourth thousand years under the Prophets hath he seen any more? or were there then extant any such testaments to confer, in comparison of which ours is so far abased? by his amplification it should seem yea, & yet of his wisdom I trust he will say no, except he list to show himself as learned as his fellow, 
In his sermon printed, fo. 14. see the Discovery pa. 178.  john Keltridge preacher of the word in London, who referreth us for the true reading & sense of the A●e maria, to the translation of the 70. But suppose he meant of the time since Christ. what a mad kind of speech is this? as if two friends who by some occasion were separated some few years, after by good hap meeting, the one should thus gratulate that good day. Blessed be God (friend) that now I see you, whom I have not seen these 5000 years, whereas they perhaps had not lived one quarter of so many weeks.  
Now let us allow for good that Ab orb condito, 
A most absurd & false amplification.  since the creation of the world, may signify 4000 years after, that is since the incarnation of Christ, how many translations of the first thousand years after Christ can he produce, whereupon he may colour this lying? how many of the next 500? how many until this later 80 years, wherein every Sectmaster hath fallen in hand with tossing & turning the scriptures? But amongst them, is there none worse than ours? none set forth by the Trinitarians, Seruetans, Arians, anabaptists, Academiks? How say you by such a translation as abuseth the word of scripture against all ancient faith and religion, against Catholics, against the Lutherans, against the learnedst Caluinists, against Calvin himself, 
To say God is author of sin, is to say, that god is a devil.  against the literal sense of the word & whole drift of the place, & all this to make God the author and worker of sin, that is by Caluins express judgement in his book against the Libertines, 
Calvin in instructio. contra Libertinos. ca 14. Deum in diabolum transformant  To transform God into a devil & to make us Christians worship in steed of god an idol, and such an idol, Quod nobis execrabilius esse debet omnibus gentium idolis, Which ought to seem to us Christians, more abominable than all the idols of the Gentiles, what say you to such a translation? 
English translations lead men to that opinion.  And such translations of the new testament have been set forth within these 5000 years, yea some within these 5 years, & that in England, and that with authority, yea with the Prince's privilege, except the printers lie.  
S. Peter saith of the jews, that Christ is to them, Petra scandali, 
1. Pet. 2. v. 8.  qui offendunt verbo, nec credunt in quo et posti sunt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the english testament of king Edward, and the first of the Q. reign translate it thus. They believe not that whereon they were set. 
Illyr. glos. in 1. Pet. c. 2. vers. 8.  This is well to be marked (saith Illyricus) lest a man imagine that God himself did put them, and (as one, he meaneth Beza, against the nature of the greek word doth translate & interpret it) that God did create them for this purpose, that they should withstand him. Erasmus & Calvin referring this word to that which goeth before, interpret it not amiss, that the Jews were made or ordained to believe the word of God and their Messiah, but yet that they would not believe him. For to them belonged the promises, the testaments, and the Messiah himself, as S. Peter saith, Act. 2. et 3. and Paul Rom. 9 and to them were committed the oracles of God by witness of the same Paul Rom. 3. thus Illyricus. Here is given the true sense of this place according to the signification of the greek word. the same is proved by scripture, by S. Peter and S. Paul. The same is confirmed by Calvin and Erasmus, and by Luther in his commentaries upon this place, 
Castalio defensio. suae translatio. pag 153.154.155.  & more at large by Castalio in his annotations of the new testament. Only Beza against all these, translateth it thus, Sunt immorigeri, 
Beza in ●. Pet. 2. v. 8.  ad quod etiam conditi fuerunt. They are rebellious, where unto also they were created. which words in his note thereupon he explicateth, That men are made, or fashioned, framed, stirred up, created or ordained, not of themselves, (for that is absurd) but of God, 
God createth men to sin, Beza.  to be scandalised at him and his son our Saviour. Christus est eis offendiculo, prout etiam ad hoc ipsum a Deo sunt conditi, and discourseth at large, & bringeth many texts to prove this sense & this translation. which error being of such consequence as Calvin granteth, that it maketh God, no God, but an idol and a devil, any man may boldly ptonounce of such a testament, that it is the testament rather of Satan then of Christ.  
So here is at least one translation worse than ours. & are there no more? look upon your testaments of the later translators, all in manner apes of Beza. in one thus you read, 
Bible of the year 1577.  Being disobedient, unto the which thing they were ordained, in the next, Being disobedient, 
the year 1579.  unto the which thing they were even ordained, this is a little worse. and with this, word for word agreeth the later testament of the year 1580, and the Scottish bible. 

The year 1580.  
The year 1579.   and this is altogether the first Geneva translation, 
Printed at Geneva the year 1561.  whom the French Geneva bible followeth, Sont rebels, a quoy aussi ils ont estè ordonne●. They are rebels (against Christ) whereunto also they were ordained. 
Cast. defence. suae translations p. 155.  Atqui si deus creavit aliquos ad contumaciam, omnino author est eorum contumaciae, quemadmodum, si quos ●re●uit ad obedientiam, omnino author est eorum obedientiae (saith Castalio against Beza) But if God have created some men to rebellion or disobedience, he is author of their disobedience, as if he have created some to obedience he is truly author of their obedience. 
All these translations by verdict of Calvin, make god an idol & a devil.  And so by verdict not only of catholics but also of your own great doctors such as are Luther, Castalio, Calvin, etc. and in deed by manifest reason, here have you 7. translations of the new testament▪ within these 500, yea within these 50 years worse than ours. For find your any one so wilful and horrible an Atheism in ours, and hardly set a fire on them al. Many more examples could I give, but I will not be troublesome nor enter new discourses. For convincing this so gross and impudent a lie, let the testimony of that excellent man Beza so commended by M. W. suffice, who accounteth our latin, better then that of Luther, then that of Basile, 
M.W. in his last short sentence, 6. refelleth & gain sayeth whatsoever he hath said before.  then that of Erasmus, then that of Castalio, than any that ever he saw. and consequently our english framed altogether according to that, by M. W. own judgement, can not be the worst.  
The next three faults are objected only in words, and proved by no example, reason, or conjecture, 
The protestants more desirous of novelty of words then ever were any heretics.  or least argument in the world. Marry that he & his fellows are most guilty of them all, both in the Discovery and annotations of the testament it is in many places declared. And judge thou (reader) whether we or they love unaccustomed and monstrous novelty of words, we, who strive so much as we may, to retain the ancient words left to us by our Apostles and founders, Mass, Bishop, Priest, Baptism, Church, the very names of men, isaiah, Amos, juda, Jerusalem, Ezechias, Ozias, or they who have turned these in to the Supper or the thanksgiving, superintendant, Minister or Elder, Washing, Congregation. who upon most childish affectation to seem somewhat skilful in the hebrew, reduce all sacred names to the old judaical sound. As for example one of their greatest Evangelists thus beginneth his translation of isaiah. The vision of jesaaiahu the son of Amoz, 
Oecolam. Esa. c. 1. v. 1.  which he saw upon jehudah and upon Hierusalam in the days of Yziiahu, jotham, Ahhaz, jehhizkiiahu, Kings of jehudah. And this is the common vain of their preachers if they know a little, especially in that landing. as though Petrus, joannes, jacobus, Stephanus, howsoever they be uttered in any other tongue, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, or Italiam were not truly & exactly expressed in English by Peter, john, james, Stevin, but must needs be pronounced, as they are in the first language from which originally they are derived. as though a man translating some story out of French or Spanish into English, translated not well if he said, Francis the French King in his wars against the Spaniards, but must needs say, Fransois King of the Fransois in his wars against the Espanioulx: or, los Espanoles in such a victory against los Franceses, in steed of, The Spaniards in such a victory against the Frenchmen. And why then do they not in the new testament use like novelty? why for Christ use they not, jeschua, for our Lady, Miriae, for S. Peter, Cepha, for S. john, jochanan, and so in the rest of the Apostles, whereas they know that thus were they called in their proper language, as at this present we see in S. Matthewes hebrew Gospel. If their own ears abhor this wanton curiosity, and their own judgement tell them it is apish arrogancy, & peevish affectation of popular praise, let them confess the like in pronouncing, Beltshazzar, Nebucadnezzar, jehuda, jehhizkiiahu, for Balthasar, Nabugodonosor, juda, Ezechias. for the case is all one.  
Much more have they committed this monstrous novelty in the things themselves, 
A far greater alteration and novelty in articles of faith.  in taking away the sacrifice of the new testament, like the forerunners of Antichrist, in yielding to women and children the headship and supreme government of the Church in all Ecclesiastical & spiritual matters, in abrogating five or six sacraments of seven, in devising such a kind of faith, as before their time was never heard of, 
The authors and writers of sundry books of scripture, mocked & scorned by the protestants.  and is more fit for the school of Epicure then of Christ, and so forth in the rest of their negative irreligion.  
And as for mocking and contemning the word of God, this was never so proper & peculiar to any heretics before, as it is to them. For who are they that mock at the book of 
a The tower disputations the 4 day.  judith, that compare the book of 
b Zuingl. to. 1 art. 57 fol. 100  Maccabees to Robin Hood or Beavis of Hampton, that call the Prophet 
c Idem to. 3 in rhrenos Iere. fo. 384.  Baruch a peevish ape of jeremy, Simia est non admodum sae●ix jeremiae, that account the epistle to the 
d Magdeb. see before pag 414.  Hebrews Pro stipulis, as stubble, that reject S. 
e Lutherans and Zuinglianes. see before chap 1.  james epistle as made of straw, that contemn S. Luke's gospel, that mangle many other parts of the scriptures, and thereby teach the contempt of them all, all standing upon like ground? Who do this? We, or they? Catholics, or Gospelers? & to speak briefly, what is their whole manner of writing, 
The new preaching a very mockery of scripture.  preaching, teaching, and living, but a very mockery of the gospel of Christ? such filthy application of holy write, as showeth them to use it for no other purpose but for colour and shroud of their filthiness. Rebuke a lecherous monk for his incest which he calleth Matrimony, 
1. Cor. 7. v. 9 see the annotations upon that chap.  o saith he, Better it is to marry then to burn. Require of him that he chastise his body with fasting and discipline for repressing of his beastly concupiscence: that is against God's word saith he. For, nemo carnem suam odio habuit, 
Ephe. 5. v. 29  No man hateth his own flesh, but loveth & cherisheth it. when such an Apostata is promoted amongst you to be a superintendant, 
The protestants use scripture for a veil 〈◊〉 coveral filthiness.  and then spoileth his tenants, wasteth his woods, pulleth down his hous●●● never built by him, or for him, or any of his religion▪ selleth away lead, tile, stone, and maketh money of all, reprove him for this oppression and ravine, he hath his text ready, 
1. Tim. 5. v. 8  He that provideth not for his own, and namely for them of his howsehold, he is worse than an Infidel. These interpretations & worse than these very many shall you find in Peter Martyrs book, De votis et caelibatu. 
Pet. Mar de votis & cael.  And at this present, what is the universal preaching of the ministers for the most part, but a very mockery & ridiculous abuse of scripture? what other is their common writing? and M.W. in the next chapped. will show himself in this kind as very a scorner as the worst.  
And whereas after all this he saith, Truly so far of is it that I think your translation will any ways harm our cause, that I wish the copies thereof were multiplied, and other men might be partakers thereof, This is as fowl a figure of hypocrisy as any hitherto touched. For if they think it will no ways hinder their cause but rather benefit it, why make they such busy inquiry after it? why burn they such as fall in to their hands? are they such witless babes as ●ain not suffer that which doth them good? Compare (good reader) their doings, their preachings, their searchings & inquiries, with this speech, and thou shall sensibly perceive that it is nought else but a very desperate facing out of a lie, and setting a bold countenance on that, which in deed pincheth them at the very heart root. With like phrase & character of shameless vaunting wrote M. 
jewel defence of the Apolog. part. 6. ca 8. ¶. 1.  jewel to D. Harding. we never suppressed any of your books M. Harding as you know, but are very well content to see them so common, that as now children may play with them in the streets. 
Incredible impudence in bragging and lying.  Thus his face served him to write then when in the self same Defence he suppressed by leaving out, the very substance of that book which he then pretended to answer, when by help of his felow-Superintendents and other friends, every corner of the realm was searched for those books, when the ports were laid for them, Paul's cross is witness of burning many of them, the Prince's proclamation was procured against them, in the Universities by sovereign authority, Colleges, chambers, studies, closerts, coffers, and desks, were ransacked for them, when not only children were forbid to play with them, but ancient m●●● and students of Divinity were imprisoned for having of them. So that all this can be nought else but a plain example of palpable dissimulation & affected lying. Ad populum phaleras, when intrinsically, they fear, and labour, and sweat, and by exterior signs declare thus much, and every day more and more misdoubt the ruin of their Atheistical gospel, which daily the more it is known, the more it groweth in horror and execration among honest natures: not only such as are directed by the spirit of God, but even such as are somewhat helped with the assistance of natural wisdom and honest inclination.  
But come we to the particular crimes laid against us, and whereupon this dreadful invective is properly builded, which is, 
The particular faults of our English translation.  our corrupting the text, or departing from our latin testament. For as we in examining their testament framed according to the greek as they pretended, reproved them not in their translation, nor could so do reasonably so long as precisely they kept themselves to their greek (for whether the greek ●a●ere so to be followed, is an other question) in like manner we proposing to translate the latin (which to us is as authentical as the greek to them) can not reasonably be blamed as false and corrupt translators, but where we have gone aside and left that original which we pretended to translate. And if herein we have erred, we gladly will acknowledge our oversight, and are ready to amend the same. And here (Reader) hast thou specially to mark, by what argument he verifieth that which he objecteth, 
A terrible accusation  Our profane corruptions, our outrageous boldness, our more violence used to the holy testament of Christ, then ever was used by any kind of heretic so notorious that all the world may judge that our intent was, To make the people scorn and contemn the word of God. how justifieth ●e all this? by what proof? for hitherto we have words, and nothing but words, such as every grammar-boy can pick out of the book which he readeth and join together. But from M. W. the Q. majesties reader, his auditors look for sounder stuff than such childish grammatical declaiming. 
How weakly the same is justified.  Many places (saith he) have I noted wherein you have manifestly erred from that your vulgar latin edition. that will I declare by one example, the like where of I could bring forth many. Surely this is very weak to maintain the greatness of the accusation thundered out before. And whereas you promise one example, and give us two, the reader may assure himself, you would have spared us three if you had been able. But belike these, one or two, are horrible monstrous faults, and touch matters of marvelous great height, Christ's Divinity, Humanity, Incarnation, Heaven, and Hell, such as are the faults of these men's bibles, and so these two may serve in steed of a number. Let us here them in M. W. own words. In the epistle to the Rom. ca 
Vbi supra.  13. v. 19 thus it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words the old interpreter turned thus, Non vosmet ipsos desendentes, but by you they are turned otherwise according to the greek verity, Not revenging yourselves. The like place is in Matth. 4. v. 16. where these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Mark the grievousness of these 2. faults.  the old interpreter turned, The people which walked in darkness, ambulavit in tenebris, as also in Hierom we read. but you following the greek exemplat have turned otherwise and more truly: The people that sitteth in darkness, Qui sedes in tenebris.  
Thus M. W. and this is al. And here first of all the reader may again remember how just cause I had to charge him with affected hypocrisy for exclaiming so tragically upon our testament wherein he findeth only these faults, which if they were faults, of what weight they are, every child may judge. But to pass that over, let the reader see how blindly & foully he is deceived. We have left our latin & followed the greek (saith he) in turning Defendentes, 
Defendere is well translated to revenge.  Revenging. and why so? how proveth he that we leave our latin? he will answer I suppose (for reason himself yieldeth none) because in all M. Cooper's Dictionary we find not, that Defendere signifieth To revenge. If that be true, then belike if we were master Cooper's scholars, the case would go somewhat hard with us. But if he will view other Dictionaries as well as M. Cooper's, he shall find both that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek, in latin is truly turned by Defendere, and Defendere in latin, is well and properly turned in English by Revenge. So the greek dictionary of Basile printed the year 1557. teacheth us. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, defendo, vindico, ulciscor, in alicuius gratiam. So the latin and french, and latin greek & french dictionaries printed at Paris the years 1559.1575 1580. set forth by Sonnius & Rob. Stephanus teach us, that Defendere signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, defender, garder, et preserver, venger, as well to revenge, as to defend, guard & preserve. And which is to us more than all, the dictionary of the Church, that is, the ancient ecclesiastical use of this word in the scripture & fathers teacheth us sometimes & in this place, this to be his proper & grammatical ense, and so the ancient fathers used this word. So Tertullian. 
Tertullian contra Martionem li. 2  Durum videbatur populo a deo expectare defensam edicendam postea per prophetam, mihi defensam et ego defendam. It seemed a hard thing for the jewish people (in Moses' time) to expect revenge from God which was afterwards promised by the prophet saying, To me revenge, and I will revenge. Where manifest it is that Defendere and defensa, is grammatically Revenge & To revenge, 
Ambros in Rom. ca 12.  & manifest it is that S. Ambrose doth not expound, but grammatically take the word Defendere, in the self same manner, that is, to signify Revenge, even as S. Hier. put it, or rather as I think left it, being so used by the former translator. So doth Haymo, so doth S. 
Beda in Rom. 12.  Bede, and maketh no scruple at it, but in his commentary taken out of S. Augustine expresseth by Vindicare that, which our interpreter uttered by Defendere.  
And the same is most plain by the translation of the bible itself. For whereas in other places, for example, in the story of Holofernes the greek is, That he swore he would, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
judith 1. v. 12. & 2. v. 1.  Revenge himself of all the lands, that doth the old interpreter utter by Defendere. 
ca 9 v. 2.  And in the 9 chap. where judith praiseth God, 
The year 1579.  saying according to the later English bible, O Lord God of my father simeon, to whom thou gavest a sword to take vengeance of the strangers, the latin is, Gladium ad defensionem abienigenarun, the greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the English bible printed two years before, 
1577.  translateth, A sword for a defence against the enemies, and putteth in the margin, 
1562.  Or to revengement. The former bible useth only, Defence & not Revenge at all, whereby it is clear that those translators having belike some more skill in the old use of this word them M.W. accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be well turned, either by Revenge, which is more proper, or by Defence, which is also most true, respecting the use of the latin, but must signify as much as Revenge in English, for else they translated falsely. So in Ecclesiasticus, that writer speaking of a father that dieth & leaveth behind him a good & wise son, among many other benefits which he hath thereby, he reckoneth this, 
Ecclesiastici 30. v. 6.  that he hath left one who will Defend & Revenge him against his enemies, in greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in our latin, Reliquit defensorem, in the English bibles, He least behind him an avenger. 
Of the years 1562.1577.1579.  The same writer speaking of the revenge wrought upon Baal's Priests for their Idolatry 3 Reg. 18. calleth it, 
Ecclesia●●ici 48. v. 7.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, our latin, juditia defensionis, the English bibles, judgement of vengeance.  
Many like words there are in the new testament, wherein if a man examine us according to the vulgar signification of the word as we learned it when we were children, we can not always avoid bl●me. 
Great difference oft-times in the sense of a word, as it is used by ecclesiastical writers & profane  But if we respect the true use of the latin word in the ancient Church, he whosoever blameth us, therein much more shameth himself. So in S. james, Naue● minanour, we translate not, Men threaten ships, 
jacob. 3. v. 4.  as some grammarian would perhaps imagine we ought, but ships, are carried or driven. Abraham confortatus est fide, 
Rom. 4. v. 20.  not, Abraham was comforted in faith, but, Was strengthened in faith. 
Mat. 11. v. 10.24.  Christus exprobravit civitatibus in quibus fact essent plurimae virtutes eius etc. quia si in Tyro et Sidone factae essent virtutes quae factae sunt in vobis, we English not, Christ upbraided the cities wherein were done most of his virtues etc. but, wherein were done most of his miracles, and because if in tire and Sidon had been wrought the miracles which have been wrought in you. I pass over very many examples of the like quality and nature, in all which we give not that English which the latin word seemeth at first to require, and yet for all that neither do we (as some man like M. W. may imagine) forsake our latin, and follow the greek, but by conference of latin with greek, and one place with an other, and by the fathers of the Church, and continual practice of the same, we know assuredly, that our enterpreter verbatim, word for word meant to express the greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. james, by his latin Minar●, that is, Te be driven. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paul by Confortari, that is, To be strengthened, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Mat●hew, by Virtutes, Miracles.  
And in this place it is most evident that our enterpreter so took the word Defendere, and that not only because we see his use in other places, but even by considering the pieces of this very sentence. Have peace with all men, 
Rom. 12. v.  Non vosmet ipsos defendentes charissmi, sed date locum irae: scriptum est enim, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Defendentes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mihi vindicta.  Mihi vindictam et ego retribuam, dicit dominus. Where very plain it is by the anteced●n●s, by the consequents, by the whole drift of the place, by that which he inferreth, that he meant to take Defendere in the former part, as signifying the same with vindicare in the later, where unto if we join the use of the same author in other places, the ancient speech of the Church and fathers, and the very new heretical bibles, we shall much more easily per●eue, that both he meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revenge by Defendere, when he first translated the greek into that latin, & that we truly gave his meaning, when we turned Defendere by Revenge, out of latin in to English. And so this first, is no Prodigious error, nor Profane novelty, nor Heretical contempt, nor Outrageous or desperate boldness, nor of our part any fault at all: but on M. W. part, it is a gross error, and a blind error, and foul ignorance, and great malice, and little wit, to amplify so outrageously a thing of so small value if it were an error, and a thing of no value being no error at al.  
The other perhaps that remaineth is huge & monstrous enough to make recompense for both. What is that? forsooth whereas Our old edition readeth Populus qui ambulavit in tenebris, 
A great and monstrous fault, to translate a thing more truly.  The people which hath walked in darkness, we according to the greek & more truly have translated, The people that sitteth in darkness, Populus qui sedet in tenebris. so that herein at least we have outrageously abused the people and desperately gone about to deceive them, by making them read more truly Sitting in darkness, whereas they should have read, walking in darkness. And how can we answer this? now in truth very hardly. For it is so bald a toy, as I know not which way well to begin with it. But to say somewhat, let me ask him for what purpose should we here forsake our latin and choose the greek? what article, what conclusion, what argument, either for ourselves or against the heretics get we by this alteration? Certainly he had need to be very subtle that could gather any.  
Next, if I answered that he belieth us, some man might think it rudely spoken: but it is most true. For to let pass that his reading is quite beside the book (for neither S. Hierom nor any old edition that I could yet find hath, Ambulavit, and manifest it is that we translate not, Sedet, Sitteth, as any man may judge that can read English) our vulgar copies had Sedebat, Sat, as we translated: & that is the most common reading, as may be seen, if any list to peruse the common prints of Andwarp or lovayne etc. of the years 1563, 1564, 1565, 1569, 1570, 1574, 1577, 1580, set forth by Brickeman, Tiletane, Gravius, Plantine, & sundry others.  
Thirdly I add, that here more evidently then in the last, 
The unconscionable demeanour of our adversaries.  the Christian reader may learn with what perverse, and malicious, and unconscionable adversaries we have to deal. The words are cited out of the Prophet Esay thus, Vt adimpleretur quod dictum est per Isaiam prophetam etc. 
Esa. 9 v. 2.  Populus qui sedebat in tenebris. The word which S. Matthew (or whosoever was author of this greek) turned, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Sedebat, is in Isai, Ambulabat, as also it is in the hebrew testament extant in S. Matthews name. of our vulgar testaments many read according to the hebrew, Ambulabat, more, according to the greek, Sedebat. In the sense there can not be imagined any difference without manifest reproof of the Evangelist. For clear it is, that he citeth not the text according to the 70 who read otherwise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but translated it of himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And to leave the authority of the Evangelist, plain it is, that either word is of so small force in this place, that it skilleth not one jot whether you take the hebrew or greek, Ambulabat, or Sedebat. yea the greatest Protestants follow according to the letter, neither the one nor the other, neither hebrew nor greek, but put other words which they esteem in sense to be equivalent: Beza, 
Beza, Illyricus, Castalio.  Populus positus in tenebris, Illyricus, Populus qui agebat in tenebris, Castalio, Populus in tenebris degens, etc. So that if in either of our latin testaments be any error, one following precisely the hebrew of the prophet, the other the greek of the evangelist, how much greater is their fault which follow neither of both? But not to spend time in so vain a cau●l, the truth is (reader) we followed as I have said, the common & best corrected prints, which have this in the text, & the other in the margin. And therefore in this also, note thou to what beggarly shifts this man is driven, who to make some show of talking is glad to snatch at such shadows, to imagine faults, to say lies, and the some nothing worth if they were granted.  
And these faults in number of objecting, two, for any colour pretence or show, one, in truth & verity, none, 
Parturiu●● montea.  are all those profane, horrible, outrageous, and desperate corruptions committed in our testament, for which he boldly pronounceth as from his chair of estate, that this 5000 years from the first creation of the world (he might have added, or 50000 years before) there was never set forth a new testament in any language, so full of outrageous faults, so much to the contempt and irrision of God's word, & wherein the desperateness of the papists so much appeared etc. A man might say, 
Juvenal.  Medici mediam pertundite venam, or, minister unto him some physic: for surely he seemeth not to be very well in his wits.   

CHAP. XVI. A defence of such faults as are found in the annotations of the new testament.  
FROM the translation, which he impugneth by such strong arguments as now hath been showed, he proceedeth to the annotations, which he refelleth with like learning and wisdom. And first he beginneth as before with a like invective in these words. Nihil illis annotationibus contaminatius unquam in lucem prodiit etc. 
Pag. 21.  Nothing was ever published a broad more corrupt than those annotations. Truly as heretofore I have ever hated the Roman religion even with all my heart, so soon as I could judge of it, so now I confess that I am induced by these men's desperateness and importunity to abhor it much more. How much or how little he abhorreth our religion, were it not for regard of his own soul, it is not much material. For except he have better learning in store than he hath uttered yet, I trust his great hatred against it will not do it any great harm. And these are but words. And as he upon this pretended occasion, conceiveth so evil of our faith (if he mean as he speaketh) so I know many, who having been brought up not in Catholic religion as he was in heresy, but in heresy with him, & continuing a long time in the same, and loving it with all their heart, coming to better judgement, through the grace of God, 
The incredible lying & falsifications used by the English writers of our time, are a great motive to the Catholic faith.  upon consideration of such lying writers as he most honoureth, M. jewel, M. Horn etc. have been so altered, that they have detested his gospel even to hell gates: of which number I confess myself to be one. But this kind of asseveration is common to both sides. This rather is worth the examining, whether we have ministered him sufficient occasion to fall in to so deep hatred of the Catholic faith, or they rather have given us just cause in like manner to abhor their new gospel. This in some part will appear by M W. discourse against these Annotations.  

Pag. 22.  Thus he proceedeth. I doubt not but when this beat of the Papists is somewhat cooled, wise men will daily more and more dislike that religion. For when they understand such things as of old were always accounted false or at least suspected, the same now to be set forth of these men as most true articles of the Roman religion, when they consider with themselves how miserably these men abuse the holy scriptures to most absurd interpretations, it can not otherwise be but that they will disallow the whole cause of the Papists, which they see to be supported with such trifles and tales. 
Mat. 2. v. 11.  When they hear the wise men which came from the East to worship Christ to be called three kings, whose names are Gaspar, 
mat. 3. v. 12.  Melchior, Balthasar. That john Baptist was a monk and father of monks. That when S. 
Act. 7. v. 58.  Stevin was stoned to death a stone rebounded back from his elbow which now is kept at A●cona in Italy. That Elias the Thesbite is expected to come before the later day.  
Unto three heads he reduceth all the faults which he findeth in the Annotations. 
The sum of M W accusation.  To errors committed in matters historical, to faults committed in framing arguments, and to certain blasphemies as he calleth them uttered against S. Paul. The first part is comprised in these words which here thou seest. The second and third shall follow in order. To answer all that he saith point by point, what he meaneth by aestus pontificius, Heat of the Papists which he hopeth will be cooled, I know not well. If he mean the zeal of good Priests who to reclaim some from damnation, venture their lives in England. 
The protestants manner of disputing.  although he with his fellow ministers take a ready way to cool their heat by their strange manner of disputing, I mean by thrusting in every Syllogism a conclusion of treason, from Sacrament, Mass, 
Tower disputation Tyburn disputation.  Confession, Reconciliation, Church, inferring, ●go you are traitors, and so inflaming the civil magistrate to answer by hanging, them whom they cannot answer by learning, yet our lord be praised this manner of their dealing, though it be bloody and of them assumed against the preaching of their first apostles and martyrs even of necessity, 
See M. Fox. martirologe in King Henry's time.  because otherwise they see their gospel can not stand, yet I say, our lord be praised, experience showeth that it cooleth none, but inflameth many. 
Luc. 12. v. 48  Ignem veni mittere in terram (saith our Saviour) et quid volo nisi ut ardeat? & howsoever our lord shall deal hereafter with our Country, whether he will abandon it to Apostasy, as he hath Asia and Africa, or reduce it to the unity of his church, which he of his infinite mercy grant, thus much assure yourself M. W. that this kind of heat will never be cooled in your days. The plot is laid, the charges are cast, and the matter is begun, and we see and feel that Christ hath powered his blessing upon it abundantly.  
If you mean the heat of writing books, with which notwithstanding you are not much troubled, the way to cool that heat is, either to answer them more substantially than hitherto you have, 
English writers.  or else not to answer them at al. For so long as you set forth such stuff as you for your part and your late writers of like quality allow us, yourselves blow the coals and make matter to kindle the fire, that if men would be silent, children may find sufficient argument to prove you heretics.  
If you imagine that our church is so unconstant that she will in short time leave this zeal in preaching the Catholic religion, 
The Catholic Church built upon a rock. (Christ) and therefore in all times constant & unmovable.  and thereby that your congregation shall gather strength and stability, and wise men will fall in good liking thereof, than your ignorance is great, who know neither the nature of our Catholic Church & religion, nor of your own heretical faith and congregation. Not of ours, because you may learn, or remember that from Christ's time hitherto, neither by persecuting Emperors, nor by undermining heretics, otherwise qualified them are the Lutherans or zwinglians of these days, it was or could ever be subverted, but rather the more it was assaulted, the better irresisted, the more it was gainsaid, the more it flourished, & when subtle heretics upon temporal favour were most insolent, than she most excellently did defend herself. Examples you have of the times of S. Augustine against Pelagius & the Manichees, S. Hieron against jovinian and Vigilantius, Lanfrancus against Berengarius, and all the Primitive church against Constantius, Valens, and Arrius. 
The English church bu●lt upon the favour of Lords & Ladies, gentlemen and gentlewomen, and therefore ever tottering, and variable.  Ignorant you are of your own faith and gospel, because you may remember that neither had it ever any stay or stability since it was first begotten, neither can it have so long as it endureth, the very pillars which under prop it being such rotten matter, as of itself quickly corrupteth & falleth in to dust.  

Fox act and monuments pag. 512 Desire of revenge. Ibid. p. 592. Covetousness.  For when in king Henry's reign it first set foot in our realm upon occasions which I am content to pass over, though M. Fox to the everlasting shame both of such a gospel and such gospelers, have recorded them and committed them to eternal memory, how variable a state it had your elders know, 
Fox acts & monuments in Henri. 8. pa. 1295. postremae aeditionis.  & he much complaineth. Even as the king was ruled (saith he) & gave care sometime to one, sometime to an other, so one while religion went forward, at an other season as much backward again, sometime clean altered and changed for a season, as they could prevail which were about the king. So long as Q. Anne lived, the gospel had indifferent good success. And not only Queens, but very mean gentlemen and doctors of physic were then able to craze your gospel, and set it backward or forward as pleased them. For so much also is recorded in M. Fox's story in the end of king Henry's life.  
Thus writeth he. So long as Queen Anne, L. Cromwell, B. Cranmer, M. Denny, D. Butts, with such like, were about the King and could prevail with him, 
Fox acts & monuments, in the end of king Henry's life▪ pag. 682.  what organ of Christ's glory did more good in the church than he? Again when sinister & wicked counsel had gotten once the foot in, thrusting truth & verity out of the prince's ears, how much as religion and all good things went forward before, so much on the contrary side all revolted backward again. And this gospel (as M. Fox calleth it) which King Henry left established as he thought most assuredly by Act of Parliament, 
Continual change of the English faith.  in his son King Edward's days went clean upside down. In Q. Mary's days came a new alteration. under the Q. Majesty that now is, an other clean contrary. And at this present, find you not a general murmuring even amongst the Protestants against the Communion book and state of religion which in the beginning of her majesties reign was brought in? If the Catholics said nothing, have you not the Puritans most eagerly detesting your faith, and were it not for the Prince's sword, like to dispossess you of chayrs and churches? And what stability can that gospel have which altogether dependeth of the good allowance of the Prince and her council in Parliament, which we know within these fifty years so often to gain said one an other. And if it should please God to turn the queens heart to the catholic faith (for which we incessantly pray) were not the face of your religion streightwaies altered & turned quite upside down? must nor the inferior parts of the body turn and frame themselves according to the head? would not the same statutes which now are unjustly executed upon Catholics, without alteration of any one word, be much more justly executed upon the Ministers & Superintendents, if so be they called her Majesty Schismatic or Heretic? Wherefore little reason have you to imagine that wisemen will fall in liking of your new devised fancy, which as it altogether dependeth upon the Favour of Court and Courtiers, so for this very reason, must needs ever remain as changeable as the Court and Courtly benevolence is.  
And your father Luther who best knew the nature of his children, and quality of your religion, giveth such a sentence of it, 
Luther's judgement of the sacramentary religion.  as I doubt not at this present is allowed of all the wisest of our Realm, and much confirmed by your manner of writing. The arguments and reasonings of the sacramentaries (saith he) are such vain words without wit, 
Luther tom. 7. defensio. verborum coenae fol. 381.  that I can not marvel sufficiently how learned men can be moved with such lies. & truly they do their matters with so fearful a conscience, 
Trepida conscientia.  that they seem to wish they had never taken them in hand. Equiden opinor si eis esset potestas de integro consulendi, quòd numquam inciperent. Verily I suppose if they were to consult of the matter a fresh, they would never begin their sacramentary heresy. And I verily suppose, if the wise governors of our Realm who now may see the issue of your gospel, what wickedness and iniquity in life, confusion and Atheism in faith, contempt of God and man it hath brought with it, if they were now to consult of the matter a fresh, I believe verily with your father Martin Luther, that amongst all heresies of name at this time currant in the Christian world, they would least of all have admitted yours, as being the most gross, most licentious, and most unprobable of all others.  

Faults historical.  But come we to the particular faults historical committed by us. Things always accounted false or suspected, we set forth as most true articles of the Roman religion, as that the wise men which came from the East, were 3 kings and had such names. That S. john Baptist was father of monks, That a stone with which Steven was stoned to death, is reserved at Ancona etc. Before I come to make answer, 
Note.  I wish the reader to carry in remembrance, first the greatness of his accusation against us, That never any thing came forth in print, More contaminate than these annotations, That we have showed herein great desperatenes and importunity, That things always accounted false or suspected, we affirm as most true articles of the Roman religion etc. Then what we promised in these amnotations. Touching which, in the preface of the new testament thus we writ. 
In the preface fol. b. two  In these annotations we show the studious reader, the Apostolic tradition, the expositions of the holy fathers, the decrees of the Catholic church and most ancient Counsels. which means who so ever trusteth not for the sense of holy scriptures, but had rather follow his private judgement or the arrogant spirit of these Sectaries, he shall worthily through his own wilfulness be deceived. Now whether part faileth in performance of that which it undertaketh, whether we give not The sense of holy scriptures according to the Apostolic tradition, the expositions of holy fathers, or whether he convince us of Desperateness, and importunity, and such contamination as he threateneth, this is that which the reader concerning either side, hath ro note and consider.  
Of the wise men thus we say. These three sages, 
In Mat. 2. v. 11.  being principal men of their country, represent the whole state of Princes, Kings, and Emperors, 
Psal. 71. Esa. 60.  that were according to the prophecies of David and Esay to believe in Christ, to humble themselves to his cross, to foster, every, adorn and defend his church: where upon it is also a very convenient and agreeable tradition of antiquity, 
Chrysost. Theophil. Cic. de divinat. Plin. lib. 20.  and a received opinion among the faithful, not lacking testimonies of ancient writers, and much for the honour of our Saviour, that these three also were Kings: 
Esther. 1.13.14.  to wit, either according to the state of those countries, where the princes were Magi, & Magi the greatest about the prince: or as we read in the scriptures, of Melchisedech King of Salem, 
Tob. 2.15. Ambro. 1. office ca 12.  & many other Kings that dwelled within a small compass: or as jobes' three friends are called Kings. These are commonly called the three Kings of Colen, because their bodies are there, translated thither from the East country. Their names are said to have been Gaspar, Melchior, Balthasar. In these words thou seest (reader) upon what ground, and with what moderation we speak of that matter, not precisely avouching them to be Kings in such sort as we commonly esteem of that name, but after an other sort and some inferior degree. Albeit if we affirmed them to be as great monarch as the Kings of France or Spain, or the great Sophy of Persia, we might so affirm for aught he bringeth to the contrary.  
But because M. W. maketh his first entrance with this matter, as though it were so absurd, let us search out wherein lieth the great absurdity and fault committed in this note. Is it trow you, in that we call them Kings, or in that we say they were three, or in that by our report their names are said to have been such? 
That the wise men were kings.  If because of the first, let him show his reason why that can be so harmful, what it maketh against the honour of Christ, what against the verity of the scriptures, the faith of the church, tradition ecclesiastical, the manners of men, or any title, point or dependence of Christianity, and Christian profession. The like I affirm of the second, the like of the third, the like of all three joined together. We call them kings, and why not? seeing the scripture well beareth with that appellation, and the ancient fathers have so called them many hundred years before we were borne. 
Tertullian contra Marcionem. l. 3. Cyprian. ser. de Bapt. number. 1. Chrys. hom. 1. ex variis in Mat. locis  So Tertullian in his 3. book against Martion calleth them. so S. Cyprian calleth them, in his sermon De baptismo et manifestation Christi. And S. Chrysostom proveth by scripture that they were kings. thus he writeth. The wisemen offered gifts to this child Christ according as the holy Ghost had testified before of them, saying isaiah 60. They shall come from Saba offering gold, and frankincense, & precious stone. We acknowledge that the wise men evidently fulfilled this prophecy. David quoque de his ita testatur, psal. 71. Reges Thaersis et Insulae munera offerent, Reges Arabum et Saba dona adducent. David also witnesseth of these, psal. 71. The kings of Thaersis and the Isles shall offer gifts, The kings of the Arabians and Saba shall bring presents. And S. 
Hier. in psa. 71.  Hierom apply that text of the psalm to them in like manner. And Tertullian against the Jews who seemed with M. W. to envy all this honour of Christ writeth thus. David also spoke of this offering of gold when he said, 
Tertull. contra judaeos probatio. nativit. Christi.  ps. 71. there shall be given to him of the gold of Arabia. and again, the kings of Arabia and Saba shall bring him gifts. Nam et magos reges serè habuit Oriens. 

Aug. ser. 43. ad fatres in Ere.  
Claudian. in Epigrana. Isidorus & Remigius apud D. Tho. in catena in Mat. 2. Theophi. in Mat. 2. Ansel. in Mat. ca 2.   For the East part had commonly such wise men for their kings. S. Augustin plainly nameth them kings. so doth Claudianus, so doth S. Isidorus, so doth S. Remigius, so doth Theop●ilactus, so do generally the writers that have lived in the church this later 500 years as we learn by S. Anselme, who speaketh De istis tribus regibus, Of these three kings, as of a thing most usual & vulgar. 
Gesnerus in Pandectis universa. lib. ultimo. tit. 2. fol. 29.  And Conradus Gesnerus directeth you to certain writers who have made treatises, De tribus Magis, De tribus sanctis regibus, Of these three wise men, Of these three holy kings. And among these ancient and Catholic fathers to allege one new, 
Zuing. to. 4. in Mat. ca 2.  Zuinglius holdeth it as very probable that they were kings. Thus he speaketh of them, writing upon the 2 chapter of S. Matthew. Magi (saith he) sunt sapientes et astrorum et omnium rerum peritissimi. huiusmodi homines ferè administrationi rerum publicarum adhibuerunt gentiles. Magi are wisemen skilful in astronomy and all other matters. The gentiles made such men commonly governors of their common wealths. After all which, for us to call them kings, how can it in any sort be hurtful or prejudicial to any truth of Christian religion? Nay on the contrary side, whosoever carpeth at this, certainly he maligneth the glory of our Saviour, he secretly detracteth from his honour, and maliciously pincheth and snarleth at the ancient and Apostolic church, which in this sort witnessed such prophecies to have been fulfilled.  
But perhaps M. W. 
That the wise men were three.  is offended at the number of three, where upon S. Augustine so sweetly alludeth unto the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and that Christ was King, God, and yet should die as a mortal man. This is that great corruption which so grieveth him. But who would be grieved here at, except some detestable Arian, Trinitarian, Libertine, or Anabaptist, against whose religion only (for aught I know) that note maketh. And touching the story that they were three, 
August. ser. 1 de epiphas. Leo sermo. 2.3.4.5.6.8.  S. Austin plainly affirmeth it, Tres erant. So saith S. Leo the Great and first of that name, above a dozen times in his sermons upon the feast of the epiphany. And whereas the Evangelist speaketh of them, not in the dual but in the plural number, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fewer they could, not well be, and more we need not to believe, except we see more reason than yet appeareth.  

Their names.  And touching the last part, vz, Their names are said to have been such, how could we have spoken more moderately? For who hath heard them called by any other names? And I suppose they were not nameless. And if they had names, why not Gaspar, Melchior, Balthasar, rather than William, john, and Thomas, or any other, that M. W. list to imagine, whereas the common opinion of our forefathers maketh for the first, no probability or reason can be brought for the second. And if M. W. believe that the jewish synagogue erred not in continuing by tradition without scripture the names of Pharaos' wicked sorcerers, jannes' and Mambres, 
2. Tim. 3. v. 8.  why thinketh he not this much more likely, that the Church would keep in remembrance the names of these such excellent men, who with so great danger came so far to adore our Saviour in his infancy, and are called Primitiae gentium, in whom the Church of the gentiles first began? But howso ever the exact truth be in this case, it is a very small point of desperateness for us to write, that their names are said to have been such, & most false it is that we set this forth, as a most certain article of the Roman religion: and whatsoever, either in general or in special shall be objected hereafter, in the mean season the annotation grounded upon good reason, gathered out of the scriptures, the psalms of David, isaiah, Esther, Tobias, besides other authority sacred and profane, S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom, Theophilact, Cicero, and Pliny, in any judgement (I trow) is able to countervail the bare word of so silly a man as M. W. showeth himself.  

Mat. 3. v. 1.  Touching S. john thus we say. Mat. 3. v. 1. Desert. Of this word desert (in greek Eremus) cometh the name Eremitages, & Eremites, that live a religious & austere life in deserts and solitary places, by the example of S. 
Monastical life.  john Baptist, whom the holy doctors therefore call the prince, and as it were the author of such profession. S. Chrysost. hom. 1. in Marcum. et hom. de Io. Baptista. Hieron ad Eustach. de eustod. virg. Isid. l. 2. c. 15. de diui. off. Bernardus de excel. Io. Baptistae. wherewith the protestāns are so offended, that they say S. 
Magd. cent. 5. c. 6. pag. 711.  Chrysost. spoke rashly & untruly. And no marvel, for whereas the Evangelist himself in this place maketh him a perfect pattern of penance and Eremitical life, for desert or wilderness, for his rough and rude apparel, for abstaining from all delicate meats (according to our saviours testimony also of him, 
Cent. 1. li. 1. cap. 10. Cythraeus in 3. ca Mat. ●ucerus ibi.  Mat. 11.8. Luc. 7.33.) they are not ashamed to pervert all with this strange commentary, that it was a desert full of towns & villages, his garment was chanlet, his meat such as the country gave and the people there used: to make him thereby but a common man like to the rest in his manner of life: clean against scriptures, fathers and reason. 
Be Canis. de verbi Dei corruptelis lib. 5. c. 2.3.4  Here (Christian reader) to prove that S. john was a monk, thou hast as before, reason plainly deduced out of the scriptures, thou hast the ancient fathers deducing the same with us, S. Hierom, S. Chrysostom, S. Isidorus, S. Bernard. Against these scriptures and ancient Doctors, 
An easy kind of answering.  thou hearest the bare word of this new Doctor, who had he ever been a good scholar, would never so boldly without face or forehead have abused thy patience, as to oppose his only word against these reasons, Doctors, and scriptures.  
Touching the stone which is reserved at Ancona, and the coming of Elias before the day of judgement thus we say, Of the first, 
Act. 7. v. 58.  Read a marvelous narration in S. Augustine of one stone, 
Relics & miracles in the honour of Martyrs.  that hitting the Martyr on the elbow rebounded back to a faithful man that stood near, who keeping & carrying it with him, was by revelation warned to leave it at Ancona in Italy: whereupon a Church or Memory of S. Steven was there erected, and many miracles done after the said martyrs body was found out, and not before. Aug. tomo 10. Ser. 38. de diversis. in aedit. Paris. Now of all these, miracles, Church built in memory of Martyrs, Revelations, Stone reserved, M. W. digesteth well the rest, only he seemeth to wonder that a stone could be kept so long. As though that were so wonderful a case, or there were not both in scripture, 
Hebrew. 9 vers. 4.  as Aaron's rod and the Manna, and out of the scripture, as all Churches through Christendom are witness, many things preserved as long time, far more unlike to continue then stones, which may well endure fifteen hundred years five times told, if they be kept as well as that at Ancona. And whatsoever fault he find in the story, let him scoff at S. Austin who so seriously rehearseth it, not at us, who refer only the reader to S. Austin, and speak never a word of ourselves.  

Mat. 17. v. 11  And the like I answer for the second, of which these are our words. Christ distinguisheth here plainly between Elias in person, who is yet to come before the judgement, and between Elias in name, to wit, john the Baptist, who is come already in the spirit and virtue of Elias. So that it is not john Baptist only nor principally of whom Malachi prophesieth (as our Adversaries say) but Elias also himself in person▪ which annotation containeth nothing else touching this point, but the very words of our Saviour and the prophet Malachi, That Elias shall come. which words when our Saviour spoke, S. john baptist, who was Elias by some resemblance, figure, and office, was past and dead. This truth else where we approve by the authority of S. Aust. Tract. 4. in joan. 
Apoc. c. 11. vers. 3.  li. 1. de pec. mer. ca 3. and the rest of the latin Doctors. as S. Hierom ad Pammach. epist. 61. ca 11. et in psal. 20. S. Ambr. in psal. 45. S. Hilar. can. 20. in Matth. Prosper. lib. vlt. de promise. ca 13. S. Greg. lib. 14. Moral. ca 11. et homil. 12. in Ezech. Beda. in. 9 Marci. The Greek fathers also, as S. Chrysost. hom. 58. in Matt. et hom. 4. in 2. Thess. et hom. 21. in Genes. et hom. 22. in epist. ad Hebr. Theophilact. and Oecumen. in 17. Matth. S. Daemas. lib. 4. de Orthodoxa fide. ca 27. Finally by the universal consent of all Christians, where of S. Austin is witness in these words. Heliam Thesbitem ultimo tempore venturum ante judicium, 
Aug. de civit. li. 20. cap. 29.  celeberrimum est in sermonibus cordibusque fidelium. That Elias the Thesbite shall come before the day of judgement, it is a most notorious thing in the mouth and hearts of faithful men. And now the Prophet foretelling so, our Saviour affirming so, the ancient fathers both Greek & Latin teaching so, faithful and christian men always believing so, this is the question which I will not dispute but leave it at large, and M. W. may do well to put it to his thesis of Antichrist (for they are both just of like probability) and handle it at the next comencement, vz, whether we must rather credit him upon his bare word telling us one thing, or the universal consent of Christendom & the primitive Church, 
Intolerable boldness and arrogancy.  rising upon the express words of the prophet and our Saviour himself, teaching us the contrary. And these touching matters historical, be the horrible faults of our Annotations, for which he accuseth us of Desperateness, and them of such absurdity, that never any thing more contaminate and corrupt, was set abroad in the sight of the world.  

Faults in making arguments.  Our errors in making arguments are far more, at least in number and show, how soever they prove in substance and truth. I will follow the order begun, that is, first particularly I will write down the argument which he fathereth upon us, than the reason as we gave it out: by conference whereof▪ the indifferent reader shall be able to judge either of our ignorance, or his impudency. Thus he proceedeth. Wise men must needs much more abhor from your religion, when they shall find you thus to gather of the scriptures. Christ and Peter walked on the waters. 
Whit. pa. 22 Argument. 1.  ergo the body of Christ may be shut up in a little bread. Our words are these. 
Mat. 14. v. 26  When not only Christ, but by his power Peter also walketh upon the waters, it is evident that he can dispose of his own body above nature, & contrary to the natural conditions thereof, as to go through a door, john 20. to be in the compass of a little bread. Ephiphan. in A●nchorato. Let M. Whitaker show the reason why the one followeth not as well as the other, why he will more abridge Christ's power, and bind him to the rules of nature in the Sacrament, then in that miraculous entering to his disciples, or walking on the waters. A●beit if he had advisedly considered the note, he might have perceived the same to consist, not so much in our collection, as in the authority of Epiphanius, 
Real presence.  who maketh the case of Christ's being in the Sacrament so clear, that he accounteth M. W. and his fellows for their infidelity in that behalf, reprobates from the face of God, and sure of eternal damnation. Excidit a gratia et salute, in the place before quoted.  
Peter walked on the waters. Ergo the Pope of Rome hath authority over all the church. 
Mat. 14. v. 29   
This application as S. Bernard and Catholic men use it, is no more reprovable, then that of our Saviour, As Moses exalted the serpent in the desert, 
joan. 3. v. 14  so must the son of man be exalted, Or that of S. 
cal. 4. d  Paul, Abraham had two sons Ishmael and Isaac, one of the bond woman according to the flesh, and one of the free woman by promise. And as then he that was borne according to the flesh, persecuted him that was after the spirit, so now also. But for a man to follow M. W. 
Scripture made ridiculous, when it cometh to the handling of profane men.  example, and make Christ or S. Paul to argue after his pattern thus, The serpent was exalted in the desert, Ergo Christ must be hanged on the cross, or, Abraham's two sons could not well agree, but Ishmael vexed Isaac, Ergo the Jews must vex and persecute the Christians, this in old time would have been accounted divinity fit for Lucian and such like scorners, howsoever it be now used of these new gospelers in great sadness. Thus standeth our note. Peter (saith S. Bernard) walking upon the waters, as Christ did, 
Peter's primacy.  declared himself the only vicar of Christ, which should be ruler not over one people, but over al. For many waters are many people's. Bernard. lib. 2. the considerate. ca 8. See the place, how he deduceth from Peter the like authority and jurisdiction to his successor the bishop of Rome.  
The good Samaritane said to the host, whatsoever thou shalt supererogate, 
Luc. 10. v. 35.  I will restore it to the. ergo there are works of supererogation. This argument followeth well enough, and it is S. Augustins conclusion, not ours. This is the annotation. S. Augustine saith that the Apostle (1. Cor. 9) according to this place did supererogate, that is, did more than he needed or was bound to do, when he might have required all duties for preaching the Gospel, but would not. li. de op. Monach. c. 5. Whereof it cometh, that the works which we do more than precept, be called w●rkes of Supererogation: and whereby it is also evident against the Protestants, that there be such works. See Optatus li. 6. cont. Parm. how aptly he applieth this parable to S. Paul's counsel of virginity (1 Cor. 7.) as to a work of supererogation.  
Christ was transfigured. ergo he giveth us his body in form of bread and wine. 
Ma●. 17. v. 2.  This is M. W. scoffing, not our arguing. we only deduce hence, that Christ may so do, as not being bound to philosophical rules or conditions of nature, which is clear and manifest, not that for this cause he doth so, which is foolish and impertinent. See the first argument. Our words are. Mark in this Transfiguration many marvelous points. As, that he made not only his own body, which then was mortal, but also the bodies of Moses and Elias, the one dead, the other to die, for the time as it were immortal: thereby to represent the state and glory of his body, and his Saints in heaven. By which marvelous transfiguring of his body, you may the less marvel that he can exhibit his body under the form of bread and wine, or otherwise as he list.  

Mat. 22. v. 30 Scripture falsified.  Saints in heaven are like unto Angels, because they use not marriage. ergo they can hear the prayers of all men, & every where succour us. This consequent consisteth of two parts, the one is, the falsification of Christ's reason, the other is like falsification of our argument drawn thence. For neither Christ said, Saints are like unto Angels, because they use not marriage, but contrariwise, they use not marriage, because they are like unto Angels: neither infer we their ability of hearing or succouring us, for that false cause which M. W. assigneth, but because they are advanced unto the state and condition of angels as saith our Saviour, whose office ●s to secure and aid men, as in the scripaure we find every where, and the very English Communion book doth teach and allow. 
Communion book, in the collect of Michaelmas day.  The difference is as great, as if when one argueth thus, N. is a man, therefore he hath a head: an other should invert it after this sort, N. hath a head, therefore he is a man. The first is true, as any may perceive. the second is false, as whereby an ass or a goose is proved to be a man. This is our note. As Christ proveth here, that in heaven they neither marry nor are married, 
The Saints hear our prayers.  because there they shall be as Angels: by the very same reason, is proved, that Saints may hear our prayers and help us, be they near or far of, because the Angels do so, and in every moment are present where they l●st, and need not to be near us, when they hear or help us.  
joseph wrapped Christ's body in sindon. 
Mat. 27. v. 59  ergo Christ's body on the altar must be laid in pure linen. I know not what M. W. disliketh in this argument, whether the real presence of the same body on the altar, which was in the sepulchre, or the linen used at the altar, as it was in the sepulchre, or the relation from one to the other. Because each part is warranted in the Annotation by sufficient authority, I think it needless to add any more, until I better know the point whereat he is offended. This is the note. This honour and duty done to Christ's body being dead, was marvelous grateful and meritorious. And this wrapping of it in clean sindon may signify by S. 
S. Hiero. in hunc locum  Hierom, that the body of our Lord is to be wrapped not in gold, precious stones, and silk, but in pure linen. 
To. 1. Conc.  And so in the whole Church it is observed by S. silvester's constitution, that the Corporal whereupon our lords body lieth on the altar, must be pure and plain linen.  
The women came to behold the sepulchre. Ergo now we must go in pilgrimage to the holy sepulchre. 
Mat. 28. v. 1.  If M.W. enforce the word, must, as it seemeth, we confess the argument followeth not, 
Pilgrimage to holy places.  and the argument so, is of his own devising, not of ours. For we bind not, nor enforce any man by this example, but they that list, may tarry at home, and take their ease. Marry weighing that duty of visiting such holy places in itself, without constraining or binding any to it of necessity, then presupposing this to be well done by these holy women, the reason followeth well thence, to approve the like devotion of Christian people now. And this deduction is justified by S. Hierom and the universal consent of Christendom in his time. The words of the note are. The devout women came to visit our saviours Sepulchre, and for their devotion first deserved to know the Resurrection, and to see him risen. The honour of which Sepulchre and of the pilgrimage thereunto in the primitive Church, S. Hierom declareth in these words. 
In epist. 17. Paul. & Eus●. ad Marcel. tom. 1.  The jews sometime honoured Sancta Sanctorum, because there were the Cherubs, & the Propitiatory, and the Ark of the Testament, Manna, Aaron's rod, & the golden altar. Doth not the Sepulchre of our lord seem to thee more honourable? which as often as we enter into so often do we see our Saviour lie in the sindon: and staing there a while, we see the Angel again sit at his feet, and at his head the napkin wrapped together. 
Esa. 11.  The glory of whose Sepulchre, we know was long prophesied before joseph hewed it out, by Esay saying. And his rest shall be honour: to wit, because the place of our lords burial should be honoured of all men. A●d at this present, notwithstanding the Turks dominion, yet do the religious Christian Catholic me●n by Gods mighty providence keep the holy Sepulchre, which is within a goodly Church, and Christians come out of all the world in Pilgrimage to it.  
Christ appeared to the two disciples in an other form. 
Mar. 16. v. 12  ergo he is in the sacrament in form of bread. This is of like quality with the fourth, & needeth no farther answer. The words are. 
Christ body under divers forms  Christ though he have but one corporal shape, natural to his person, yet by his omn potency he may be in whatsoever form, and appear in the likeness of any other man or creature, as he list. Therefore e●et no man think it strange, that he may be under the form of bread in the B Sacrament.  
Christ to the man dumb and deaf said, Ephpheta. 
Mar. 7. v. 34.  ergo exorcism is to be used, & the same words to be recited in baptism. This ergo, is as wise as many of the rest, for absolutely no more necessary it is to use, Ephpheta, in baptism because Christ so spoke, than it is to use, Eli Eli Lammazabachthani, 
Mat. 27. v. 46  which Christ spoke as well as the other. Argument we make none, but only we note out of S. Ambrose, that the ancient and primitive Church, which best knew which words & actions of Christ were imitable, which were not, that Church retained this word & other ceremonies used by our Saviour. 
Aug. de Ecclesiasticis dogma. c. 31▪ Idem de nupt●is, & concupis ē●●a. lib. 2 ca 18. & 29.  As also the same Church universally used, Exorcism, as witnesseth S. Austin, which he calleth, Traditionem ve●ust●ss●●●am, antiqu●ssimam, undatissimam, in Ecclesia toto orb diffusa. A tradition most old and ancient, and most grounded in the Church dispersed through the whole world. Our words are. The Church doth most godly imitate & use th●se very words and ceremonies of our Saviour in the Exorcisms before baptisms, 
Exorcisms and other ceremonies in baptism.  to the healing of their souls that are to be baptized, as Christ hear healed though bodily infirmity and the disease of the soul together. Ambr lib. 1. de Sacram. ca 1.  
Luke the Evangelist used a familiar preface. 
Luc. 1. v. 3.  ergo the author of the second book of the Maccabees might desire pardon and excuse his slenderness, and yet his writings be Canonical. This argument followeth well. & M.W. will make many worse before he make one better, if he take and wa●gh the word and reason as they are delivered in the Annotation. For it doth derogate as much from the majesty of the holy Ghost to use human helps in searching out the truth, as to crave pardon for the style and manner of writing. And if you will apply this note to that argument made against the Maccabees, 
Pag. 3.  and so much vaunted of by your dearest brother in Christ. M. W. Charke in the Tower, you shall find the case to be like, and both S. Luke and the Maccabees, touching your censure to stand upon one ground. Thus urgeth he there. 
In the 4. days conference. The protestants reason against the Maccabees, is as forcible against S. Luke's gospel.  The writers of scripture ask not any pardon either for the matter or for the manner. Again, Whatsoever is the word of the holy Ghost neither doth ask, nor doth need pardon in any respect. Again, The holy Ghost never asketh pardon of man for any thing he doth, for that were to bring God under man & make the spirit of God subject to the allowance or disallowance of sinful flesh. And may not all this as well be applied against S. Luke? The holy Ghost is not ignorant, so as he needeth to run to sinful flesh, thence to learn what Christ did. The holy Ghost can of himself teach his Evangelists and craveth not help of mortal man etc. And therefore S. Luke writeth not of the holy Ghost, when he professeth himself to write by human aid & diligence.  
Much more these reasons take from us many entire epistles of S. Paul. 
More arguments of human spirit in S. Paul's epistles than in the book of Maccabees. Rom. 25. v. 15.  For what shall we judge of the epistle to the Romans? Audacius autem scripsi vobis fratres ex part. I have written to you brethren more boldly in some part. what is this but an excuse, a very craving of pardon? So to the Corinthians. And I was with you in infirmity, & fear, 
1. Cor. 2. v. 3  and much trembling. Is the holy Ghost in infirmity? in fearer doth the holy Ghost tremble? After, he desireth them, To bear with some little of his folly. 
Ibi. c. 11. v. 1.17.  That I speak I speak not according to God, but as it were in foolishness. because many glory according to the flesh, I also will glory, 
Ib. c. 12. v. 11  Factus sum insipiens, vos me coegistis. I am become foolish, you have compelled me. Such places many we find in S. Paul's epistles, which if some man like M.W. and M Charke should apply to the holy Ghost, and ask whether the holy Ghost could do this or that, could glory, could brag, could speak not according to God, could be foolish, the party so arguing should prove himself little better than a fool, & yet the argument is a pithy and wise as this against the Maccabees. And I much muse, whether it is not more against the honour o● the holy Ghost, to crave the prayers of sinful flesh, 
Rom. 15. v. 30.  which implieth sum fear of falling & human imbecility▪ then to excuse the manner of the sti●e and writing, and in that respect Crave pardon of sinful flesh, which is a thing of far less prejudice. And yet this doth the Spirit of God almost in every epistle of S. Paul, to the Romans, 
2. Cor. 6.11. Ephe. 6., 19 Colos. 4.3. Thes. 5.25.  to the Corinthians, to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, etc. Thus standeth the note. Hereby we see, that though the Holy Ghost ruled the pen of holy writers that they might not err, 
Sacred writers and holy Counsels.  yet did they use human means to search out and find the truth of the things they written of. Even so do Counsels, and the Precedent of them, God's vicar, discuss and examine all causes by human means, the assistance of the Holy Ghost concurring and directing them into all truth, according to Christ's promise, 10.16.13: as in the very first Council of the Apostles themselves at Jerusalem is manifest Act. 15, 7. and 28. Again here we have a familiar preface of the Author as to his friend, or to every godly Reader (signified by Theophilus) concerning the cause and purpose and manner of his writing, and yet the very same is confessed scripture, with the whole book following. 

The second book of the Maccabees.  
1. Mach. 2. & 15.   Marvel not then if the author of the second book of the Maccabees use the like human speeches both at the beginning and in the later end, neither do thou therefore reject the book for no Scripture, as our heretics do: or not think him a sacred writer.  
The Angel wisheth well to men of good will, 
Luc. 2. v. 14. This is M. W. gloze added to the text.  that is, those whom God embraceth with his grace and mercy. ergo men have free will. By this example a man may see what difference is between the old Gospel and the new. If the words were ●easte as in the old time they were read and understood, the consequent of this reason would have held, and so S. Augustine gathered whom we allege. But taking the word and sense as M. W. delivereth it, neither S. Augustine nor any other sober man did or would ever have inferred such a consequent. Our words are. 
Free wil  The birth of Christ giveth not peace of mind or salvation but to such as be of good will, because he worketh not our good against our wills, but our wills concurring. August. quaest. ad Simplic. li. 1. q. 2. tom. 4.  
Christ went into Peter's ship. ergo the whole church is Peter's ship. 
Luc. 5. v. 3.  This is of like quality with the second before noted. It is only an allegory aptly and truly declared, the substance whereof is usual among the ancient fathers, who call many times the Catholic church by the name of Peter's ship. 
The Catholic Church peter's ship.  And touching this special place, S. Gregory maketh no question, 
Gregor. in job. li. 17. c. 14.  but Christ so signified by this fact when he made choice to enter into that ship. Thus he writeth. jesus ascended into Peter's ship etc. sitting there he preached to the multitudes. Per navem Petri, quid aliud quam commissa Petro ecclesia designatur? 
See S, Amb. in Luc lib. 4 cap. 5. Aug. quaest. evang. l. 2. c. 2 ●ed. in Luc. cap. 5.  By Peter's ship what else is signified, but the church, which was committed to Peter? To like purpose upon the same place writeth S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, & S. Bede. The words of our annotation are these. It is purposely expressed that there were two ships, & that one of them was Peter's, and that Christ went into that one, and sat down in it, and that sitting he taught out of that ship: no doubt to signify the church resembled by Peter's ship, and that in it is the chair of Christ, and only true preaching.  
Barnabas laid down the price of his land at the Apostles feet. 
Act. 4. v. 37.  ergo we must kiss the Pope's feet. If the Apostle S. Peter had not before told us that heretics in the later days especially should be Illusores, mockers, 
2. Pet. 3. v. 3.  and the Prophet David named their general profession, 
Psal. 1.  a Chair or school of scorners, Cathedram irrisorum, 
Heretics generally given to scorning & mocking.  we might by our own experience have learned thus much of the Protestant writers of our time, who by this feat among the popular have brought into contempt the gravest parts of Christian religion, and have much shaken the obedience due both to spiritual and civil magistrates. 
Vide Brentium contra Bullinger. de mansionibus in caelo. anno 1561. fol. 22.23.35. Carlisle in his book that Christ descended not in to hell. fol. 35, 36, 37, 38, & 96, 97, 98.  By this chiefly the Lutherans refel the article of Christ's Ascension and being in heaven, as we see in Brentius. By this the zwinglians refute Christ's descending into hell, as we see in master Carlisle, and disprove the real presence, whereof their common preachings and writings are witness. By this as a very plausible mean the German ministers stirred the people against their Emperor Charles the fift as we read in Sleidan. 
Sleid. li. 17. pa. 311.  And how like M. W. is unto them for his small talon, by most of these his merry conclusions it appeareth. In this present, how far his unreasonable collection differeth from our reasonable admonition, the discrete reader may easily judge. Our words are, Barnabas as the re●, did not only give his goods as in vulgar alms, but in all humble and reverent manner as things dedicated to God, he laid them down at the Apostles holy feet, as S. Luke always expresseth, and gave them not into their hands. 
4. Reg. 4. v. 37.  The Sunamite sell down and embraced Elisaeus feet. Many that asked benefits of Christ (as the woman sick of the bloody flux) fell down at his feet, 
Luc. 8. v. 47. Luc. 7. v. 38.  and Marie kissed his feet. Such are signs of due reverence done both to Christ and to other sacred persons, either Prophets, Apostles, Popes, or other representing his person in earth. See in S. Hierom of Epipanius Bishop in Cypress, how the people of Jerusalem of all sorts flocked together unto him, offering their children (to take his blessing) kissing his feet, plucking the hemmes of his garment, so that he could not move for the throng. Ep: 61: cap. 4. cont. error. Io. Hierosol.  
The Eunuch of the Queen of AEthiopia, came to Jerusalem to worship. 
Act. 8. v. 27.  ergo pilgrimages to holy places are acceptable to God. why this reason should not be allowable, I can not guess. The Eunuch came a long journey from Aethiopia to Jerusalem there to worship God▪ and is commended for so doing. therefore if we go in like manner to Rome or Jerusalem for like cause, we are not to be blamed. where is the dissimilitude? 
Pilgrimage to holy places.  whence riseth the inequality? what part is there not answerable? that man to us, his fact to ours, his intention to ours, the beginning, continuance and end, proportionable to ours, every part and parcel of his doing, fully resembled in ours. If M.W. have any hid imagination which we can not reach unto, let him impart it, & we will frame him a reasonable answer. The marginal note upon the words of S. Luke is this. Note that this Aethiopian came to Jerusalem to adore, that is, on pilgrimage. Whereby we may learn that it is an acceptable act of religion, to go from home to places of greater devotion and sanctification.  
To Christ is given a name above all names, that in the name of jesus, 
Phil. 2. v. ●0.  all knees should bow. Ergo so oft as we hear the name of jesus, we must put of our caps and make courtesy. For confirmation of this ergo, I send M. W. to M. D. Whitg. who will ease me of some labour in this behalf. He telleth him, 
D. Whit. defence. tract. 21. c. 7. pa. 743.  That this gesture of capping and kneeling at the name of jesus, hath continued in the Church many hundred years, 
M.W. taketh part with jews and Infidels against Christians.  & yieldeth this reason thereof, that the Christians to signify their faith in jesus and their obedience unto him, and to confute by open gesture the wicked opinion of the Jews and other infidels (who most abhorred that name) used to do bodily reverence at all times when they heard the name of jesus, 
Why Christians do honour at the name of jesus.  but specially when the gospel was read, which contained that glad tidings of salvation, which is procured unto man by Christ jesus, where upon also he is called jesus, that is a Saviour. Hereof he inferreth, Nether can it be against Christianity to show bodily reverence, when he is named, by whom not only all the spiritual enemies of mankind are subdued, but also the faithful be made partakers of the kingdom of heaven. Thus far he. Now if we shall join to this reason, the reason given in the Annotation, that the Protestants gladly yield this honour of cap and courtesy to the letters, maces, 
The Protestants use more devotion, and yield more reverence to the pictur of a dog and a lion, then to the name, image or cross of Christ.  name, seal, seat, and very many other things having any relation or dependence of the Q. majesty, of these two thus conferred together, we shall find this to follow, and be a very good consequent. M. W. yieldeth less honour and reverence to the name and cross of Christ, than he doth to the name and so many base signs appertaining to a temporal prince: E●go M. W. is a very Atheist, one that maketh no account of Christ. This is the note. Name of jesus. 
The Protestants will have no reverence done at the name of jesus. ) By the like wickedness they charge the faithful people for capping or kneeling when they hear the name of jesus. As though they worshipped not our lord God therein, but the syllables, or letters, or other material elements whereof, the word written or spoken consisteth, and all this, b● sophistications to draw the people from due honour and devotion toward Christ jesus, which is Satan's drift by putting scruples into simple men's minds about his sacraments, his Saints, his Cross, his name, his image, & such like, to abolish all true religion out of the world, and to make them plain Atheists. But the Church knoweth Satan's cogitations, and therefore by the scriptures and reason, warranteth and teacheth all her children to do reverence when so ever jesus is named. 
How Catholics honour the name of jesus, and other things pertaining to him.  because Catholics do not honour these things nor count them holy, for their matter, colour, sound, and syllables, but for the respect and relation they have to our Saviour, bringing us to the remembrance and apprehension of Christ, by sight, hearing, or use of the same signs. Else why make we not reverence at the name of jesus the son of Sirach, as well as of jesus Christ? And it is a pitiful case to see these profane subtleties of Heretics to take place in religion, which were ridiculous in all other trade of life. When we hear our Prince or Sovereign named, we may without these scruples do obeisance, but towards Christ it must be superstitious.  
These be the arguments, which he saith are of our making, how truly, thou mayst now judge. To speak of them more at large and in special, each one containing so divers matter, of Praying to Saints, of the Real presence, of Peter's primacy, of Pilgrimage, of Canonical scriptures etc. would amount to a great volume. Touching these and the like, because it is grown now of late to a common vain in writing and preaching, thus much will I say in general, that M. W. and his fellows in making such sporting conclusions, First, show themselves as ignorant in divinity as may be, for so much as hereby they give forth plain signification, that they know not the first rule, or principle of Christian religion, they know not what Christian faith meaneth. secondarily, that by so doing, 
Whereunto the Protestants tenet by such ridiculous conclusions.  they instruct their scholars and auditors to make a mock of Christ and his gospel, and to scoff at every part of Christianity. Both these I will jointly declare in a few lines. Note thou therefore (good reader) that Christian faith, and the articles thereof are of this property and nature, that they can not be concluded or proved by any manifest rules of natural wisdom and reason, as we find in other sciences, Geometry, Philosophy, Law etc. 
Heb. 1. v. 1.  but they rest only upon the authority of Christ our Saviour and his Apostles, who first delivered them unto us. 
Ibi. c 11. v. 1. Rom. 8. v. 24  For as the Apostle teacheth, Fides est substantia rerum sperandarum, argumentum non apparentium. Faith is the substance or subsistence and foundation of things hoped, the argument or sure persuasion of things not appearing to sense, or reason, or human discourse. As for example. we believe the resurrection of our bodies, 
The true nature of Christian faith.  not because it can be confirmed by any philosophical or logical demonstration, (for if it could be so, then were it not properly an article of faith) but because Christ and his Apostles so taught. This being the ground and essential form of faith, and of every part thereof, because men are hardly moved to believe things so unprobable, so f●r b●yond reason, and against common sense, the office of Divines is by comparing these articles with other works of God, either in the creation of the world or redemption of the same, to declare that these are not so unpossible or uncredible as men imagine, but such as God hath done the like in many other, and therefore may also in this present. So our Saviour disputed against the Sadduces. Erratis non scientes scripturas, 
Marc. 12. Mat. 22.  neque virtutem dei etc. You err not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken of God, saying I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of jacob? In which words are contained 2 or 3 arguments to prove the resurrection. One, that God can do it, because he is of such power. An other, that it is not unlikely but he will do it, because he doth towards the dead, things as hard & unprobable as that, vz▪ that he protecteth, sustaineth, and preserveth them as their God and Saviour, and in that sense is called the God of Abraham, Isaac, & jacob, many hundred years after their death. Nether of which arguments for all that, proveth directly that the dead shall rise, but that dependeth only upon the will and word of God revealed in the scriptures, which our Saviour doth first of all insinuate.  
After like manner disputeth S. Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians. 
1. Cor. 15.  If the dead rise not again, then in vain is our preaching, then in vain is your faith, 
How S. Paul. proveth the resurrection Cor. 15.  then are we the most miserable men that live, then neither Christ is risen. As the grain which is sown in the earth, dieth first before it rise again with such fruit and commodity as we see, so is it in the resurrection of our flesh. In all which arguments there is no one that conuniceth necessarily, no not that which is the principal: Christ is risen, therefore we shall rise, because true it is, well might Christ rise, though we never rise, as he truly was crucified and descended into hell, as we by God's grace shall never. But the verity of this point being first planted in the hearts of Christian men by Christ's teaching and doctrine, than afterwards these reasons are good motives to declare, that the resurrection standeth well with God's providence, his justice, his mercy, his other works in creating or redeeming of the world.  
The like is to be said of that, wherewith M.W. maketh most sport, I mean the real presence. which if any man would directly prove by one of M.W. arguments, as, Christ was transfigured. Ergo he giveth us his body in bread & wine, he maketh as blind an argument as did a famous English preacher, who in great sadness would prove the English Communion book to be good, because in our Creed we are bound to believe not the Mass, but The communion, of saints. Or as did an other of like vocation, than a preacher, afterwards a Doctor, who felt himself much troubled in conscience, and almost persuaded that the mass was found in many places of scripture, because in many subscriptions of S. Paul's epistles he found written, Missa est Corintho, Missa est Philippis, Missa est Roma, Missa est Athenis, Missa est Nicopoli. But no Catholic man was ever so mad, as from Christ's transfiguration to deduce such an Ergo: and absolutely as well he might infer, ergo he is in every chest, in every chamber, in every tree, in every mountain, in every piece of bread in the world. But thus to ●angle, is for Lucianes & hickscorners, it is not for Divines. 
How one part or article of faith, is applied to the confirmation of an other.  Thus far only we apply such reasons. First grounding our faith simply upon our saviours words declared by the uniform consent of three Evangelists & S. Paul, and interpreted by the universal consent of Christ's Catholic church in all times and ages: because we find certain carnal and fleshly men, lead by reason and sense and human conceit, offended at this article, upon pretence of philosophical rules, of natural qualities, 
Before pa. 177.178.  of mathematical dimensions, as we see by M.W. we supposing that they be not plain Atheists (wherein perhaps sometimes we are much deceived, for D. 
Whitg. defence against M. Car. Trac 3. c. 6. ¶. 4.  Whitegift telleth us that the English Church, is now full of such) by declaration and comparison of other things which they profess to hold and believe, show them that this is not so unpossible, or so uncredible, or so unlikely as they pretend, whereas some other points they retain as far above reason as this. And thus far forth we apply Christ's transfiguration, Christ's walking upon the waters, his entering unto his disciples the doors being shut &c. to declare that his body is not bound to those general rules, which nature and reason hath appointed to common bodies, and on which is founded the greatest part of the Zwinglian Divinity. And therefore as in the first, if a man would have brought Christ's or S. Paul's reasons to M. whitaker's ergo, as thus:  
God is omnipotent. Ergo the dead shall rise.  
God is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and jacob. Ergo the dead shall rise.  
Christ is risen again. Ergo the dead shall rise.  
The Apostles were not miserable fools. Ergo the dead shall rise.  
Their preaching was not in vain. Ergo the dead shall rise.  
The husband man soweth corn, and it dieth before it bringeth forth fruit. Ergo the dead shall rise.  
As I say any man framing these arguments of Christ's and S. Paul's words, 
The English writers teach the way to scorn all Christian religion.  were he an Ethnic, had played the ignorant fool, if he bore the name of a Christian, had played the part of a wicked caitiff, and an Atheist: because true it is, every article of our faith is in this sort subject to scorn and irrision: so M. W. in this case following the like example, must needs before God and man sustain a hard judgement. And therefore if he shall be disposed hereafter to write more books, I would wish him to leave this apish trick which he hath learned of M. jewel, 
M. jewel throughout his first book against ●. Harding.  who notwithstanding got small honour thereby. and surely if the matter were correspondent, such kind of jesting would better become some merry fellow making sport upon a stage, with a furred hood & a wooden dagger, then either a learned bishop, such as M. jewel took himself to be, or a profound Reader of divinity, as I think M.W. would gladly be accounted.  
And whereas next he saith. Quando has novorum magistrorum etc. 
Pag. 2●.  when wise men shall hear these interpretations & arguments of these new masters, if there be left in them any sense, I will not say of the holy Ghost, but of common judgement, they can not think a religion builded upon these grounds, to be firm, assured, and better than all other, I answer, first, that he much deceiveth himself, when he calleth these the interpretations of new masters, as he doth likewise after in his Antichristian book where he saith, Nou● Theologi Rhemenses etc. 
Pag. 114. Annot. in Mat. cap. 10. v. 22.  The new Divines of Rheims teach that the bishop's blessing taketh away venial sins, where as we speak not so of ourselves, but upon warrant of an old Divine of Milan, even S. Ambrose whom there we cite. And here excepting the places where we urge the very text of the Evangelist, every one of the other is the interpretation of old and ancient fathers, of S. Epiphanius, S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, S. Austin, S. Chrysostom, S. Silvester, etc. And if these be new masters, I marvel who be old? be like M. jewel, M. Horn, M. Fulke, M. Keltridge, M. Charke, and such worthy doctors of your old congregation, 
The antiquity of the Protestants church  which now groweth well to fifty years standing, if I misrecken not myself. For M. D. Haddon a few years sithence, in his answer to Osorius made great vaunt, that then your gospel had continued above thirty years (abating from that count 6 years) Annos plusquam triginta, excepto sexennii turbulentissime tempore. 
Haddon in fine epist. contra Osori●●●.  And therefore belike now it is come to a goodly and a reverend antiquity. But as ancient as it is, many a good man liveth who knew when it was not begotten, and may live full well, till it be again dead and rotten.  
Then whereas you affirm our religion to be built upon these grounds, you follow but the common v●yne of your fellows, that is, to belie us: saving that you have gotten perhaps a deeper habit therein, through to much imitation of M. jewel. 
Aug. de nupt. et con cupis. lib, ●. cap. 31.  In this very kind S. Austin complaineth that he was much injuried by the heretics of his time, & so doth Luther that he was vexed by the heretics of his age. whose authority I had rather use to you then S. Augustine's, because you seem to honour him more, & esteem him for an old father, rejecting S. Austin amongst the new masters. Thus saith Luther to Zuinglius and Oecolampadius & the rest of that sect, & thus he requesteth of them, as we request of you being of the same order. 
Luth. to. 7. defence. verborum coenae fol. 400.  Obsecramus (saith he) & obtestamur vos Sacramentarios, etc. We desire and beseech you Sacramentaries, 
Debacchari  if hereafter you will needs rail against the Lutherans or new papists as you call us, yet abstain from lying, 
The zwinglians notable liars.  and fain not, neither write of us otherwise then we publicly profess & teach. Nam ex his quae iam diximus, patet nos non it a docere, ut hactenus de nobis impudentissimè mentiti estis. For by that which hath been spoken, it is clear that we teach not so, as hitherto you have most impudently belied us.  
So Luther of the zwinglians. & we leaving Luther's terms to himself, request the like of our adversaries. If they tell us of any fault committed in the handling of God's mysteries, we are ready to acknowlegde and amend the same. If we defend any point of doctrine erroneous in their judgement, let them refel it by Theological argument, by Scriptures, Fathers, Counsels, or reason grounded upon them, and we are in quiet and orderly sort either to yield to them, or show them their oversight. If they fall to scoffing & scorning, and making ridiculous & boysh arguments of their own, & then show their profound wisdom in confuting the same, and withal cry out upon the Importunity, 
The pitiful shifts of our adversaries.  and Desperateness of the papists, as we can not but tell them of their peevishness, and laugh at such miserable shifts, so we dare assure them that the wise will never be moved to like well of their ruinous gospel, through such jesting tricks most unfit for Divines, & which are able to quail and disgrace a good cause, though it stood upon better grounds than their gospel yet doth, or (I hope) ever shall.   

CHAP. XVII Of certain blasphemies contained in the Annotations.  
As good orators according to the rules of their art, reserve some chief and principal arguments unto the end, of purpose at parting to leave a deep impression in the mind of their auditors: so doth M. W. in this his invective against us. And increasing somewhat his accustomed style, declaimeth terribly and layeth to our charge, not errors, or oversights, or mean corruptions, as are our leaving the latin and following the greek, but horrible crimes, even blsaphemies, & blasphemies intolerable. He presupposeth that wise men are somewhat moved by such reasons and persuasions as he hath used hitherto, 
Pag. 23.  But it must needs be (saith he) that wise men will be moved much more when they consider the intolerable blasphemy of certain places. For answer whereunto, we crave no pardon of him, or the reader. But if he prove his accusation, let us sustain that judgement, as by the law of God and man, to such Intolerable blasphemers is due. Only of the reader we request indifferent audience, and then we doubt not but this storm and tempest will pass without any damage, as quietly as the rest.  

Hebr. 7. v, 17.  The first blasphemy is this. The Apostle compareth together Christ's priesthood and the priesthood of Melchisedech in the epistle to the hebrews, 
The first blasphemy  where he maketh no mention at all of bread or wine, in which notwithstanding they will Christ chief to have been like to Melchisedech. Here these men write flatly, that of all those things which are proposed by the Apostle, it followeth not that Christ's priesthood is eternal, and therefore that properly Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech, because he instituted a sacrifice of his body to be continued for ever of his priests. But this which was principal, the Apostle in that disputation omitted, and brought those things which prove not that which he meant to prove. But wherein Christ was principally like unto Melchisedech, that must be learned not of the Apostle but of the Fathers, who have written far more aptly and properly of Christ's eternal priesthood than did the Apostle. Of this he concludeth. If they fear not to find some fault in the Apostle, and reprehend the holy ghost himself, is it marvel if our doctrine displease them? Thus M. W. which if it be true, 
The answer.  if we thus disgrace the Apostle, if we say he goeth about to prove a thing and proveth it not, if we refuse to be taught of him, and prefer the Fathers before him, finally if we control him so singular an instrument of the holy Ghost, and reprehend the holy Ghost himself, I can not blame M. W. if he cry out Intolerable blasphemy. But if these things be so far of from all show of truth, that there is no colour or pretence of so unmeasurable lying, what should a man say, but shame to the devil and his ministers, 
Lie upon lie  who now are grown to such a passing impudency. that so they may have licence to lie, th●y care not how grossly and palpably they lie, though they be taken with the manner, though it presently turn to their own shame, though the lies which they invent of others, be most evidently, and in truth only verified of themselves. 
S. Paul's epistle to the hebrews rejected by the protestants.  For who but they thus disgrace this Apostle, and that in this epistle? who but they find fault with the writer and reprehend the holy Ghost, bearing us in hand that this writing much differeth from other scriptures, much from Christ's preaching and the other Apostles, 
Before pag. 414. 1. Cor. 3. v. 12  & therefore is to be reckoned Prostipulis, For stubble, good for nothing else but for the fire, for this would they signify by that contemptible phrase. And do not our english translators themselves in their Testaments leave out S. Paul's name in this epistle, and plainly say It is not like that ever he was the author of it? 
Bible of the year 1579. in the preface of this epistle.  But let this pass. we will not use this kind of defence. our words and sayings defend themselves sufficiently. The words of which he gathereth this Intolerable blasphemy, stand thus, Heb. 7. v. 17. A priest for ever. Christ is not called a Priest for ever, only for that his person is eternal, 
How Christ is a priest for ever.  or for that he sitteth on the right hand of God, and perpetually prayeth or maketh intercession for us, or for that the effect of his death is everlasting: for all this proveth not that in proper signification his Priesthood is perpetual: but according to the judgement of all the fathers grounded upon this deep and divine discourse of S. Paul, and upon the very nature, definition, and propriety of Priesthood, and the excellent act & order of Melchisedec, and the state of the new la, he is a Priest for ever according to Melchisedecks' order, specially in respect of the sacrifice of his holy body and blood, instituted at his last supper, and executed by his commission, commandment, and perpetual concurrence with his priests, in the forms of bread and wine, in which things only the said high Priest Melchesedec did sacrifice. For though S. Paul make no express mention hereof because of the depth of the mystery, and their incredulity or feebleness to whom he written: yet it is evident in the judgement of all the learned fathers (without exception) that ever written either upon this epistle, or upon the 14 of Genesis, 
Christ's eternal priesthood consisteth in the perpetual sacrifice of his body & blood in the Church.  or the psalm 109, or by occasion have treated of the sacrifice of the altar, that the eternity and proper act of Christ's priesthood, and consequently the immutability of the new la, consisteth in the perpetual offering of Christ's body and blood in the Church.  
Which thing is so well known to the adversaries of Christ's Church & Priesthood, & so granted, 
The protestants cavilling upon particles, against Melchisedecks' sacrifice & priesthood, directly against the Apostle.  that they be forced impudently to cavil upon certain Hebrew particles, that Melchisedec did not offer in bread and wine: yea and when that will not serve, plainly to deny him to have been a priest: which is to give checkmate to the Apostle, and to overthrow all his discourse. Thus whiles these wicked men pretend to defend Christ's only priesthood, they in deed abolish as much as in them lieth, the whole order, office, and state of his eternal la & priesthood.  

Christ's eternal priesthood and sacrifice in the Church is proved out of the fathers.  Arnobius saith, By the mystery of bread and wine he was made a Priest for ever. And again, The eternal memory, by which he gave the soode of his body to them that fear him. in psal. 109.110. Lactantius, In the Church he must needs have his eternal priesthood according to the order of Melchisedec. Li. 14. Institut. S. Hierom ep. 126. to Euagrius, Aaron's priesthood had an end, but Melchisedecks', that is, Christ's & the Churches is perpetual, both for the time past and to come. S. Chrysostom therefore calleth the Church's sacrifice, Hostiam inconsumptibilem, An host or sacrifice that can not be consumed. ho. 17 in 9 Hebr. S. Cyprian, Hostiam qua sublata, nulla esset futura religio, An host which being taken away, there could been religion. de coena Domini nu. 2. Emissenus, Perpetuam oblationem & perpetuò currentem redemptionem, A perpetual oblation and a redemption that runneth or continueth everlastingly. ho. 5 de Pasch. And our Saviour expresseth so much in the very institution of the B. Sacrament of his body and blood: specially when he calleth the later kind, The new Testament in his blood, signifying that as the old la was established in the blood of beasts, so the new (which is his eternal Testament) should be dedicated and perpetual in his own blood: not only as it was shed on the Cross, but as given in the chalice. And therefore into this sacrifice of the altar (saith S. Augustine li. de Civit. 17. c. 20. S. Leo ser. 8 the Passione, and the rest) were the old sacrifices to be translated. See S. Cyprian ep. 63 ad Cecil. nu. 2. S. Ambrose de Sacram. li. 5. c. 4. S. Augustine in psal. 33 Conc. 2. and li. 17. de Civit. c. 17. S. Hierom ep. 17. c. 2. & ep. 126. Epiph. haer. 55. Theodoret. in psalm. 109. Damascene li. 4. c. 14.  
Finally if any of the fathers, or all the fathers, had either wisdom, grace, or intelligence of God's word and mysteries, this is the truth. If nothing will serve our adversares, Christ jesus confound them, and defend his eternal Priesthood, and state of his new Testament established in the same. In which words of ours if thou mark well, and confer them with his, thou shalt find that in this short paragraph he hath powered out together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a foul and stinking heap of lies, errors, ignorances, and contradictions to himself and his brethren.  
For first, where say we that Of all those things which are proposed by the Apostle, it followeth not that Christ's priesthood is eternal? say we not the clean contrary, when we avouch that All the fathers gather, not of themselves or their own wits, but of this deep and divine discourse of the Apostle the eternity of his priesthood? Is this to write flatly, that of all the things proposed by the Apostle it followeth not that Christ's priesthood is eternal, when we writ flatly, that not one or other but all the fathers teach that eternity, grounding themselves upon this discourse of S. Paul? 
Heretics very blind in the scripture, though they crack much of their deep insight in them.  and how could they ground themselves upon S. Paul's discourse, if no such thing were to be found there? This perhaps he might have gathered, and we would have granted, that this deduction can hardly or never be perceived of a Luther, of a Beza, of a Stancarus, or such other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, damned in their own judgement, 
Tit. 3. v. ●  whom for punishment of their Apostasy from Christ & his Church, God hath given up into a reprobate sense, Vt videntes non videant, et audientes non intelligant, sed credant mendacio, 
Rom. 1. v. 28 Luc. 8. v. 10. 2. Thess. 2. v 11.  That seeing, they see not, and hearing understand not, but believe lies, because they would not believe & hold fast the truth when they had it. but to a S. Ambrose, to a S. Chrysostom, S. Primasius, S. Beda, or any other directed by the spirit of God, these things which are proposed by the Apostle ministered sufficient matter to find out the eternity of Christ's priesthood, as by their commentaries upon these very places we learn. For albeit express mention of the Sacrifice of the Church be not here made, for reason given in the annotation, and by the Apostle himself, cap. 5. v. 11. yet the truth there of is invincibly concluded out of this very disputation, and that so pregnantly, 
See the Anotations in cap. 5. v. 11. & 7. v. 11.12 c. 9.12.15.25 c. 10. v. 2.  that who soever denieth the Church's Sacrifice he consequently denieth all the Apostles drift & argument, he denieth the whole state of the old and new Testament. This therefore is the first main and capital lie, and in which he inveigheth not against us alone, but also against all the Fathers without exception, Arnobius, Lactantius, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, S. Austin, and the rest named in the annotation.  
From this lie he draweth out 4 other, as that we say, The Apostle proveth not that which he meant. that we prefer the Fathers before the Apostle, that we find fault with him, 
Multiplication of lies.  and finally reprehend the holy Ghost. All which is nothing else but lie upon lie, no one of which, is or ever was, in word or sense uttered, or in thought or cogitation conceived of us. No saith M. Whitaker? make you not the oblation of bread and wine a principal part of Christ's eternal priesthood? we do so, with all the Fathers of Christ's Church. Yet the Apostle maketh no express mention thereof. We grant. Then he proveth not that which he intended. This is a lying and ignorant conclusion. lying, because the Apostle proveth most abundantly his purpose, by sundry other means though he urge not that point: ignorant, because you know not what the Apostle would conclude or whereunto he apply his argument, which being delivered most evidently in sundry places of the 7. 
7. v. 4.11.23.9. v 12.15.10 v. 2.4.5.11  9 & 10. chapter, and repeated again and again, I will not h●re make a new treatise thereof. 
No time to talk of the Sacrifice of the church, when the Sacrifice of the cross is not first believed.  Thus much the reader that knoweth a little divinity may consider of himself, that whereas the Apostle dealeth against the jews who could not be content that their levitical priesthood, and sacrifices of beasts should yield to Chr●sts priesthood & sacrifice of the Cross, for S. Paul discoursing of the infinite virtue, power & excellency of this above the former, to have undertaken to handle the priesthood and sacrifice of the Church, besides that it was very hard to explicate, besides that the Hebrews were very dull to conceive, both which reasons he giveth in the 5. chapter, besides that the other matter was of itself large enough, besides all this, I say, to have urged the jews with this secondary and dependant sacrifice of the Church, who as it believed not the first, singular, and sovereign sacrifice of the Cross, had been as fond a part, as if a man would teach a child to run before he can go, or teach him to read before he can speak, or set on the roof of the house, before there be either wall built or foundation laid.  
At least (will M.W. say) you prefer the fathers before S. Paul, and acknowledge them to write more properly and aptly of Christ's priesthood than doth the Apostle. 
The ancient fathers speak more plainly of the church Sacrifice than doth S. Paul, without any derogation to S. Paul.  This is a lie. For we are not so wicked, neither learn we to make any such odious comparisons between divers instruments of the holy Ghost. For the consent of the universal church and all fathers, we gladly profess to be the voice of the holy Ghost. And if all the fathers had been joined in one, in S. Paul's case and having to do with such adversaries, at such time, place, and other circumstances, they would not neither could have written more aptly and properly then did S. Paul, although afterwards they did more clearly and manifestly open that, which S. Paul insinuated more closely and covertly, and so would S. Paul have done, had he lived in their times.  
So in like sort S. Peter in his sermon made to the jews touching Christ's glory and resurrection, calleth him A man approved of God, 
Act. 2. v. 22.  by divers wonders and miracles. He calleth him not God of God equal to his father. Our Saviour in his long exhortation made to his disciples before his passion, speaking of his unity with his father, 
joan. c. 12.13▪ 14.15.16.17.  expresseth not his consubstantiality with the father, or divinity of the holy Ghost, 
The council of Nice expressed the consubstantiality of Christ with his father more plainly than any Evangelist.  so clearly as did afterwards S. Athanasius and the fathers in the Council of Nice and Constantinople against the Arians and Macedonians. neither for all that prefer we S. Athanasius and those Counsels before S. Peter and our Saviour, neither say we that they spoke more properly and aptly thereof then either Christ or his principal Apostle, or such like guegawes as this man ignorantly and maliciously objecteth unto us. Christ spoke most properly, perfectly, and absolutely, according as his divine wisdom knew was most convenient for that time and audience. so did S. Peter, so did S. Paul. And yet this barreth not but the holy Ghost may, & so hath by the Church afterward declared the same more evidently, without any derogation to Christ or his Apostles.  
Yet one scruple more M. W. moveth. At least this can not be denied, but the Father's talk much of the oblation of bread and wine which S. Paul omitteth, 
M.W. last objection.  and so we can not shift our hands, but some oversight we must impute to S. Paul and the holy Ghost. Nothing less. 
Answered.  Or how soever by his profound subtility he thinketh to drive us unto this absurdity hereafter, hitherto sure I am, we have uttered no word or syllable so unchristian. And therefore he belieth us in saying that we have done the one or the other. And the whole matter is answer sufficiently already. 
Answered by himself.  Yet for more full satisfaction I will answer M. W. by himself. I ask him therefore whether Melchisedec did not sacrifice, and by sacrificing foreshowed our saviours priesthood according to the arder of Melchisedec? he can not deny, for he hath granted it in plain terms in this very book. 
before pag. 17.  And yet S. Paul here maketh no express mention thereof. Then by M. W. judgement S. Paul omitteth some principal part of Melchisedecs' priesthood appertaining to Christ, and therefore if this be to find fault with S. Paul, & reprehend the holy Ghost, than M.W. findeth fault with S. Paul, M. W. reprehendeth the holy Ghost.  
Again, 
Answered by M. jewel.  let him recall to memory his founder in divinity M. jewel, in that book which M. W. 
jewel in his Reply art. 1 ¶ 5. in M. W. translation pag. 9  himself hath translated into latin. Saith not he, that Melchisedech by his bread and wine signified the Sacrifice of the holy (English) communion (M. W. translateth it, sacrificium sacrosanctae Communionis) where the whole people lift up their hands and hearts unto heaven, and pray & sacrifice together? And where find you this sacrifice of the holy Communion in all S. Paul's discourse? ergo by the same reason, M. jewel also doth carp at S. Paul and reprehend the holy Ghost, who omit The sacrifice of your holy Communion, prefigured by Melchisedech three thousand years at lest before either Patriarch or Apostle, or doctor, or any good man, ever heard, or thought, or dreamt of it.  
Again, 
Answered by Illyricus  Illyricus a Lutheran writeth upon this very chapter somewhat more probably than either M. W. or M. jewel, that Melchisedech foreshowed his Communion after the Lutherish faith, 
Illyric. ad Heb. c. 7. v. ●  and that As Melchisedech by bread and wine refreshed Abraham, so Christ the true heavenly bread refresheth us to life eternal. His flesh is true nourishment, and his blood is true and healthful drink. joan. 6. Luc. 22. Thus he. so that the zwinglians can fetch out of Melchisedecs' sacrifice, by their own private authority without warrant of any either doctor or father, the sacrifice of their Communion, and the Lutherans can find that theirs was prefigured likewise: and though S. Paul mention neither of them, that is not material, so long as you hold yourself within compass of the Communion book Lutherish or Zwinglian: 
Who ever saw such folly, pride and partiality?  only when we say the same of the Communion and sacrifice of the Church, and prove it by the authority of Damascene, of Theodoretus, of S. Hierom, S. Ambr. S. Epiphanius, S. Austin, S. Leo, S. Cyprian, S. Chrysostom, Eusebius Emissenus, Lactantius, Arnobius, by all antiquity, by all fathers, by all Counsels, by the universal consent of Christendom since the Apostles time, we poor souls set S. Paul to school, we prefer the fathers before him, we find fault with him, we reprehend the holy Ghost, we commit intolerable blasphemy. I know not whether a man may rather laugh at their peevish pride, who knowing nothing, take upon them to control all fathers, or wonder at their incredible partiality, which hath so be reaved them of common wit and judgement, 
Mat. 7. v. 3.  that they can perceive a mote (in deed no more) in our eye, and can not feel a beam in their own, or rather lament their Pharisaical hardness of heart & ignorance whereto heresy hath brought them, so gross, that neither they know the verity of Catholic religion, nor well understand the state of their own fantastical gospel.  
One more blasphemy he objecteth and so maketh an end. His words are. 
The second and last blasphemy pag. 24. Rom. 6. v. 23  The like boldness they utter in that most goodly place of S. Paul where thus he writeth to the Romans, Stipendia peccati mors, donum autem Dei vita aeterna. The stipend of sin, death, 
The principal of these Sorbonists (after S. Paul) is S. Austin.  but life eternal is the gift of God. Here the Sorbonists of Rheims have noted, that the sequel of speech required, that as he said, the stipend of sin is death, so on the contrary part he should have said, the stipend of justice is life eternal. And this to be true they plainly affirm, whereas it is manifest that S. Paul spoke in this sort that he might leave no place to merits, and he useth such a word as utterly excludeth all respect of stipend for that which is a free gift, can in no case be a stipend, and repa● to merits. To answer this as all the rest, there needeth nothing else but to compare our words with his. Thus we say Rom. 
Life everlasting a stipend, and yet grace.  6. verse 23. 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, and in the same sense he spoke in the last chapter: That as sin reigneth to death, so grace reigneth by justice to life everlasting, But here he changed the sentence somewhat, calling life everlasting, Grace, rather than, Reward: because the merits by which we attain unto life, be all of God's gift and grace. Augustin. epis. 105. ad Sixtum.  
Because the sense and sum of the annotation is taken out of S. Austin, I will set down his own words although they be somewhat long, because they may help the reader both to understand the truth of this point, & withal discover M.W. notorious ignorance. Thus writeth S. 
Aug. epist. 105.  Austin in the place quoted. Eternal life which in fine we shall obtain for ever, 
How eternal life is of grace & yet the reward of justice.  is repaid to merits going before. & yet because those merits unto which it is repaid, are not gotten of us by our own ability, but wrought in us by grace, therefore life eternal is called grace, for no other reason, but because it is given gratis, not because it is not given to merits, but because those merits are given, to which life is given. That eternal life is called Grace, we find in S. Paul Rom. 6. The stipend of sin is death. life eternal is the grace of God. See how warily he put these words. For when he had said, The stipend of sin is death, who would not have thought he should have said most aptly and conveniently, The stipend of justice is life eternal. 
Let M W. mark this, True it is.  And true it is. For as to the merit of sin death is rendered as the stipend, so to the merit of justice Life eternal (is rendered) as the stipend. unde & merces appellatur plurimis sanctarum scripturarum locis. Quod est autem merces operanti, hoc est militanti stipendium. Sed Apostolus adversus elationem etc. And so it is termed, merces, wages, in very many places of scriptures. For that which is called, Stipendium, Stipend, to a soldier, that is called, merces, wages, to a labourer. But the Apostle used that word against the pride of men, etc.  
Thus far S. Austin. of whose words our note is only a short sum & abbridgment, and so whatsoever sport M. W. maketh to himself of the Sorbonists of Rheims, it nothing toucheth us, but good S. Austin the Sorbonist of Hippo. And yet not to rest there, S. Austin quitteth himself well enough from that dry jest, when he affirmeth the same to be taught, Plurimis sanctarum scripturarum locis, In very many places of holy scriptures. For if they be Sorbonists that say, Vita aelerna est stipendium justitiae, 
All the Prophets, Evangelists & Apostles were Sorbonists by M. W. judgement.  or which is the self same, Vita aeterna est merces bonorum operum, than not only S. Austin is a Sorbonist, which to say perhaps you strain not greatly (for in this place so you call us in word, S. Austin in deed) but long before him the Prophets were egregious Sorbonists, in whom both in sense and word, this proposition is commonly found. 
a Prou. 11. v. 18. c. 24. v. 12 Sap. 5.16. ca 10.17. Ecclesia. 16.12. c. 51.38.  Solomon was a Sorbonist, 
b Psal. 61.12  David a Sorbonist, 
c Esa. 40.10. c. 62.11.  Esay a Sorbonist, 
d jerem. 31.16.  jeremy a Sorbonist, 
e 1. Peter. 1.17.  S. Peter a Sorbonist, 
f 2. joan. 8. Apoc. 2.23. c. 22.12.  S. john a Sorbonist, 
g Rom. 2.6. 1. Cor. 3.8. 2. Cor. 5.10. 2. Thess. 1. v. 6.7.  S. Paul a notable Sorbonist, who hath it more oft then the rest, 
h Mat. 5.12 c. 6.1 c. 10.41. c. 16.27. c. 20.8. c. 25.  that I name not our Saviour for honours sake, who notwithstanding in the gospel, many times teacheth his Christians, this Sorbonical conclusion. But as for M.W. if he continue in this simplicity or rather stupidity, that he suppose eternal life not to be the stipend of justice or good works, because it is the grace or gift of God, I will give him a quittance for ever deserving the name of a Sorbonist. 
Sorbone a famous College in Paris.  For I think there is scant any boy frequenting the Sorbone school, that is so dull and ignorant as to doubt, but that heaven is the gift and grace of God, though he trust to attain it by his good works, 
Shameful ignorance.  I mean, that knoweth not how to reconcile these two propositions together, heaven is the stipend of good works, and heaven is the gift of God: which in deed to every lad well catechized, is no harder, than it is to believe that the father is God, the son God, and the holy Ghost God, & yet there is but one God: Christ is God, and yet Christ is man, our Lady was a mother, and yet a Virgin, our bodies are corruptible, and yet shall live for ever, and almost any other article of our religion. But hereof I have spoken more at large before, 
See before pag. 99.100. etc.  to which place I refer the the reader. And this is the last intolerable blasphemy which M. W. hath found in the Annotations, common to us with Christ himself, and every prophet, Apostle, Evangelist, Father, and good man, that since Christ's time lived in the unity of his Church.   

THE CONCLUSION.  
AND thus have I examined, and (I trust) answered sufficiently, whatsoever faults M. W. hath found either in the Testament of late set forth by us, or the Annotations adjoined, or M. Martin's book of the Discovery. wherein I have bestowed somewhat longer time, than either so small a trifle required, or myself at the beginning intended, partly for the more clear defence of truth and fuller instruction of the reader, partly also because in the diligent perusing of his discourse, his manifold errors and oversights multiplied far beyond my expectation. And withal I would not have him or his brethren so far deceive them selves, as to suppose they may set forth against this College, freely, hand over head what they list, without control or gainsaing. For howsoever we be loath to spend our time in such contentious disputes, and gladly would employ it otherwise to our better commodity, yet the zeal of God, and honour of his Church, regard of truth, and love of our countrymen, whom we see so pitifully seduced, and due obedience to Superiors, will and must enforce us, to take some pains that way, though in part against our wills: especially when we are provoked by adversaries so insolent and full of bravery in words, and the same, most feeble, impotent, & unable to perform any thing in deeds, and therefore lying very open to receive a blow of any scholar, be he never so mean and indifferent.  
And albeit no heretical opinion can lightly be defended without many foul shifts and inconveniences, yet M.W. 
M. W. hath undertaken hard matters to defend.  hath brought himself within harder straights then any other, by reason of most strange paradoxes, which he hath taken upon him to maintain. for what man bearing the name of a Christian, were he otherwise as excellent as ever was Cicero or Demosthenes, can possibly without increase of infinite absurdities, defend Luther against the Apostle S. james, 
Chap. 1. Chap. 10. Chap. 5.  Beza against the Evangelist S. Luke, Illyricus against S. Cyprian, and all fathers of the primitive Church. And which in truth is more false & wicked, 
M▪ jewels challenge, Chap. 7.  more unreasonable and unpossible than the rest, M. jewels Challenge made at Paul's cross against all men living, which long since is known for a mere shameless, proud, lying vaunt, to Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Zwinglian, learned and unlearned, lippis & tonsoribus: and in effect notified for such, by public proclamation of the prince and Realm.  
And therefore if he find in this treatise some words more sharp & rough than he is used to hear, let him attribute that not to hatred of his person, whom I never saw, and for whose good and amendment in Christ, God is my witness, I would refuse no pains, & how soon I may fall into his hands our Lord knoweth, but to hatred of his heresy, and his immoderate heat & ostentation uttered to colour and save such things as can never stand, but with open injury of Christ, disgrace of his Apostles, and ruin of Christian religion.  
Our adversaries (Christian reader) are now proceeded beyond their ordinary, beyond that which at first they pretended. 
The proceeding of our adversaries.  They plead not now for scripture against fathers, for the lively word of the Lord against man's traditions, which a few years sithence was their common song, they are gone far beyond that note, and oppose themselves not against S. Hierom, S. Austin, S. Gregory, but against the self same scripture, the self fame lively word which they seemed so to honour, against S. james, S. Paul, S. Luke, against the Apostles, and Evangelists, against the very Gospel of our Saviour. And what can be their next step but to call Christ himself in question, to doubt whether he be the true Messiah and redeemer of the world? 
Many of them are proceeded thus far already. See the prface pa. 65.66. etc.  And if any of their brethren do move that doubt (as infinite there be that do, yea that deny it utterly) what way in the world remaineth for proof thereof, all other authority besides the written word, as the old Fathers, Counsels, Tradition, Church, being by these men quite abandoned, and now the written word itself being rejected as far? and what Christian talking of these matters, and seeing these horrible mischiefs not intended in thought, surmises, cogitations, and secret whisper, but practised and put in ure by writing, defences, public books, open disputations, manifest violences, and most unjust murtherings of those which withstand it, who I say, though he were as patient as job, and as void of gall as the dove, but would be moved? 
2. Cor. 4.  Scriptum est (saith the Apostle) credidi, propter quod locutus sum, et nos credimus, propter quod et loquimur. It is written, I have believed, and therefore I speak, & we also believe constantly & therefore we speak boldy. And as saith S. Hierom, 
Hieron. ad Theophilum contra errores joannis Hieros. Nicep. li. 8. cap. 42. Mar. 2. v. 11.  Quod simpliciter creditur, simpliciter confitendum est. And if Spiridion that reverend and ancient Bishop, in a great assembly of Bishops were well allowed, for that he sharply rebuked in public audience, an other in learning his superior, in vocation his equal, who in citing a text of the gospel, altered of fineness and curiosity one only word, and the same of no great moment (grabatum, into lectulum) what rigour and vehemency of speech, deserve not they, who in Sacraments & chief points of faith, in the Sacrifice, in Baptism, in Priests, 
See before chap. 11.  in Bishops, in Church, in Apostles, in Angels, in Christ himself, have made most profane innovations, and reduced all to the first ethnical terms? But of this hitherto.  
The rest which remaineth is only touching Luther & Calvin, whom M. W. singularly commendeth, whereunto he addeth certain ordinary words of course, concerning himself and his fellows, how heroically they have always gotten the victory over us, & our forefathers. 
pag 31.32.  Of these matters somewhat hath been spoken before, and therefore here I will not say much. Luther and Calvin if they were such notable good men, they find it now, & the better they were, the better it is for them. if otherwise, M.W. commendation standeth them in small steed. Nevertheless certain it is, both can not be so excellent, as he would make them, being continually, in opinion & faith, in word and work, in the whole trade of their life and manners, so opposite, 
If Luther be sa●ed, all they of English religion are damned.  so contrary, such deadly enemies, as their books testify, & the world knoweth. And M.W. doth very unwisely, so oft and so painfully to range abroad in praise of that man, 
See before chap. 3.  who is so far abhorring from him and his sect, that if Luther be right, they are surely out of the way, if Luther be a restorer of the gospel, they are enemies and destroyers of the gospel, if Luther be in heaven, they continuing as they do, are certain of hell. For so Luther every where pronounceth of them.  
As for the other, I mean that vulgar bragging and boasting, it proveth not much. It is a common itching humour of most kind of heretics. Omnium haereticorum quasiregularis est ista teme ritas saith S. 
Aug. epi. 56.  Austin. And S. Peter long before gave it as a general mark of them, 
2. Pet. 2. v. 28  that they shall be superba vanitatis loquentes, speaking proud, arrogant, & vain things. Howbeit it seemeth in our days more proper in some special sort to M. W. sect, then to any other, as judgeth that excellent man, of whom we last spoke Martin Luther, 
The zwinglians prove all thing by boasting.  who reporteth of them and that by experience, that they will say any thing, boast of any thing, confidently affirm any thing, burr prove nothing by any sound reason or argument, 
Luther defence. verborum caenae fol. 405.  nisi gloriatione inani de certissima veritate, save only by frivolous craking of the most clear truth. And if once they fall in to that vain, then is there no end. 
Ibi. fol. 381.382.  In suis libris gloriandi finem et modum nullum faciunt. But against all such kind of talkative vanity he giveth a very general and resolute lesson, which if I profess to take from him, and commend the same to others, M. w. can not be offended, because he extolleh the man for so peerless a master. And this it is. 
Ibid. fo. 394▪ 406.  Nemo eorum obtestationibus et iactationibus quicquam credat (saith he) Nam eos mentiri (et dupliciter mentiri) certissimum est. Let no man give any credit to the fair speeches and craking of the zwinglians. For most certain it is that they lie and lie again.  
Wherefore (Christian reader) to leave M.W. and return to thee, and so make an end, if thou be in judgement Catholic, I know thou findest not, nor ever shalt find reason to make thee a Protestant of any sect, and least of all after the English fashion. 
No more reason to be a Zwinglian, than a Lutheran or Arrian.  And if thou feel in thyself any such temptation, consider advisedly▪ but this only, why thou shouldest incline to be of that side, more than to be Lutheran, a Puritan, an Anabaptist, a Trinitarian, and so forth, and thou shall never find any probable cause why thou shouldest not as well become any of these, as a Caluinist or Zwinglian. And universally to make thee detest all Sects, if thou have some fear of God, and regard of the judgement to come, weigh only that which the very nature of our religion, & this treatise offereth to thy consideration, and thou shalt easily find abundant reason, why to reject & forsake them al.  
Consider the infinite difference between the Catholic pleading, 
infinite difference between the Catholic ●ause and ●he protestants.  reasoning, and disputing, and their perpetual wrangling, brawling, and railing. We give thee to stay thyself, in our time, unity of faith in all Christian provinces, Churches well governed and in due obedience, 
Church of ●he time present.  flourishing common wealths quietly maintaining the doctrine which of their fathers they received. They give thee infinite variety and difference of religions, disordered congregations, the sheep controling their pastors, and scholars presuming to teach their masters. And in the civil commonwealth, disobedience against the magistrate, contempt of princely authority, spoil & ruin of churches, of palaces, of all things sacred and profane.  
In the former ages, we show thee consent and agreement in the religion which we profess, 
Church of the time past  Bishops, Churches, Princes, Provinces, Peoples, all realms Christened joining in the same. They tell thee of invisible churches, imagined congregations, Mathematical devices in the air, as it were Minotautes and Hippocentaures, sometimes challenging to themselves the company of Berengarius, Wicleff, Hus, & the like, sometimes refusing them as heretics, and running per saltum unto the Apostolical age, or the first 3.4. or 5. hundred years after Christ, condemning all the church following of superstition and Papistry, and sometimes, yea commonly condemning those former ages no less than the later.  
When we treat of scriptures, 
Scriptures.  we give them unto thee sincerely and perfitly without any cutting or paring away of this or that book, or this and that piece of such a book, & all expounded uniformly by excellent Saints, by most learned Doctors, by general Counsels, by the most approved practice of the Catholic church in all antiquity. They give thee scriptures so peecemele and patchedly, that they cut of at the least the third part of them, sometimes sentences, sometimes pieces of chapters, sometimes chapters, commonly entire books. And as for the exposition of them, contemning all Saints, Doctors, & Counsels of antiquity all Doctors, Fathers, and Martyrs of their own Congregations, they reduce the final scope and determination of all, 
Preface pa. 35.36.  to This is my opinion, & this is my judgement, and, the Doctors may not take away from us our liberty to judge of them etc.  
Consider this intolerable wilfulness whereunto they are now grown, and the more they show themselves to abhor from all reason, stay, or moderation, the more oughtest thou to obhorre from them. Consider with thyself, 
judgement.  that never the founder of any common wealth, as Solon of Athenes, or Minos of Creta, was so brutish or void of common sense, as to leave his common wealth so disordered, that there should be no judges to end controversies, no governors to keep the people in peace and tranquillity, 
Never was there any common wealth worse ordered, than the Church of Christ by the Protestants divinity.  but that every man should live according to his lust and liking. Then how much more abominable is it for us to imagine, that Christ jesus the eternal wisdom of God, should frame a larger common wealth then ever was under the Sun, dispersed through all quarters & corners of the world, and yet for order & quietness, should leave the same worse policed, then was ever the least city or borough town whereof we read in any story. For so much as he bond every one of his subjects not only to live well, and in charity one with an other, but also under pain of eternal damnation he bond them all to believe a like, and to have the self same faith unchangeably in all places, times, and ages, touching a number of articles, and yet left no order whereby to procure any such unity: nay rather took order to drive than into divers & innumerable faiths, appointing so many supreme heads of churches, as there were sovereign kings, princes, dukes, & rulers, in several kingdoms, countries, provinces, and cities, appointing a book of the gospels whereby they should be governed, but leaving the exposition of the same at random in the discretion or rather fancy of every preacher and minister.  
Recall to memory, 
No ground of the English religion.  that which their own principal writers and masters teach thee, 
See chap. 7. pag. 165.  who deny not but that they lead thee an other way then any of thy forefathers went for these thousand years. 
Chap. 4. pa. 69.70 etc. etc. 6. p. 121.122.  Again they deny not but they give thee a faith far differing from the faith which the more ancient fathers followed in the first five hundred years. Then whereas they praise unto thee for most divine and Apostolical, men of later memory, those who within these 80 years have restored (as they call it) the gospel, 
Chap. 3. pag. 45.  by those men also thou art earnestly dehorted from the sacramentary faith, as a faith wicked, blasphemous, and damnable. Furthermore remember that a long time they used to retain at least the name and countenance of the written word, of the Gospel, of the scriptures, that those were altogether for them, whatsoever became of the Fathers, Counsels, and Doctors. 
Chap. 1. & 2.  But now that hold also have they given over, confessing thereby the scriptures to be as plainly against them as the rest. And with what conscience or reason, can any man follow such blind guides as these are, who profess themselves to follow none, but to be at plain defiance with all Fathers and Churches of this later thousand years, with all Fathers and Churches of the other five hundred years, and with the sacred scriptures and Gospel of Christ itself? whom for these & other reasons their own doctors, masters, and brethren, condemn as heretics most wicked and sacrilegious.  
God endue thee with his spirit, and send thee of his grace, that thou mayst take the right way and follow it, that thou mayst renounce all sects & heresies, and become a true member of Christ's Catholic Church, without which there is no sanctification of the holy Ghost, no remission of sins, and consequently no hope of the favour of God, no hope of life eternal.  
LAUS DEO.   

A GENERAL TABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL THINGS contained in this book.  

A  
ACADEMIKES, a sect of Protestants. page 279. their belief. pa. 280.  
Antinomi, a sect of Protestant's. pa. 411.  
M. W. invective against the Annotations of the new Testament. page 476. The sum thereof. pa. 477.  
Annotations of the new Testament, what they contain. pa. 484.485. what fault M.W. findeth in them. 484.491.  
Blasphemy in the Annotations touching Christ's Priesthood. pa. 528.529. Answered. 530. usque ad 542. blasphemy touching merit of works. pa. 543. answered, 544 etc.  
How the Protestants fell to call the Pope of Rome Antichrist. in praef. pa. 42. M. W. knoweth not well what that Antichrist is, against whom he writeth. Ibid. pa. 4. The absurdity of that assertion. Ibid. pa. 4. The impossibility of that opinion. 52.53.54. The end of that doctrine. 72.73.  
Arguments ridiculous made by M. W. and attributed to us. pa. 497.498.499.502.504.510.511.513. such arguments tend to make a mockery of all faith. 516.517.521.522.523.  
S. Leo the great, called Antichrist by Beza. pa. 155.  
The first Apostles of our nation were Papists and Massing priests by the confession of our adversaries. p. 165.166.  
Ancient archheretikes the protestants forefathers in sundry parts of their faith. pa. 31.32.  
S. Athanasius called Sathanasius by the heretics. pa. 84.  
S. Austin called a blind buzzard. pa. 166  
S. Austin most filthily abused and mangled by the Sacramentaries. pa. 166.177. S. Austin a priest. 65. S. Austin & S. Hierom old papists. 121.   

B  
BEza a firebrand of sedition. pa. 231.  
Writers against him. pa. 232. He correcteth S. Luke and our Saviour. 233.234.236.241. and is defended by M. W. in so doing. 236.237. His reasons. 238.239. Refuted ibid. et 240.241. Refuted long ago by Luther. 257.258. how he correcteth the new Testament. 260.261. Bezaes' fault in excusable for aught M. W. either hath said, or can say. 250. He doubteth of a part of S. john's gospel. 363.364. He furthereth the anabaptists against Christ's incarnation of the B. virgin. 368.369. See Translation of scripture.  
Bible-beaters pa. 400.  
The Bible never so mangled by any as by the protestants. 400.401. Their bible is no bible. 404.405. See Scriptures.  
Ceremonies in Baptism pa. 504.505.   

C  
Catholic doctrine unpossible to be overcome by any heresy, lest of all by this of our time. pa. 41.  
The name Catholic, not applicable to the English religion. praef. 87.88.  
Calvin condemneth the ancient fathers for approving Melchisedecs' sacrifice. pa. 60.61.  
Calvin for the real presence. pa. 223.  
Carolostadius exposition of Christ's words, Hoc est corpus meum. pa. 254. allowed by Zuinglius. 255.  
Castalios translation of the Testament. much commended by the protestants. pa. 380. His discourse that Christ is not the Messiah. praef. pa. 67.68.  
The Church catholic after Christ's time is ever populous and spread in many nations. pa. 350. et praef. pa. 62.63. She is the ground of all faith. 442. built upon a rock unmovable. 479. No good work or martyrdom profiteth to salvation out of the Catholic Church. 116.117. Infinite difference between the Catholic cause and the Protestant. pa. 556.557.558.  
No stay in faith, out of the Catholic Church praef. pa. 24.  
To say that the whole Church hath failed, is to deny Christ's incarnation. pref. p. 56.57▪ 58.59. to make him a liar. ib. 66.67. to deny him to be the true Messiah. ib. 68.69.70.71.  
The invisible Church a poetical fancy pref. pa. 60. refelled by Melanchton. 60.61. by Calvin, Oecolampadius, and others. 62.63.64. the Protestants sensibly contradict themselves in devising it. 64.65  
The foundation of the English Protestant church. pa 480.481.482. The antiquity thereof. 524. It is full of Atheists. 410.  
S. Chrysostom for the real presence. p. 188.208.215.217.218. his place comparing Christ with Elias. pa. 207. It proveth invincibly the real presence. a pa. 204. usque ad 214.  
S. Chrysost. for the sacrifice. pa. 214.215. He is almost as full of lies as words, by the protestants doctrine pa. 227.  
S. Ciril for the real presence. p. 198.199.200.   

D  
S. Damascene for the real presence. pa. 201.202.  
David George upon what ground he denied Christ. pref. pa. 66.  
Defendere is well translated to revenge pa. 464.465.466.467.  
The Doctors of the primitive Church condemned by every private sectary in that wherein they gain say his heresy. pa. 82.83. by the zwinglians for approving the sacrifice of Melchisedech. pa. 60. and Mass pa. 69.70.71.72. and for disallowing the marriage of priests and votaries▪ 83. by the Puritans for allowing holidays in the honour of Christ & his Saints. 84. by the Trinitarians for acknowledging the B. Trinity. 84. by the Lutherans for denying the Vbiquetie of Christ's body. 85. by M. W. for their doctrine of penance and works. 82. 11●. and for saying that Antichrist is one man. pref. pa. 44.45. See works.   

E  
Elias cloak & the zwinglians supper compared together. pa. 212.213.  
Elias shall come before the day of judgement. pa. 494.495.  
English writers. 478 their manner of writing. 284.285.475. and disputing 477. more absurd than others. pref. pa. 6.7.  
Those of the English religion are not Protestants. pref. pa. 88 they are properly called zwinglians or Sacramentaries. ibi. 89.90.91. by what names they call themselves. praef. pa. 91. how they are called by Act of parliament. ibi. 21.   

F  
The true meaning of Only faith justifying. pa. 280.411.412. Libertinisme the end thereof. 127.128.  
The nature of true Christian faith. pa. 517.518.519. how one part of faith is applied to the confirmation of an other. 521.  
Ecclesiastical manner of fasting cometh from Christ and his Apostles. pa. 89.90.  
The zwinglians figure in Christ's words touching the sacrament pa. 251. The figure of the Catholics ib. infinite difference between these two. 252.253.254.255.  
free-will. pa. 509.   

G  
Grace hindereth nothing the merit of works. pag. 102.103.  
To say, God is the author of sin, is to say, God is an Idol, or a devil. pa 451. The protestants say so. 451.453 454.  
S. Gregory much praised by the Protestants. pag. 158. much railed at by the Protestants. 164. A book written against him by Vergerius. 165. S. Gregory a priest, without all reason made minister by M. jewel. 164.  
The Greek Testament more advantageable for the Catholics then the common latin pa. 283.284. Our common latin Testament more pure than the greek now extant. 361.362.363. The greek Testament now differeth much from the old. 363.364. Additions rashly made to the greek. 365.366.367. Parcels of importance left out of the greek. 367.368.369.370.   

H  
Heaven is of grace & works. pa. 104.105.106.107▪ 544.545. Of mercy and justice. 105.106▪ 107.108.109.  
Heaven must receive Christ, Act. 3. v▪ 21 maketh nothing against Christ's presence in the sacrament. pa. 179.180.181.193. handled at large, a pag. 170. usque ad 175.  
S. Paul to the Hebrewes as much doubted of in the primitive church, as the epistle of S. james. pa. 38.39.  
The Apostles cited not scripture always according to the Hebrew pa. 287.288.289. Books of scripture written in Hebrew, lost. 290.  
S. Hierom preferring the Hebrew before the latin in his time, justifieth not the Hebrew of our time. pa. 297.337. More probable, that the Hebrew hath been corrupted then the latin. pa. 297.298.299.300.  
Corruptions in the Hebrew pa. 302. in Isai against Christ's divinity. 303. confessed by Luther. 304. confessed by Lyra. 306. Item in jeremy. 307. confessed and proved by Lyra. 308.309. in Isai against Christ's passion. 310.311. confessed by Luther. 312.313. item in the psalms. 355. followed by the Tigurine Translators. 358. and Bucer. 357. item in Daniel. 313. General reasons why the Hebrew text can not be so sincere as the heretics pretend. 317.318. etc.  
Many books of the Prophets, and histories of the old Testament, lost. pa. 317.318.  
Great difference in the Hebrew, by mistaking one letter for an other. pa. 322.323.325.  
That the Hebrew bibles are faulty, confessed by Castalio. pa. 326.327. by D. Humphrey. 327. by Conradus Pellicanus. 327. It is a jewish opinion to think them altogether faultless. 327. They have great diversity of reading. 331.332. somewhat wanteth in them. 332.333.  
Although S. Hierom appealed from the latin to the Hebrew, yet the like reason is not now. pa. 333.334. He confesseth and proveth the Hebrew to be faulty. 334.335.336.  
An argument commonly made for the purity of the Hebrew. pa. 338.339. answered. 339 340. etc.  
S. justine proveth the jews to have corrupted their bible. pa. 341.342.343.344.  
Hebrew knowledge much advanced by Catholics. pa. 352.440.  
The Hebrew tongue much subject to cavilling. pa. 431.432.433. See Rabbins.  
A man must have a settled faith before he confer greek and Hebrew texts. pa. 441.442. best Hebritians are not best Christians. pa. 441. our first Apostles planted perfit christianity without Hebrew. pa. 345.  
Heretics generally given to scorning▪ pa. 511.  
S. Hierom condemned as ignorant of all divinity. pa. 371.   

I  
S. james epistle refused by Luther, Lutherans, & zwinglians. pa. 8.9.10.11.12. et 17.22.23. Calvin mangleth it. 288.289.  
M. jewels challenge. pa. 133.138. The true image thereof. 133. usque ad 138. It is grounded upon no reason or learning. 138.139.140.141. It containeth in effect only three articles, the primacy of the Sea Apostolic, the real presence, and the sacrifice. 133.136.137.138. See of them in their several places.  
M. jewels passing vanity in bragging and lying▪ pa. 460. his manner of answering D. Harding. pref. 75.76.  
Reverence done to the name of jesus. pa. 513.514.515.  
The Jews corrupt the text of scripture. pa. 304. in despite of Christians. 314.329. negligent in conserving their scriptures 328.329. their malice against the Sea of Rome. 329.330. Very probable that Christ reprehended them for corrupting the scripture. 339. See Hebrew.  
S. john Baptist lived a monastical life. pa. 492.   

K  
That the wise men which came to worship Christ, were kings. pa. 485. usque ad 489. that they were three. 489. 490. their names. 490.491.   

L  
S. Luke's gospel called in question. pa. 27.28.29.32.  
Luther's works altered and corrupted by the Lutherans. pa. 5▪ 6.13. by the Caluinists. 7. He denieth S. james epistle. p. 11. his immoderate bragging. 42. his extreme hatred of the Sacramentaries. 43.44.45.46. his judgement of their religion. 52.53.483. he refuseth their bibles. 45. singularly honoured by the English church. 18.191. preferred by M. W. before all doctors. 47. most absurdly. 48.50. He derideth the zwinglians fond arguments. 258.  
Luther a shameful corrupter of scripture. 377.378.  
Lucian's true histories. praef. pa. 4.5.   

M  
Heretical martyrs damned. pa. 117.  
S. Matthew written his gospel in Hebrew. pa. 290. the protestants hold the greek translation more authentical. 291.  
The protestants reason against the Maccabees, is as forcible against S. Luke & S. Paul. 506.507.508.  
Melchisedech did sacrifice. pa. 57 granted by M. W. denied by all other protestants. pa. 58.59.60. acknowledged by the ancient father's 60. why not expressed by the Apostle. 61.537. etc.  
Melanchthon for the real presence. pa. 190.  
Merit of works. See in Heaven, and works.   

N  
Novelty of words dangerous in Christian religion. pa. 266.267. exemplified. 268.269. it induceth contempt of faith. 270. and leadeth to paganism 276.277.278.   

O  
Only faith. See Faith.   

P  
Penance what it is by the Protestants doctrine. 86.90.91. It rejecteth external works of fasting & discipline. ibid. which are required by the scripture. 87.88.89▪ 90. by S. Cypian and the primitive church. 124.125. the Catholic doctrine touching the value of them 92. the Protestants contradictory argument against them. 91. 93.94.  
S. Peter's being at Room denied most absurdly. pa. 130.131.132. his primacy. 498.510.  
Pilgrimage to holy places. pa. 502. 503.512.513.  
Primacy of the Roman Sea proved evidently by those fathers, whom M. jewel nameth his masters to the contrary. pa. 143. by Anacletus and Xystus. 143.144. by S. Leo 146 147. S. Leo governeth in all parts of Christendom. 147.148.149. his authority over the bishop of Constantinople. 148. he summoneth general Counsels. 152. he is head of them. 153. no lawful Council without his approbation. 152. This primacy is grounded upon Christ's words and the Apostles ordinance. 143.144.153.  
S. Gregory accounteth the Roman Church, head of all other. pa. 156.158. his authority over the bishop of Constantinople. 156. over the bishops of Europe, Asia, and Africa. 156.157. 158.162.163.  
The Protestants common objection taken out of S. Gregory, answered. pa. 159.160.161.162. the name universal, in what sort and sense disliked by S. Gregory. pa. 160.161.163.  
Priests properly so called were appointed by Christ. pa. 64. S. Austin such a priest. 64.65.66. So was S. Leo and S. Hierom. 69. The church of Christ was never ruled but by such priests. 67.68.69. Such were the orderers of our Ecclesiastical state, and builders of our churches in England. 68  
S. Paul's discourse of Christ's eternal priesthood Hebr. 7. maketh nothing against the priesthood of the church. pag. 74. usque ad 79.  
The name of Protestants. praef. pa. 88.90. It agreeth not properly to our English gospelers. ibi. In their faith there is no stay or certainty. praef. pa. 7.24.37. Exemplified by the Supremacy of princes. ibid. 9.10. by baptism. 11.12. Confirmation. 13. Christ's descending into hell. 14. Christ's divinity. 14.15▪ Rebellion against princes. 15.16. Regiment of women. 18. great difference in their Communion books. 11.12.13. the divers changes of religion in England since the time of schism. 20.21.22.  
In the Protestants writing and disputing there is no ground. pref pa. 8. exemplified by their refusal of scriptures. ibid. pa. 26. Apostolical Traditions and general Counsels. ibi. Ancient fathers. 27. Apostles & Doctors of their own. 28.29.30. Martyrs and whole Churches of their own. 30.31.32. They reduce all to private fancy. 35.36.37.38. They pass the ancient heretics in denial of all things. pa. 38.39. their manifold Popes. 33.34.  
The forefathers of the Protestants church. pa. 349. of whom they must look for the true scripture. 348.351. a true confession of a principal protestant. 407. their churches void of all truth and knowledge. 407.408. they persuade Atheism by scripture. 408.409. all their preaching and writing tendeth thereunto. 410.411.428. their vaunting of the clear light of the gospel sensibly refuted. 408.  
The Protestants manner of answering the Catholics. pag. 412. They deny all Doctors. 413. They deny sundry parts of scripture. 413.414. They pretend the greek. 415. They falsely translate the greek. 416. They refuse the ordinary sense of the greek. 418. They leave & corrupt the greek. 420. usq. ad 427. They interpret at pleasure greek, latin, and every tongue else. 429.430. their strange interpretations of scripture. pa. 324.382.429.430.424. of fathers. 217. Their manner of arguing. 225. of one figurative speech, they conclude as many as they list. ibi. et. 226. The folly thereof. 226.251.252.  
The agreement between the Protestants of our time and old heretics. pa. 430.431. they are most desirous of novelty. 455.456.457. they mock at the Prophets and sundry writers of scripture. 458. their preaching a very mockery of scripture. 458.459. they proceed to infidelity. pa. 2.3. 559.560. et pref. pa. 21.22. they make themselves supreme judges of scripture & all other authority. pa. 54 & pref. p. 19 20. etc. they are obstinate in what soever absurdity they once take. 237. they honour the jews more than S. Paul. 325 326. or the Church of Christ. 353. like to the jews in malice against the Sea of Rome. 329.330.331. they use more reverence to the images of beasts than of Christ. 514.515. Be they never so contrary, they are all assured of the truth. pref. 32.  
The Protestants allow all Sects to rebel for their several heresies. pref. pag. 16.17.   

R  
The Rabbins of the jews not to be followed in the sense of the Hebrew words. pa. 434. the Protestants translating after them translate wickedly. 434.435. They corrupt the text of scripture by mispoynting it. 314.315.  
Power to Remit sins given to the English ministers by act of Parliament. pa. 79.80.  
M. jewels challenge touching the real presence artic. 5. answered pa. 182. usque ad 196, the zwinglians most usual and popular argument against it. 178. answered at large. 179. etc. the first heretics of the English church approved it. 182. Many things in scripture as uncredible as that. 183.184.186. the zwinglians argument against the sacrament is the root of Paganism. 184.185.193.199. It joinerh them to the anabaptists, Ebionites, & Nestorians. 185.187. It is rejected by the ancient Fathers. 188.198.199. Condemned by the Lutherans 189.190. answered at large by Luther. 191.192. he supposeth it to proceed rather from Turks than Christians. 194.195.  
In the sacrament, all human & philosophical reason must yield to faith. p. 188.189.190.192.198.199.201.202. Scriptures and fathers for the real presence. S. Luke. 235.236. jeremy. 342.343. S. Chrisostom & S. Leo. 238. S. Ciril. 200.  
Heretics for the real presence. Melanchthon. 190. Westphalus. 190.191. Luther. 221. Calvin. 223.  
The ground of the sacramentary divinity. p. 191. The Sacramentaries, infidels. 193. Infidels, their forefathers in mocking Christians for their belief in the sacrament. 222. how they deal with the fathers. 193.194. no one father ever was of their religion. 167. See more in Supper.  
The sacrament a figure joined with the verity. pa. 223.224.  
The Roman Church constant in holding fast the doctrine once delivered. pa. 300.301. pure for six hundred years after Christ. in pref. pa. 47. It can not be proved, that she ever changed her faith. ibid. 47.48.49.55.56.   

S  
Christ sacrificed at his last supper. pa. 62. the sacrifice of the Church deduced thence. 62.63. sacrifice offered by S. Austin for the dead. 66. sacrifice for the dead and in the honour of Saints was usual in the primitive church. 70.71. Christ a priest in respect of the church's sacrifice. 530.531.532. In the church we see Christ sacrificed. 217 218.219.220. True sacrifice in the church. 214.215.229.230.  
Melchisedechs' sacrifice. See Melchisedech.  
M. jewels challenge touching the sacrifice artic. 17. answered by the chief protestants. pa. 70.71.72.  
Saints hear our prayers. pa. 500.501.  
Sundry books & parts of scripture denied by the protestants. pa. 26. usque ad 32. et 401.402. they refusing the authority of the church, believe not the scripture. 33.34.35.36. they open the way for every man to deny what he listeth. 402.403. A part of S. john's gospel doubted of. 364. S. Peter's second epistle. 441.415. the epistle to the hebrews denied. ibidem. See S. james. S. Luke. scripture made ridiculous, when it cometh to profane handling. 498. somewhat is the word of God besides scripture. 36.37.  
Scripture corrupted by heretics in favour of their heresies. 176.177. in Genes. against the sacrifice. pag. 59.60. in S. Peter against free-will and good works. 416 417. Christ's words in S. Luke, notably corrupted for the same purpose. 420.421.422. isaiah translated detestably agaistn Christ's incarnation. 439. S. Peter corrupted to make God the author of sin. 451.452.453.455. S. Paul against Christ's divinity. 315. Act. 3. against the real presence. 174.179.180. against the immortality of the soul. 273.274. scripture falsely interpreted by heretics, is the word of the Devil. 180.50.  
The protestāns by their example make the text of scripture very uncertain. pa. 241.242.243. one year canonical, the next year not. 366. It is not to be altered upon one doctors reading. 244.245. the partiality of heretics choosing precisely one or other reading, because it best serveth their heresy. 246.247.248.249. they apply scripture to prove any thing be it never so unreasonable. 255. to prove Atheism 408.409.  
Books of scripture faithfully kept by the church though the Hebrew text be false. 346.347. heretics may not prescribe the church in what tongue to keep them. 347.348.  
Stancarus judgement of the principal Protestant writers. pa. 96.97.  
The Septuaginta interpreters condemned by Luther. pa. 305.  
The zwinglians true opinion of their Supper. p. 209. it differeth nothing from common breakfasts. 209.210.211.213. it is no more the body of Christ, than a painted scutcheon is king of France. 210. only bread. 210.214.222. the Supper of the Sacramentaries hath no use of Christ's words. 257. their arguments against the words of Christ in S. Luke, foretold & answered by Luther. 258.259.   

T  
Tradition of the Church, necessary. pa. 36. S. Hierom author of the common Translation of the new Testament used in the Church. p. 294.295. by appointment of Pope Damasus. 294. it is approved by the Council of Trent. 281.389. It agreeth with the ancient greek. 372.373. commended for sincerity, by the Protestant writers. 374.375. defended by them & preferred before all new. 383.387.388.389. preferred before the greek. 393. not to be corrected by the reading of some doctor. 394.395. M.W. argument against the same. 391.392. the answer. 392.393. etc.  
English translations of the new Testament all approved by M.W. pa. 262. his wickedness therein. 263.264. Such translations lead men to Atheism. 271. & are condemned by the learned Protestants. 271.272.273.274.275.436. for Hell they translate Grave, most wickedly. 272. thereby moving men to think that the soul is mortal. 273.274. A brief sum of damnable faults committed by those translators. 278.279. English Translations made in schism, all nought. 385. English Translations leave the Hebrew. 312. differ notably one from an other. 321.  
protestant Translations of the new Testament all partial in favour of their peculiar heresies. pag. 365. Luther's condemned by Zuinglius. 376.377.378. Al Zwinglian translations condemned by Luther. 378.379. that of Basile condemned by Beza. 379. item Castalios. 380. Caluins corrupteth the text. 381. Bezaes' most variable and worst of all other. 381.382.383.384. he then most busily corrupteth scripture, when it is most to the dishonour of Christ. 384.385.  
M. W. invective against the late Catholic translation of the new Testament 444. it is mere histrionical 445.446.448. in condemning it, he reproveth himself. 447.454.455. the hypocrisy of his accusation. 449.450. Notable bragging and lying. 459.460.461. how weakly he justifieth his invective. 462.463. he objecteth only two faults. 263.264. both false, and if they were true, of no importance, 464.470.472.473. What they are in particular. 464. his unconscionable dealing 472.473.  
What is principally requisite in a Translator of scripture. pa. 371.372.375.  
Translations more authentical than the original. pa. 290.291.306.   

V  
Of the name Vniuersali●, See Primacy.   

W  
Arguments that Good works are not the cause of salvation. pa. 95. refuted at large. 99.100.101. etc.  
Good works in Christians are cause of salvation. pa. 99.100. usque ad 106. & 418.421.422.423. as evil works are cause of damnation. 104.105.106.107. See Heaven.  
Good works are in no respect necessary to salvation by the Protestants doctrine. pa. 110.111.113. their arguments proving the same. 112.113.  
The father's doctrine touching good works set down by M. W. pa. 115. the wickedness thereof. 116.118.119. they are therefore condemned by Luther as very jews. 120.121.122.  
M.W. notable wrangling. pa. 14.15. his manifold oversights. 97.98. he understandeth not the Protestants doctrine of only faith. 109. he commonly contradicteth himself. 23.25.114.115.123.126.319. he proveth the English ministers to be Antichrists for saying Communion. 127.128. how fond he answereth a place of S. Chrysost. 204.206.211.212. his strange assertion, that only the Hebrew text is scripture. 286.287. Refuted. 287.288.289. he calleth S. Austin a Sorbonist for his doctrine touching the value of good works. p. 543.545.546. and by like reason all the Apostles and Prophets. pag. 545.546. his arrogancy in condemning all doctors. 495.496. et praef. pag. 44.45. The sum of his answering D. Sanders consisteth partly in preferring himself before all other, pref. pa. 42. ad 51. partly in leaving out the substance of D.S. arguments. ibid. pa. 75. usque ad 81.   

Z  
Zuinglius the Apostle of the English church. pref. pa. 89.90.  
zwinglians notable liars. pag. 525.526.555. and bragger's. 554. their manner of writing. pref. pa. 81.82.    

The faults correct thus.  
Pa. 4, linea 13. for charged, read charging. Ibidem in many copies wanteth a marginal note. Contra Campian. pag. 11.  
Pa. 41, li. 26. Estaticus, read Ecstaticus.  
Pa. 85. lin. 6. Christ, read Christ's.  
Pa. 145. lin. 18. forth, read forth.  
Pa. 195. l. 17. argumenr, read argument.  
Pa. 328. li. 8. for the two hebrew letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where also in some few examples, the later Hebrew word is divided, which should be joined.  
Some other faults there are of like quality, especially of one letter for an other, as s for f, and r for t, and in one place of some copies, is which for which is, all which, considering the ordinary difficulties of printing, where strangers are the workers, compositors, & correctors, (besides other extraordinary mishaps) I trust the Reader of his courtesy will easily pardon. Whom I request, if by reading hereof, he find aught for the increase of his faith towards Christ and his Church Catholic, even for love of the same Christ and Church, to help me with his prayer.  
FINIS.