AN answer to a certain Book, written by Master William Rainolds Student of Divinity in the English College at Rheims, and entitled, A Refutation of sundry reprehensions, Cavils, etc.  
By William Whitaker, professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge.  
Printed at London for Thomas Chard. 1585.   

To the right honourable Sir William Cecil, Knight of the Garter, Baron of Burghley, Lord high Treasurer of England, and Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, Grace and peace.  
IT is not unknown to your Honour, how the adversaries have never ceased since the beginning of her majesties most happy reign until this day, by their books in great numbers written and published, and by all other means, that possibly they might devise, to trouble the state of the Church, and to diffame that holy religion of Christ, which through God's great mercy, and godly laws of our gracious Sovereign, is according to his holy word established amongst us. What they have wrought with many of all estates, and how mightily they have prevailed with that strong & effectual illusion of Satan, which hath advanced Antichrist unto that supremacy of power, authority, and credit in the world, whereof the holy ghost by SS. Paul & john hath foretold, lamentable experience can witness in the backsliding, and continual falling of many away from us, to their own final perdition, to the grief of the godly, & to the great encouragement and comfort of the enemy. And among other examples of this Apostasy, I offer to your Honour one very notable, even the man with whom I have in this book to deal, who having been late not only a common professor of our religion, but a public minister and preacher of the same in our Church, hath not only revolted from us, through some worldly temptations, and run over into our enemy's camp, but hath also lifted up his heel against us, and in open writing most maliciously and bitterly railed at us. Occasion of uttering his conceived malice against us, in his late writing he taketh by a certain Preface of mine before the answer to D. Saunders demonstrations of Antichrist, which being not very long, and handling no great variety of matter, I never thought could have provoked the Adversary so much, or procured so long and large a Confutation. I looked rather that the substance of my book concerning Antichrist, should have been answered by some that would maintain Saunders arguments, whereby he laboureth to prove that the Pope cannot be Antichrist; which being in deed a weighty and most material controversy, required the learning and diligence of the most sufficient scholar amongst them. Neither could I otherwise suspect, but seeing I had written in latin against a latin Adversary, he whosoever should take in hand to set forth any thing against me, would have done it in the latin tongue. But M. Rainolds, who was appointed (as he saith) to answer my book of Antichrist, and in all his actions professeth himself to be ordered by those, to whose government he hath submitted himself, pretending in show to publish a confutation thereof, hath written only against the preface, wherein are handled other matters, & so hath answered nothing to the principal question, whereof the book, that he would seem to have confuted, specially entreateth: & further hath written not in latin as I did, but in english, as liked best his governors & himself. Whereupon I was at the first partly persuaded to pass over this Refutation of his with silence: & the rather, because I listed not to reason or deal against such a one as he is, of whom for many respects I could not conceive any hope at all, that ever my labours should do him good, having thus embraced pernicious & deceitful error, & wilfully cast away from him the love of the truth, which once he had in show received, which he pretended to believe, and which he did in deed profess. Which kind of men through God's justice for the most part are given over into such reprobate hardness of heart, that they can never after be reclaimed, but continue always desperate to their everlasting destruction. Notwithstanding, when I perused better the contents of his book, and took advise of the godly, what were best for me to do herein, whether I should make answer to this man, or rather obeying king Ezechias commandment, let him alone, and say nothing to him, I was in the end resolved to set forth a plain and sufficient answer to his whole volume, not for his sake, of whom I have no hope, nor respect, but in regard of others, who thereby may either be confirmed in the truth, or preserved from error.  
I see the adversaries drift especially was, to breed in the minds of our countrymen a misliking of this our religion, which himself having once liked well, was after (I know not how) moved to mislike. The which he endeavoureth to perform by some other means, than heretofore have commonly been used, as any man reading his book may soon observe, wherein he shall find continual allegations of testimonies out of our own writers, craftily brought in, to show a dissension of judgements amongst ourselves, that so his readers may be induced to think the worse of our doctrine, and of us al. A devise full of fraud, dishonesty & malice, to take advantage of men's infirmities & imperfections against the eternal truth of God, which he cannot by ordinary & lawful kind of reasoning refute. Between Luther and Zuinglius about the Sacrament, was a sharp contention, hotly debated in many books, & the same hath continued since to the great hindrance of the gospel and offence of many. In which contrary writings and discourses, are found oftentimes harder speeches of either against other, than were to be wished, yet such as the godly servants of the Lord in contention about the truth, sometimes are moved to utter against their brethren. S. Paul openly and sharply reprehended S. Peter to his face, whereat wicked Porphyry catched a like occasion to rail at Christian religion long since, as our adversaries do at these days. What a violent and troublesome contention was there between Theophilus of Alexandria, and good Chrysostom of Constantinople? Who knoweth not how sharply Cyrillus a learned and wise Bishop of Alexandria hath written against Theodoritus a godly and catholic Bishop, in a controversy touching the catholic faith? Both Bishops, both catholics, both learned, both godly, both excellent pillars of the Church: and yet he that readeth both their writings, would think that both were dangerous enemies of the Church and faith of Christ, and of all Christians to be avoided. So in the books of Luther and Zuinglius, and those that maintain either part, appeareth (I grant) great sharpness and bitterness of dissension: who all notwithstanding, if ye set the heat of disputation aside, were as godly, as learned, as zealous Christians, as the world had any. Now cometh in M. Rainoldes like a crafty enemy, and gathering a heap of such speeches, out of sundry their books, hath in divers places of his confutation inserted the same, as any occasion would serve, to make his readers acquainted therewith, that seeing such earnest contention among the chiefest professors of the Gospel, they may be further withdrawn in alienation of mind from the love and liking thereof. Wherein also to help his purpose, he hath used two kinds especially of unlawful sleights. One is, to report among others the testimonies also of open Adversaries to the doctrine of the Gospel, as namely of Gabriel Fabritius against Beza, and of Castalion, and such others, as either being professed papists, or doubtful protestants, ought not in this case to be regarded. Another is, to falsify the judgements and sentences of our writers, and so to make most untrue reports of them. As for example, in his 12. cha. pa. 356. he affirmeth, that we begin secretly to disprove the Church's faith, touching the manner of Christ's crucifying, namely, that his hands and feet were pierced with nails, and for proof hereof allegeth testimonies out of Marlorate, Musculus and Bucer, in whom no such thing is in any place to be found. And that every man may perceive what pleasure he hath, & what liberty he taketh to himself of speaking and reporting any thing untruly, he accuseth Castalion to have made a discourse in the Preface written to K. Edward the sixth, before his translation of the Bible, in proof that Christ is not the true Messiah; which verily is a foul slander, as any man may judge that readeth the same: so be chargeth us with the abominable heresies of the Trinitarians, Libertines, Anabaptists, Antinomi, David George, and such like, whom we detest as much as they, against whom both we have written more than they, and our Magistrates, both ecclesiastical and civil, have also seriously proceeded. With such allegations of all sorts, out of all writers, for all purposes, hath he fraughted and stuffed his book: other substance and weight of matter is there none therein, so that of itself it might be thought most unworthy of answer. Yet because such books do harm abroad, and it is expedient to have the adversaries folly and weakness detected, I have undertaken this labour of answering M. Rainolds, and that in english, for the same consideration that caused him to leave the latin, and write in the english tongue: which I think he hath not done, so much for want of skill therein, as that his writings might commonly be read and understood of englishmen. This my labour I offer to your honours good acceptation, humbly beseeching you, that I may publish it under the safeguard of your honourable protection. And as you have been always a zealous lover of Christ's Gospel, and by your godly wisdom have done your endeavour to advance greatly the lords cause from time to time, and to hinder the practices of the enemy, so I beseech the Lord to increase in you all those Christian virtues, to the benefit of Christ's Church, and the common wealth of this Realm. Thus I commend your Lordship to Gods most merciful and gracious preservation, beseeching him to prolong your days upon earth, with multiplication of all graces necessary for this life, and for the life to come.  
Your Lordships to command, William Whitaker.   

AN ANSWER TO MASTER RAINOLDS PREFACE.  
WHether Master Rainolds were appointed by his governors to make this answer, 
pag 3.  as he saith, or else of his own accord took the matter in hand without commission of any superior authority, I take it to be a thing of small regard, both in respect of himself, and of his work, and also of those his superiors, to whose direction he professeth to have committed himself, and all the gifts he hath. Only this thing I cannot believe., although it be no more material, than the other, that he was so loath to take upon him this business, as he pretendeth. For if we consider not only the manner of his writing, wherein appeareth as great malice against the truth of God, as shameless railing at Christ's gospel, and professors thereof, as notable pride, presumption, and hardness of heart, as ever hath done in any enemy heretofore; but further also how necessary it was for him, being a Renegade, and of a Minister and Pastor of a Church become suddenly a seminary Priest, & therefore living in great suspicion▪ 'mongst his fellows, to approve by some public testimony his unfeigned conversion to their synagogue, we shall not easily be persuaded to think there was in the man such unwillingness in this matter at the first, as he would have us to suppose. But as vain declamors are commonly wont to excuse themselves with pretence of being loath to attempt so weighty a matter, that they may seem somewhat unwilling to do the thing, which in truth they do most willingly and studiously, so Master Rainolds could not devise a more commodious beginning of his declamatory preface, than a protestation of lothnes to write that, which any man may easily judge he went about with all his will, industry, and ability.  
And that you may the rather imagine he was forsooth very loath to take this matter in hand, he can show you diverse reasons, that made him so loath: and yet the true reason, that ought indeed to have hindered his course, he toucheth not, that herein he was to set himself against the known truth, to write against his conscience in open maintenance of wicked heresies, to fight for Antichrist against the Lord, and finally to commit the sin, that either in property of nature is the greatest of all, or cometh nearest unto it. One reason was, he saith, because he saw many in that society, as willing and more able to undertake, and dispatch a greater matter than that. As willing Master Rainolds? why? then have you dissembled before in telling us you were unwilling: now by your own confession you were willing enough, but there were many also in your College, as willing as you. Whereof surely we have no doubt, that you are all most wilfully bend, and earnestly disposed to do what harm any of you possibly can to the Church of England. As for your knowledge and ability to perform against us any notable enterprise, we have no care, we stand in no fear of you, we know what pith is in the strongest of you. And for yourself, Master Rainolds, I am of opinion, that you may truly take the garland from your own head, and give it rather to many others of your fellows.  
Another reason he feigneth to be, 
Pag. 4.  for that he thought it some injury to Catholics to dispute against that savage and barbarous paradox, namely that the Pope is Antichrist. What injury could this be thought done to your Catholics, Master Rainolds, to write in defence of your Pope, and prove him not to be that Antichrist, than which a greater pleasure can no man do for him, and for his Church, it being apparent, and so of many Christians believed, that he is indeed no other, than the very Antichrist himself? In which respect perhaps your conscience told you, that if you opposed yourself against this truth, therein should you offer injury to your Pope, and Pope-catholike brethren, whom the same so specially doth concern.  
You say I know not what Antichrist is, 
Contrae Saunder. pa. 6. in principio.  against whom I writ, and that sometime I make Antichrist to be the whole Catholic and universal Church, whereof the Pope is head: which to be a pregnant untruth, he that looketh one the place, may see. Have I said, the Pope is head of the Catholic universal Church? or the Catholic universal Church is Antichrist? what will you be ashamed hereafter to write, that in the first entrance writ thus untruely without shame? and yet having yourself avouched so notorious an untruth, you dare make mention of Lucian's true history, which book, as may seem, you have not only read over with diligence and delight, but also translated into English, & propounded unto yourself as worthy of your imitaion. For to give you that praise, that of due belongeth unto you, Lucian, if he lived, could hardly coin more passing untruths, or scoff more kindly at Christ and his gospel, than you have done.  
A greater reason was, he saith, for that he abhorred to deal with heretics, 
pag. 5.  who pass all other in pride and ignorance, and of all heretics, he maketh us of England to be the worst. Indeed true it is that heretics for the most part are obstinate & past amendment, & therefore a great weariness & vexation of mind is it to maintain contentions, and disputes with them, whereof in the end small profit doth redound. But this complaint of heretical wilfulness nothing toucheth us, who by God's grace are far from all kind of heresy, and hold no other doctrine then that which the Prophets and Apostles, and jesus Christ himself have taught us, & which is plainly contained in the books of canonical scripture, from which if labouring to dissuade us you cannot prevail, no marvel is it. And in defending the same, we are content to be esteemed of you contentious, proud, ignorant, and as you list. We are not so much in love of your society, nor seek your favour and commendation so greatly, that we will join in unity with you against the Lord, his truth, and Church. If you think we are proud, tell us wherein our pride consisteth. If in that we will not yield unto you, nor give over maintenance of the Gospel, pardon us, Master Rainolds: modesty in the Lord is an excellent virtue, but the modesty that betrayeth the truth of God is accursed. Other pride (I doubt not) we are as clear from, as yourself or any of your fellows. And for ignorance, we may think it was some spice of pride in you to object it unto us, who for any thing that appeareth have no cause to brag of such knowledge, or to challenge more to yourself, than you may safely grant to an other. For tell us what learning is, wherein it consisteth, and how it may be gotten? Unless you have some special means, and as it were some secret way to attain unto it, which others have not, I see not why we should think that you have gotten a greater measure of learning and wisdom, then others who have used as great endeavour as yourself. And what the matter should be, I know not, that you are suddenly become so learned and that we have lost all learning. But were you as learned as ever any was, or could be, your learning shall not be able to hurt the cause, that we defend: your learning shall in the end deceive you: and you that now boast of your knowledge, shall then be ashamed of your ignorance. To know Christ out of his word, is true knowledge, sound learning, and perfect wisdom.  
Certain examples you rehearse of our ignorant assertions, only thereby to make our cause seem odious to the simple: but the reasons of our assertions you pretermit, which is your common sleight, continually to tell your readers that such and such opinions we hold, and not to show the manner, nor to remember or answer our reasons. Wherein I desire the reader to consider how untruely Master Rainolds hath charged me with a wicked heresy, that in this man he may behold the conscience of a Papist. He setteth down for one of my sayings, that Christ is not begotten of the substance of his father: a slander most manifest, in a matter of greatest moment. I have not written thus, no, I never thought thus. I abhor with my heart all such blasphemy against the Person of our saviour Christ. But in the mean time what hath this slanderer deserved? Let the reader equally judge between him and me, and by trial hereof esteem more indifferently of the rest of his malice.  
Now the greatest cause of all that made him so loath, 
pag. 7.  was, he saith, because he found in our doctrine no stay or certainty, which yet, if it were true, should have ministered unto him greater will and courage, forsomuch as the doctrine that standeth upon no certain stay is easily disproved and overthrown. But in truth Master Rainolds perceiving our doctrine to be grounded upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles which may not be removed, and knowing we will not yield to men's doctrines and inventions whatsoever, differing from the holy scriptures, but rest ourselves wholly upon the written word of God, I think he was indeed somewhat discouraged, as great cause was he should, being sure his engines could not prevail against the same.  
And what greater steadfastness in religion can be required, then to hold God's word, which we profess to be the ground, whereon we build our faith? If you can show, wherein we serve from it, we will not refuse your instruction. But say not now we are unstaid, when as you know we rely ourselves wholly upon the word, unless you will deny God's word to be a certain rule and stay of doctrine. We plant not our religion in man's judgement & uncertainty of Traditions, in vain ceremonies and devices, as you do, but in matters of faith and religion we depend upon God, who in the scriptures of the old and new Testament hath delivered to his Church one certain, uniform, and perfect doctrine, to which we add nothing, from which we take nothing away, in which we settle and ground ourselves. But let us hear how Master Rainolds can prove, that the Protestants have no certain faith. For this he hath propounded to himself to declare especially in this preface. And I desire the godly readers to mark his proofs, which shallbe I trust to their comfort, and confirmation in the truth.  
First he objecteth diversity of judgement amongst us, 
Pag. 9  concerning the Prince's supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical, wherein is no such difference as he pretendeth, if he listed rightly to understand the case. The title of supreme head of the Church hath been misliked by diverse godly and learned men, and of right and properly it only belongeth to the son of God, and may not be communicated unto any man whosoever. And therefore never did our Church give that title in such words unto the Prince, not yet did the Prince ever challenge the same, and so herein is no dissension. For the Prince's lawful supreme authority in procuring for the Church a good and peaceable estate, in defending of the same, by maintaining Gods true religion & worship against heretics and schissmatikes, in removing of manifest abuses, and disorders, in causing the ministers of the Church, according to their offices and vocations, to execute their duties faithfully, in punishing them, if they be found negligent, & all this with assistance of godly and learned Ministers of the Church, by that absolute and immediate commission, which every sovereign Christian Prince hath received from the Lord God, being not subject to any foreign power of Priest or potentat, this also all Protestants confess, with full consent therein, condemning the Pope's Antichristian supremacy, who contrary to God's word challengeth a sole & supreme government over all Christian Princes & Churches in the world. Is this now a good proof that Protestants have no certainty in their faith?  
secondly, 
pag. 11.  touching baptism, Master Rainolds thinketh he hath found some contradiction between the communion book, which affirmeth that by baptism children are regenerate, and wherein the Minister exhorteth the people not to doubt, but Christ will give to the Infants baptised, eternal life, and between the disputation in the Tower of London the second day, 
〈…〉  wherein the doctors teach, that all those who are baptize● are the sons of god. If your eyes were matches, things that are but one, would not thus appear double unto you. Baptism is the sacrament of new birth, wherein our adoption by Christ is sealed unto us, and we are made the sons of God, as many as believe, both sacramentally, and spiritually: the unbelievers only sacramentally. Wherefore this is not so to be understood, as though whosoever is baptised, shall therefore be sure to have eternal life. For Simon Magus was baptised, and yet condemned: and so also many more beside notwithstanding their baptism, shallbe excluded from fellowship with the Saints in God's kingdom. So that to be baptised proveth not necessarily assurance and certainty of life everlasting in all persons. Why then might not the Doctors be bold to say, that baptism of itself hath not this force to make any the child of God, & that in baptism none can be made the children of God, if they be not his children by election? For doubtless he that cometh to be baprized, unless he be one of Gods elect, can not in baptism receive the gift of adoption, which only belongeth to those that are predestinate and elect: and election is not begun in baptism, but was before the foundation of the world.  
Again, between the communion book and me, Master Rainolds hath noted a manifest difference, 
pag. 12.  as he thinketh. The book hath set down an order of private baptism, and I find fault with women's baptism. It is sufficient for answer to you, that private baptism is one thing, and women's baptism is another. Private baptism hath been sometimes maintained and used in the Church, but women's baptism was never allowed in any tolerable state thereof, neither doth the communion book make any mention of women, nor doth give any authority to women, to minister baptism. And therefore reproving and disallowing of baptism to be done by women, I have not thereby spoken any word against our communion book. Concerning necessity of baptism, wherein you would fasten upon me some suspicion of Anabaptisme, I grant baptism is necessary, if it may be had according to Christ's ordinance and institution, so that the contempt thereof is damnable: but not in such sort necessary, as that the lack thereof without contempt shall bring a man into the state of condemnation. If you will thrust out of God's kingdom all that are not baptised, you shall take away from the Lord many of his dear children, whom yet he will not deliver over to your cruel judgement, and power of Satan.  
The communion book appointeth not a sacrament of confirmation. 
pag. 13.  But yet there is an order for confirmation of children, which (for any thing I know) is in all communion books the same. Show us what fault you find with us for it, and answer shall be given you: sure I am in respect hereof you have no cause to complain of our uncertainty in the faith. 
Pag. 14.   
About the article of Christ's descension into hell, I grant, there hath been some diversity of judgements, yet so as the truth of that article is confessed of all. The manner of his descension may be doubted of by many protestants, but your opinion that Christ in soul descended into hell to fetch up the souls of the faithful deceased before his passion, is generally improved. Caluine saith not, that Christ was damned alive in soul upon the Cross, as you foully slander him; but that Christ, taking upon himself our sins and punishments, suffered in mind those pains of hell for a time, which we otherwise should have sustained for ever. Deny this, and deny the justice of God to be satisfied, which taketh away all hope form us of escaping the torments of hell, and being throughly reconciled with the Lord.  
Christ's divinity acknowledged in our communion book no protestant ever denied. 
pag. 14.  As for Caluins' Autotheisme, as you fond term it, I have answered if you can. And if you list to read more of this matter, I refer you to that which Lambertus Danaeus hath written against Genebrard and jordane of Paris concerning the same. Our doctrine in this behalf is no other, then hath been the catholic doctrine of Christ's Church evermore. In labouring of malice to blaze abroad some heresy of Caluine, yourselves are now become defenders of heresy against the blessed Trinity. For tell me, Master Rainolds, if the substance of the Godhead be the same in the son and the father, and the substance of the father be God of itself, must not the Godhead of the son be of itself?  
But you confessing in words Christ to be God, in denying him to be God of himself, take his divinity from him indeed For God is of himself God, by property of his own nature and substance: which in denying, you are proceeded as far, and somewhat farther, than the wicked Archeretike Arius. I could turn you over to your own schoolmen, and bid you to strive against them, 
In Centil. conclus. 62. Quod Christus secundùm existentiam divinam non est filius Des.  letting Caluine alone. Look upon William Ockam a famous schoolman, who was not afraid to publish this position amongst his hundred divinity conclusions, That Christ according to his divine being is not the son of God: which how he expoundeth, there may you see: but if Caluine had written in such terms, who could have stayed the outrageous cavilling of these men? 
Pag. 15. etc.   
Taking of arms by some, and standing in the field for maintenance of God's holy religion, & safety of their own lives, Master Rainolds urgeth against us grievously, which yet toucheth not the matter in hand, concerning our unsteadfastnes in doctrine, but serveth only to procure envy. Stirs and tumults for matter of Religion he rehearseth, that have been in Germany, in France, in Bohemia, as though it were sufficient for their condemnation that they once resisted, and did not by and by admit whatsoever violence was offered either to God's truth, or to themselves, contrary to promise, to oath, to public edicts, to law, whereby they were warranted to do, as they did. More of this matter will I not answer, being of an other nature, and cleared long since from crime of rebellion, not only by just defence of their doing, but also by the proclamations and edicts of princes themselves.  
The regiment of women as it was publicly by writing oppugned by one or two, 
pag. 18.  so was it publicly defended: and the truth thereof since hath been amongst us generally acknowledged. Can you object the private judgement of so few against the common consent of a whole Church, and thereof conclude, that in our Religion we have no certain stay? Then may we in like manner, and by as good reason argue against you for a thousand such matters, wherein hath been no small dissension amongst your divines, that the Papists have no cettaine ground of their faith.  
A Cardinal of Rome hath openly defended and taught that the Apostle permitteth one wife to priests, and to others more: and that plurality of wives is not forbidden either by the law of god or nature. You know whom I mean, even Cai●tane your Pope's legate, and the great adversary of Luther. Look Katherine, who hath noted this amongst his manifold errors. And another Pope's legate writ and published in print a treatise in commendation of a foul sin: for which he was greevoslie punished by your Pope, being preferred to a great Archbishoprik. Pighius saith, that justice in us is a relation, wherein he hath exceedingly offended your friends. May we now by your example hereof conclude, that this is the doctrine of your Church: that thus you believe generally, or else that there is no stay in your religion?  
For Copes and such like ornaments either approved or rejected, 
pag. 19  to gather an argument of our inconstancy in matters of faith, is too childish and absurd. Our religion is not like yours, consisting in outward show of gestures, garments, and behaviour; so that our external ornaments may be changed, without any alteration or change of our doctrine  
lastly Master R. omitting certain small differences of feasts, 
Pag. 19 etc.  etc. wisheth the reader to consider the general changes, that have been in our Church and realm, since this schism (as he calleth it) first began. And first he calleth to remembrance the Act of six articles established in the latter days of king Henry the eight, which in the beginning of his sons reign was straightways disannulled, and the Church reform, which reformation was overthrown in Queen Mary's reign, and after renewed by her Majesty that now reigneth. And of all this what can Master Rainolds conclude against the unity and certainty of our profession? what alteration hath been in the Church of God in times past, we may read not only in gods book, but in Ecclesiastical histories. Sometime religion prospered well, and flourished, especially the Prince being godly, and zealous to promote the same: sometime again superstition, heresy, idolatry mightily prevailed, the Prince being an idolater or heretic. Yet notwithstanding the truth of god's word & Religion remained one and steadfast, howsoever the outward state of the Church or common wealth was diversly changed. And if at the first when the Lord began to work some reformamation in this Church, perfection in every point was not forthwith attained and established, no marvel is it, considering both the greatness of the work, and the malice of manifold enemies that withstood the same. Yea if in our communion book alteration hath been, according as to the Church seemed most convenient, yet that was not in substance of Doctrine, but in matters of ceremony, neither can you charge us more for changing our communion book, than we can you for changing and reforming your Missales, your Portasses, your breviaries, & a number such other books, even of late years, in daily and public use of service amongst you As for anabaptists, Atheists, Puritans, the family of love, our Church and Religion utterly condemneth to the pit of hell: and if there be such amongst us secretly, so have there always been heretics & wicked persons in the Church, and in respect of them our Religion is no more to be accused, than the good corn may justly be condemned, because together with it many tars and weeds spring up, and cannot be avoided.  
Further Master Rainolds saith, 
pag. 22.  if he should note the difference between our Protestants and those of other nations, he should never make an end. But let him note, what him list, and make an end when he please; greater difference shall he not find amongst the true professors of the Gospel, and Churches reform, then may be amongst the children of God. When such bitter dissension was between the East and west Churches, about the day of passover, and the same continued so many years with great offence & alienation among the faithful, yet they ceased not for all that to be still the Churches of Christ. Neither is it ever to be hoped for, that such perfect concord shall be among the professors of Christ's religion, that they shall all agree most jointly together in the truth, or in every particular point thereof. Your unity although it be not so entire and general, as you would have it thought, yet if it proceeded of knowledge of the truth, and faithful submission with hearty obedience to the same, it deserved great commendation: but springing from such fountains, as it doth, of brutish ignorance, and fear in the most, of vain ambition, worldly pleasures, and filthy covetousness in the chiefest, though it be through corruption of man's nature mighty, yet the causes being marked, it appeareth to be but carnal, tyrannical, and devilish. For this most wicked persuasion being once imprinted in men's hearts by the subtlety of Satan, that all men must obey the Pope, whatsoever he teach and command, without examination, or resistance, upon pain of eternal damnation, an easy matter is it upon this foundation to raise up and maintain any unity whatsoever. And although this worldly provision for keeping of unity be not amongst us, yet through God's grace and blessing all Churches reform agree soundly in all articles of faith, that are substantial and necessary to salvation, and shall so do unto the end. 
pag. 25.   
The grounds and heads of disputation received among the Romish Catholics, Master Rainolds reckoneth many, and first the scriptures, wherein he doth not so much honour to them for placing them in the first room, as injury and disgrace in joining with them any other. For as they are grounds of all true doctrine, so are they only grounds; and as in matter of faith arguments ought principally to be drawn from them, so such arguments only conclude necessarily, as even your own Thomas of Aquine doth directly confess. 
Thom. 1. part. 1. qu. artic. 8. ad. 2.  Traditions of the Apostles are but devised & forged things, which you make your second head, and therefore no stay for a man to settle his conscience upon. For, tell me if you can, which be the Apostles traditions, how many, and where they may be found. If you cannot satisfy this demand, as you cannot indeed, how may you then make any reckoning of that, whereof you have no certain knowledge? how can you without falling build your faith upon fantasies, such as they are? The Apostles doctrine we have in writing: other traditions of the Apostles we receive none for our belief.  
Concerning the catholic Church, which is your third head, we reverence and love it as the spouse of Christ: but we know that her duty is, to hearken only to the voice of Christ her husband, and that she hath no authority to add so much as one jot to his word, or any ways to dissent from it. And further we know, that your Romish synagogue is not that Catholic Church of Christ, whereof we speak.  
For general counsels and Doctors, which are other two of your principal heads, we esteem and regard them in their place: we thank God for them, we read, allow, and commend them, so far forth, as they agree with God's word. If you think they never disagree from it, your own masters will correct you, and tell you an other tale. Are not these then goodly grounds and heads of faith, that even yourselves are enforced oftentimes to disavow? As for your supreme pastor of the Church, we know him not by that name, if you mean any other but jesus Christ alone. For who so else taketh that honour and office upon him to be the supreme pastor of the Church, he is a thief, an Apostata, an Antichrist: make as great account of him, as you list. And where you say we care for none of these grounds, you speak untruely, yourselves indeed caring for none but only the last, which is in stead of all the rest. The determination of your supreme pastor, that is your scripture, your Apostolical Tradition, your Church, your counsels, your Doctors, your Faith, your salvation, your only stay in this world, and in the world to come.  
Scriptures you prove we deny, 
pag. 26.  because we admit not the authority of Tobias for invocation and help of Angels, nor of Ecclesiasticus for free will. But you must first of all prove, which never shall you be able to prove, that Tobias and Ecclesiasticus be canonical scripture, before you can infer that we deny the scripture. These books are not the holy Canonical scriptures, as we have proved against you by most invincible and manifest demonstration, by counsels, Fathers, Doctors, your own Cardinals, and schoolmen: and we rejoice with all our hearts, that such popish doctrine hath no better scripture for proof thereof, then Apocryphal, which because it hath a counterfeit stamp, is no currant money among the Lord's people.  
And for Traditions, unless you can approve them by authority of Apostolical scripture, you have our answer: we regard them nothing, we know not from whence they came, we will not give over the certain scriptures, for such obscure and most uncertain traditions.  
For Counsels, true it is, the argument holdeth not in this form: such a Council decreed so, and therefore so must we believe. Set this principle down for certain and perpetual in divinity, and we shall have strange beliefs enough, yea scarcely shall we retain any one true belief. Two far●ous general Counsels have been held in Nice, the first, and the second. In the first is condemned the Pope's supremacy, 
Can. ●.  in the second is established the Idolatrous worship of Images. The first belief you will not allow, the second we detest. Let councils therefore be esteemed as they deserve: let their decrees be examined by God's word: and if they agree, let them be received for that agreement: if not, let them be rejected for the contrary.  
The same judgement have we of ancient fathers. 
pag. 27.  Learned and Godly men we grant they were, but yet men, having their infirmities and imperfections. Their learning, their zeal, their ages were no privilege unto them, but that notwithstanding they might be deceived in their writings and expositions of scripture. And take you this, Master Rainolds, for a sure conclusion, that in the sayings of those, who are all of them subject to error, there is no stable and steady ground to build our faith upon, lest perhaps we build upon error, in stead of truth, upon the sand, and not upon the rock. So that without trial and examination no sentence of a father, nor of all fathers may safely be received.  
Neither are we so addicted to the late writers, 
pag. 28.  as to believe whatsoever they have said: we are no more partial unto them in this behalf, than we are unto the ancient fathers: our religion and faith hangeth not upon the sayings of men, be they old or young, but only upon the canonical scriptures of God. And as for Augustine, Jerome, and Cyprian, they are as much ours in the most and weightiest controversies, as Luther, Caluine, or Melancthon. And if they, or any other be against us, so long as scripture is for us, our cause is good, and we will not be ashamed thereof.  
And therefore most false is it, that you say our Divinity resteth upon these fathers, 
pag. 29. etc.  whom you so scornfully compare with the old fathers. We use not to allege for proof of any doctrine, Thus saith Caluine, Bucer, or other: but thus saith the Lord, thus saith the Prophet, thus saith the Apostle, thus the Evangelist, thus is it written in the scriptures, thus we read in some book of the old or new Testament. Notwithstanding we use also to read the fathers both old and new, as much as yourselves, and oftentimes we rehearse their sentences and expositions, not as proofs in doctrine of themselves, but to stop your mouths, that cry so loud in the ears of the simple, that all the fathers are against us, it being most true, that they are notably and generally (as I have said) for us, You talk in this place, as one that would say something, and telleth a long tale, but in the end forgetteth of what he meant to speak. Of all that you say, make your conclusion, and then shall appear, how empty and barren a declamor you are.  
Now, saith Master Rainolds, if these serve not, 
pag. 31.  a man would think their martyrs testimony should be irrefragable. And think you then the argument to be so sure and necessary, that is drawn from authority of a martyr? will you grant this reason to be invincible, A marttr hath said it, therefore it is true? what say you then of Cyprian the martyr, of justinus the martyr, of Irenaeus the martyr, who notwithstanding their blessed martyrdom, are known to have maintained opinions against the truth? If martyrs then may have their errors, how may the testimony of martyrs be always irrefragable? you see (good readers) how pithy a disputer this man doth show himself to be. If his lose rhetoric helped him not a little better, than his logic, he were in very weak and miserable case.  
lastly concerning whole Churches reform, 
pag. 32.  what can you, Master Rainolds, conclude against us? In matter of discipline great difference heretofore hath been amongst the Church's East and West, Greek and Latin. If then some such be in our reformed Churches, can you thereof truly gather, that therefore they are not the Churches of Christ? Tell us what you mean, if you have any truth or certainty in your meaning.  
Next Master R. reckoneth up sundry Popes, that are amongst the Protestants in stead of one true Pope: 
pag. 33.  which I know not whereto it serveth, but only to show that the protestants have so great detestation of the Pope and his tyranny, that they cannot endure in any professor of the Gospel, any small shadow of such Lordelines, as the Pope usurpeth over the Church. Your true Pope, whereof you speak, is as much as a true Antichrist, of whom the scriptures have foretold. The name, the person, the authority all Protestants abhor, and accurse to the prince of darkness, from whence it came.  
Again he is in hand with general Counsels, and saith it is impossible, 
pag. 34.  that ever we should once imagine how any Council amongst us should be gathered. His method is according to his matter, confused, and disordered, leaping and jumping from one point to another, like a wild buck upon the mountains. Although we have not a Pope, as you have, yet by God's grace general Counsels may we have, if Christian princes that profess the gospel will jointly take upon them the care thereof. And general Counsels have been assembled and held many hundred years before your Pope by such a name was ever known or heard of in the world, and so may they again both christianly and generally be held, although your Pope with all his proud clergy were returned from whence they came. That hitherto no such Christian Counsels have been gathered, it may be imputed to the general troubles in all Christian countries, and to the adversaries, that have been raised up by your Pope and his Cardinal satraps, to hinder, as much as in them lay, all means, whereby a Christian general Council might be gathered. Howbeit if a general Council cannot be procured, to be celebrated with quietness, there is no doubt notwithstanding, but that the lords cause may without it daily more and more prevail, as it hath done heretofore in times most persecutions.  
To the section that followeth, containing only a recapitulation of these former discourses, 
pag. 34. etc.  I have no need to make any further answer.  
Your complaint against us, for refusing all grounds of disputation, 
pag. 38.  how vain and untrue it is, hath been showed. The only true and certain ground of religion and of all disputation about the same, which is the authority of God revealed unto us in his holy word, we embrace, we hold, we rest upon it: which forsomuch as you have fully tried to be against you, so that you cannot thereby approve one article of your popish faith, nor disprove any doctrine that we maintain against you, therefore desperation driveth you indeed to refuse this ground as insufficient, and to seek other grounds, of which we have no warrant in God's word. And although it please you for this cause to rail at us, and say we are worse than the heretics of old time, yet we know that the ancient godly fathers in confuting all heretics used only arguments drawn out of the scriptures, and plainly taught that by no other weapons an heretic can be put to flight. I know they charge them oftentimes with the judgement of Churches, successions of Bishops, determination of Counsels, name of Catholics, not as though this were a necessary conviction of itself, but thereby the rather to induce them, to believe the doctrine to be true, which they see from the first planting thereof in the Church to have remained. Your case is nothing like, seeing you have only the bare title without the thing, and as it were the empty casket without the treasure.  
But for so much as you accuse ●s for casting away the grounds of Divinity, I desire every Christian man to weigh with himself, what ground it is, whereon all your religion and Church standeth. First the scripture must not be scripture in any other sense, then as the Pope will expound it: so that the scripture being the meaning of the scripture, and the meaning of the scripture being the Pope's exposition, hereof it followeth that the scripture is nothing else but the Pope's interpretation. So likewise in Traditions, Doctors, Counsels, Churches, if any thing descent from the Pope's understanding and determination, it is rejected, abolished, condemned, and finally all faith, all religion, all Divinity of Papists is only the Pope's sacred will and pleasure. Now than this being their own certain resolution, I would gladly be informed, how by the same a man may be assured of any faith, it being further also agreed and confessed among themselves, that the Pope may fall into heresy. Then who seethe not that their ground being shaken, & their stay failing, all that is builded and upholden thereon is clean overthrown? If they say, the Pope falling into heresy, forthwith ceaseth to be a Pope, I demand who they are that must judge the Pope's cause, and give sentence against him? And if the Pope be obstinate, and teaching heresy, and therewith infecting the world, will notwithstanding stoutly stand in defence of his doctrine, and will keep his chair, what shift have you then, or what can you do against him, seeing he is your Pope, your head, your author and founder of all your faith? Thus a man going with you along, and coming to the end of all, findeth no stay, but must wander still, as in an endless Labyrinth, wherein he shall at last languish and perish everlastingly.  
That you wish we would be content to yield to the very scriptures themselves, 
pag. 40.  doubt you not, Master Rainolds, thereof, but we are most ready to yield unto them: if ye would be as willing, the controversy might have thereby, and by other good means, an end. But your conscience telleth you, scripture will not serve you, and therefore in a word you deny the whole body of the scriptures. Think not (good reader) that herein I have spoken rashly without reason, I know what I speak, and thyself considering the matter advisedly wilt say as much. For in making an old rotten translation, (as I may boldly call it, being compared with the original word of scripture, although otherwise I give to it that reverence, that the antiquity thereof deserveth) full of wants, faults, errors, oversights, imperfections, and corruptions of all sorts, as in this book hereafter (god willing) thou shalt perceive, to be the authentical word of God, and denying the original faithful text, which Moses, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Evangelists did write, to be the word of God, what do they else but plainly as it were with one dash of a pen cancel the whole scriptures? Herein mayest thou see what conscience these men make of scripture, that do cast away the very authentical text and books of holy scripture, preferring before them a homely latin translation, which, beside it is such as I have said, no man can tell from whence, or from whom it came. And this forsooth is their scripture, coined and canonised of late in the council of trent, and never before: and other scripture have they none.  
Hitherto Master Rainolds treatise hath been general of the English Protestants, 
pag. 41. etc.  now he craveth leave of the reader to descend and apply the same to his adversary, whose book he is to examine: and first he noteth the fashion of Heretics always to have been to invade the chief pastors of the Church. What heretics have used commonly to do appertaineth nothing unto us: we could no otherwise do, but when we espied the wolf devouring the flock, and Antichrist sitting in the temple of God, give warning thereof to all, cry out against him, and call him by his proper name, the very Antichrist of whom Saint Paul to the Thessalonians, and the scriptures in other places do mean. This hath been the judgement of all reformed Churches from the beginning, and willbe to the ending of the world. And although Sanders hath taken great pains in this behalf to prove their Pope to be no Antichrist (for then all were utterly lost) yet how little he hath by his demonstrations prevailed, the godly reader may easily judge by the answer set forth, which Master Rainolds because he cannot orderly and thoroughly disprove, carpeth at some parts thereof in the residue of this his preface. But being appointed, as he saith, to answer the book, it had been more for his commendation and credit of the cause, to have particularly refuted my whole reply, than thus to pike certain parcels at his own choice, and to pretermit all the rest. Yet let us see what he can say, whereby it shall appear, how little he had to say.  
In the first demonstration of all, 
Pag. 44. etc.  D. Saunders endeavoureth to prove, that the great Antichrist must be one singular man (for proof whereof he allegeth sundry reasons, which are severally answered) and lastly, as the chiefest, that all the fathers have spoken of Antichrist, as of one man. Doctor Saunders, and parcel of my answer are here by Master Rainolds repeated, but the principal ground thereof is omitted. Whereas it is by Saunders affirmed, that all the fathers have spoken of Antichrist, as of one only man: although this be untrue, and can never by Saunders or any Papist be proved; and although further it is one thing to speak of Antichrist, as of one man, and plainly to say, that Antichrist is one man: yet supposing this were true, that Saunders meaneth, notwithstanding his demonstration holdeth not, being taken from the authority of men, from whom no demonstration in divinity can be drawn. This is the sum of this answer which Master Rainolds accuseth of Antichristian arrogancy, seeing the fathers writ according to the apostolical faith and tradition, as he saith. But how may it appear, Master Rainolds, that the Apostles taught or delivered such a faith unto the Churches concerning Antichrist? if this faith be contained in their writings, tell us in what book, in what place, in what words. If in secret tradition, we admit no proof (as you know) from such uncertain and blind traditions. And if you yourselves oftentimes do dissent from the fathers, give us also the same liberty of dissenting from them upon as good ground and just causes as you have any. The fathers speak diverse times not according to the tradition & faith Apostolical, but according to the common received opinion, themselves in plain terms confessing that they speak but coniecturally: & if there was not in that age so full and clear knowledge of Antichrist, as at this day, no marvel may it seem to wise men, for so much as now Antichrist is not only borne and bred, but grown to a strong man, and perfectly discerned and acknowledged, by all marks essential to be Antichrist. They foresaw him, we see him: they knew he should come, we know he is come: they feared him, we have felt him: they geassed at him, we can point him out with our finger: finally they might be deceived, but we cannot, unless we will stop our ears, and close our eyes, and suffer ourselves willingly to be abused. 
pag. 46. etc.   
In the second demonstration Doctor Saunders commendeth the Church of Rome by testimonies of writers, ancient and later; thereby to make us believe, that seeing it hath been so highly praised, it cannot therefore possibly be the seat of Antichrist. Here I gave Doctor Saunders a distinction between the elder Roman Church and the younger. The ancient Church of Rome indeed was worthily extolled and magnified of the fathers for constant keeping of the faith, although even then in that Church the egg was laid, whereof shortly after Antichrist was hatched: the distinction M. R. raileth at with all his might, but cannot disprove with all his learning, it being evident in all histories, that after the days of those godly fathers the Bishop of Rome was made head of the universal Church, wherein he was publicly proclaimed to be the Antichrist, that should come: & afterward continually both religion, learning, and good life died by little and little in that Church, as hath been testified and complained of by infinite writers. So the difference between that Church in former & latter time is no less evident, then between a man's youth and doting age, if you consider all parts and properties of a true Church. And yet, saith Master Rainolds, if it be lawful thus to answer. then shall no heresy ever be repressed, forgetting foully, that heresy must be refuted and repressed by scripture, which never changeth, but abideth for ever, though Churches vary both from others, and from themselves.  
In the third demonstration, 
Pag. 50. etc.  wherein Saunders affirmeth the succession of priests in the Roman Church, to be the rock against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, I deny the outward chair or succession of bishops to be the immovable & invincible Rock, whereon the Church is builded; which is the son of God himself, the only foundation of the Church. For outward succession is no more certain in that Church, then in others; and it hath been diverse times broken of and discontinued by vacations and schisms for many years together. If then the Church had been builded upon this tottering rock of external succession, at Rome, it had oftentimes been dashed and overthrown: but thanks be to God, the Church is builded upon a surer rock, then is the personal succession of your Popes, or else of any estate of men in the world: and therefore, whatsoever becometh of your Pope or of his chair and succession, the Church falleth not, but abideth and remaineth for ever. Your stories written in time of Antichristes tyranny, what cause is there why we should any whit regard them, the authors thereof being infected with the errors of the Pope, and daring not write for the most part otherwise then might well stand with his humour? And to all histories, that since the defection have commended the faith of that Church, we oppose the word of God, which plainly convinceth it of manifold and damnable heresies, beside we could allege sundry writers in all ages, that openly have reproved the same.  
The former distinction concerning the Roman Church, 
pag. 25.  here Master Rainolds taketh in hand to disprove, and to show, that my paradox (as he calleth it) is impossible. First he saith I granted the Church of Rome to have been pure, godly, Christian, for six hundred years after Christ, which forsooth I never granted (as he meaneth) that simply and absolutely no manner of corruption in any part of doctrine had taken place therein: but only according to the state of those times, and comparison of that general apostasy which afterward ensued. So your conceit M. R. that this alteration should wholly be wrought within the space often or twelve years, is so vain & childish, that nothing can be devised more foolish and farther of from the purpose. No, M. Rainolds, notwithstanding Antichrist was not openly advanced in the Roman Church before Bonifacius the third, yet was there in it no small preparation for entertaining of him before that time through corruption of doctrine and manners in that Church: & though it was in many things corrupted before, yet had it also great sincerity, which by little and little decayed more and more till Antichrist came, and was revealed: and after Antichrist was seated there, yet was not therefore all purity lost by and by, but in continuance of time it fainted and languished, having received deadly poison, and no remedy being provided. Wherefore this roye of yours, was indeed a vanity of vanities fit for such a vain sophister as you are.  
But now because Doctor Saunders and M. Rainolds boldly affirm that by testimonies of stories no heresy was brought into the Roman Church, or any change of doctrine ever made in the same, let me put them in mind briefly, 
Sigisb●rt. Gemblacensis. in Chronico, Ann. 1088.  that Sigisberius the monk an Historiographer, mentioned by them both, expressly chargeh Gregory the seventh and his successors, for maintaining and practising not only an error, but an heresy also, in taking upon them authority to excommunicate the Emperor, and other civil Princes.  
This heresy hath ever since continued in that See, and is at this day, by the Pope and his Popelings avouched: and therefore by confession of their own Historiographers, 
Pag. 55.  some heresy hath taken place in the Church of Rome, contrary to Doctor Saunders, and Master Rainolds proud assertion.  
That the Roman Church of later time, hath not changed the faith which the ancient Roman Church professed, Master Rainolds promiseth now to prove, by such testimonies, as I must needs allow for upright, and sufficient. Myself is the first: then Caluine, Luther, Martyr, Illyricus: none of which ever dreamt of such a matter, as he taketh in hand to prove by their confession. That I have said the first Roman Church held the purity of faith, nothing concerneth the later Church; & in what sense I have so said, is before declared: not thereby to justify that Church in every particular doctrine, custom, or ceremony, but only that the principal and substantial articles of Christian religion were in it maintained against the heretics of those times. Then that Caluine, Lu●●●. etc. do grant, that the primitive Roman Church maintained and believed the Pope's supremacy, the sacrifice of the Mass, real presence and Priesthood, is most untrue, as further in discourse of this book shall appear. And therefore the conclusion that of these premises should ensue, is like the untimely fruit, that ere it be ripe falleth down to the ground.  
And as for the common place that followeth concerning the continuance of Christ's universal Church, 
pag. 57  to what purpose doth it serve or what argument may it afford you? we believe and confess to the comfort of our souls, that Christ's Church hath continued, and never shall fail so long as the world endureth, and we account it a profane heresy, to teach that Christ's Catholic universal Church hath perished from the earth at any time. For this assertion (as you truly prove) shaketh the foundations of all faith and religion. But as you have effectually and invincibly by manifold scriptures evinced that Christ's Church can never be rooted out, and no man in the world can open his mouth against you herein, so if you had also proved by like evidence of scripture that the Catholic universal Church of Christ is nothing else but the outward succession of the Roman see, than had you proved your matters soundly, and confuted our opinion truly, and proceeded orderly. But having spoken much concerning the perpetuity of Christ's Church, which no Christian can deny or doubt of, you bring us no text not reason to show that Christ's Church either is the Pope's succession, or else dependeth upon the same. For as touching external show and succession of Churches the scriptures have foretold, that Antichrist shall seduce great and small, 
Apoc. 12.61. & 13.16.  rich and poor, free and bond, and that the Church shall fly into the wilderness, and there remain, of all which no word could be true, if the Catholic Church were tied to the Pope's Chair, and the Pope's Chair were the rock that can not be removed. And yet notwithstanding this general dispersion and flight of the Church under Antichrist, the Catholic Church shall for all that continue, although not in that outward strength and glory, in which sometimes it hath appeared and flourished.  
Now this long discourse following, is visible, 
Pag. 59 etc.  and the Testimonies of Melancthon, Oecolampadius, Caluine, and Illyricus at large rehearsed to that purpose; all this argueth nothing else, but pitiful and gross ignorance in this man, who not knowing what he avoucheth, or what he refelleth, yet layeth on such load, as though with every blow he felled his adversary to the ground. The militant Church of Christ to be a visihle company, who hath from the beginning of the world denied? or who could ever otherwise imagine, but that men, whosoever they be, are visible and may be discerned? This therefore required not so many proofs as you have brought, being liberal where no need is: neither in this respect do we mean that there is an invisible Church, by which we understand the elect, the faithful, the members of Christ's mystical body: who although they may be seen outwardly, in that they are men, yet their election, their faith, their spiritual adoption and conjunction with Christ, in which respect they are truly his Church, can not by outward sense be perceived. The number of professors is visible, but the number of the elect is not visible, that is, can not by sight and sense be tried, discerned, and separated from all others. This is the meaning of that distinction, which you ought to have known before you laboured to disprove it. But if taking upon you to refute a thing, whereof you are ignorant, you fail shamefully, and make yourself very ridiculous to your reader, it is no marvel, and you can blame no other than your own self.  
For what conceit was this that you have nourished in your brain, 
Pag. 64.  and uttered in this book, that we should make the Church of Christ to be invisible in such sort, as you maintain the body of Christ to be invisibly in the Sacrament, and hereupon note a wonderful contradiction in our doctrine. I may truly say your case is lamentable, and so is theirs that depend upon you, to be thus absurdly and wilfully blinded in matters of faith, and as it were to grope for light at noon day, which showeth in you indeed a notable reprobation of understanding, as a just punishment of your Apostasy. The Church is not invisible, because the men of whom the Church consisteth are invisible (for the faithful and elect in that they are men, are no less visible than the rest) but because the elect of God can not be perceived and acknowledged, by outward sight of our eyes. Of Christ's body you teach most falsely, that his very true natural human body is in the Sacrament, yet that no sense can perceive it to be there: which is to deny and overthrow the truth of his humanity. Therefore you see (if any faculty of seeing remain in you) that between this doctrine The Church of Christ is invisible, that is, not able by our eyes to be discerned, and this, The body of Christ if it were present in the Sacrament bodily (as you teach) should be visible, that is, seen with our eyes, is not so much as a shadow or fancy of any contradiction.  
After all this Master Rainolds maketh a long discourse of David George and Sebastian Castalion, 
pag. 66.  of whom or for whom I have for my part no need to answer. David George was a damnable heretic, and his heresies were by Protestants not Papists descried and refuted. Castalion you slander most shamelessly in saying he denied Christ to be the Messiah, as hereafter also in your book you have done. His preface which he writ to King Edward before his translation of the Bible, containeth no such argument, and leadeth wholly to another end, if you had either wit to see it, or good will to acknowledge it. Therein he disputeth that some part of those promises that are contained in the Prophets, and namely concerning the great knowledge that should be under Christ, is not yet accomplished: his opinion of which matters I leave to himself: but you have not done well to charge him untruely with so foul a blasphemy. 
pag. 70.   
As for the great straights into which Caluine and Luther disputing with the jews have been driven by reason of this supposition, concerning the Church's fall, I know not any, seeing they never imagined any such fall, as you do. No the heavens shall sooner fall, than the Church: and therefore you mistake the matter wholly, and like an ignorant sophister make impertinent discourses. The promises of almighty God concerning the largeness and beauty of his Church under Christ have been accomplished. The Gospel hath been preached throughout the world, the Church hath spread itself over all nations, and never since hath it been shut up within the limits of one country and people, as the Synagogue was. But as the Prophets foretold that the Church should be thus mightily increased and multiplied, so the Apostles have prophesied that in the Church should be a defection, that Antichrist should sit in the Temple of God, and that the Princes and people of the earth should be drunken with the cup of his spiritual fornication and abominations. As we confess those Prophecies to be fulfilled, so must we likewise acknowledge the truth of these, and thereby we are able to stop the mouths not only of jews and Turks, but of all papists also, in this controversy of the churches outward increase and decay. Your monstrous railing in the next section I pretermit, beseeching God to open the eyes of all Christians, and to give them understanding hearts, that they may discern Antichrist from Christ, falsehood from truth, and heresy from pure religion.  
But where you say that there be many worse Antichristes then the Pope, 
pag. 73.  and compare certain of your late Popes with some of our English Superintendents, as you call them, in respect of their behaviour and conversation of life, you still misconstrue the matter, and speak beside the purpose.  
Your Popes might have used greater show of honesty and godliness, than they have done, & yet be never the further of from their kingdom of Antichrist, which although it be much furthered and maintained by their pride, cruelty, covetousness, and such other most monstrous and outrageous demeanour, as they have used these many hundred years; yet it consisteth principally in that doctrine of Antichristianitie, which they hold, and by all possible means defend, most contrary to the holy and Catholic religion of Christ.  
And yet if your comparison were admitted, and the lives of those Antichrists throughly examined, it would appear, that there have not lived ever in any state from the beginning of the world more wicked, vile, and abominable men, then have been the Popes of Rome for divers hundred years together by testimony of their own histories. They have in tyranny exceeded Nero, in pride Nebuchadnezer, or Alexander the great, in other common vices, them that for the same have been most infamouslie renowned in the world: wherein if any professor of the gospel should resemble them, or come near unto them, it were a just shame unto their person, but yet no disproof of their religion.  
Now Master Rainolds proceedeth to another point, 
pag. 75.  namely the want of religion and conscience, which he saith I have showed in this answer. A grievous accusation, in matters of Religion to want religion, & where greatest conscience is required, to have no conscience at all. But if you examine his proof, then shall you easily perceive the cavilling spirit of this accuser, whereof you have already had, and shall hereafter have most evident demonstration. The fault no doubt is very heinous, whereupon he frameth so sore an indictment, or else he a malicious enemy, that for no cause accuseth so bitterly. If I have not set down every word of Doctor Saunders book, doth it therefore follow that I did it of an irreligious or unconscionable intent? What man pretending conscience or religion, would thus surmise, seeing for his life he can not show, that I have concealed or omitted the least moment of any one argument, that I have taken to answer in his book? If then I have cut of in one or two Chapters some part of his words being long and tedious, for no other cause in the world, but only to avoid prolixity, what blame I have therein deserved, I put it to the verdict of all indifferent, religious, and conscionable men to pronounce. These men in pretending to answer our books, may deal as they lift, may omit any thing at their pleasure, may sert down no more than shall like them best: may report things that were not written, and all this shall escape in them without reproof: If we leave out a few words, being nothing else but words, for cumbering out books and readers with multitude of unnecessary talk, this must be made a great crime, here is want of Religion and conscience, and this must suffice to discredit all the rest with those, that will believe such subtle and slanderous persuasions.  
The same practice he objecteth also to Master Doctor jewel, 
pag. 75.  the late worthy Bishop of Sarisburie of blessed memory, who yet I am persuaded hath dealt as faithfully and sincerely with Doctor Harding, as any adversary hath ever done with another. In his Reply he hath printed D. Harding'S whole book, omitting nothing from the beginning to the end, and made to all that he alleged for maintenance of his several causes, a most learned and perfect answer, the which as yet was never refelled, nor never can be, I am sure. Now consider the dealing of Doctor Harding in his Rejoinder, which besides it is made but to one only article of seven and twenty, it hath in a hundred places omitted much, so as in truth not half the Reply is entirely repeated and answered. In the defence of the Apology he hath indeed abridged Doctor Harding'S Confutation, being of such length and bigness as was not convenient wholly to be printed with the defence. But let them, if they can show some argument dissembled or passed over in silence, in all that which in the impression is omitted. Which forsomuch as they cannot, it is no matter, though many legions of such idle words, as he hath filled that book withal, were suppressed and drowned. And I pray you, how hath D. Harding behaved himself in his detection? Hath he done, as you accufe M. jewel for not doing? Nothing les. Then why should M. jewel be accounted more worthy of blame, than D. Harding, having made no other fault, then that wherein D. Harding hath much more offended than he?  
That I have in those places omitted some words, I grant, Master Rainolds: 
pag. 77. etc.  and the cause thereof I have truly declared. But tell me where is any part or proof of Saunders demonstrations unanswered. If you will examine what I have answered to every one in order, you shall find I have not dealt any ways untruely or craftily, as you would have men think I did, but soundly and sufficiently disproved, whatsoever he hath disputed in any Chapter of those forty demonstrations, short or long. If you be angry with me for not reciting all his words, and answering them particularly, this understand that I for my part would rather grind in a mill, all the days of my life, then be bound to answer such infinite loquacity, and garrulity, as Doctor Saunders, and yourself, and other your companions use in your writings. You pour forth such floods, or rather seas of words, that it is a most intolerable weariness to wade therein, although danger of drowning, or taking great harm there can be none. But as to answer your words is a thing most tedious, besides it is unnecessary, so your reasons again are answered with as great delight, comfort, and facility. And if you think I have not thoroughly answered every demonstration of Doctor Saunders, it is free for you to resume or prosecute the controversy, which no doubt at this time you would have done, being thereto so specially by your superiors appointed, but that you mistrusted somewhat in your cause, and in yourself. And although you promise some thing shall follow hereafter, yet considering both the practise of Papists, and a proviso which here you make, I think we are to look for little more at your hands in defence of Saunders demonstrations. Their practice is, lest they might be thought unable to answer our books, to set forth some answer to a part, and then so dainlie to break of with pretence of necessary reason, and promise of proceeding further at a more convenient season, and yet never to perform any such matter. So the defender of the Censure in the mids of his answer picketh a quarrel to make an end for that present, as though he meant at better leisure to finish the whole. But it rester has he left it then, and so is like to do still. So Master Rainolds purposing perhaps some such matter, hath yet provided aforehand, that if he fail in further answer, it shall not be taken in evil part, seeing he hath restrained his promise with that exception, if he be not letted by those that have the regiment of his life and studies. It may be, that they being discreet men will suffer Master Rainolds to proceed no further, lest as of that, which he hath written already, no great profit hath redounded to their cause, so in that which is to follow concerning Antichrist, he rather hurt them much, then help them any thing at all.  
Master Rainolds concludeth his preface with a certain Advertisement to the Reader, 
pag. 84.  wherein first he noteth what kind of prints and editions he useth of such books, as commonly he allegeth, not of the ancient fathers (for of them he allegeth very few) but of the late writers, with whose testimonies and sentences he hath fraughted his book from one end to another. If any man have pleasure or purpose to peruse his authorities, therein he may be something helped by this direction, which M. R. hath so carefully, though not much needfullie, gathered and prefixed before his book. Albeit I think that not many Readers, of what judgement soever they are in religion, considering how little weight of matter is in those allegations, will greatly cumber themselves with seeking the impressions, turning the volumes, and perusing the quotations, the labour being far greater, than the profit.  
secondly, he talketh much and disputeth to and fro by what name he may call us, Christians, 
pa. 86.  or Catholics, or heretics, or protestants, or zwinglians, or Sacramentaries, whereof no doubt there was great cause in this manner to advertise the reader. You call us indeed at your pleasure by such names as your malicious and railing spirits can invent, sometime by one, and sometime by another. Christians and Catholics you will not have us named, reserving that denomination to yourselves, to whom notwithstanding of all professors of Christian religion the same doth least appertain. For our parts, so long as we are sure that the doctrine, which we follow, is the eternal word of God, and gospel of his son Christ, as we are by God's grace most sure, seeing it is plainly set down in the holy scriptures of the old and new Testament, we care not what you think of us, or what you speak of us, or by what names you reproach us. If you blaspheme the doctrine of Christ, and call it heresy, not fearing or sparing the Lord himself it is no wonder if you revile us with all opprobrious names that can possibly be devised. We tell you notwithstanding that if a Christian be he that believeth in Christ, according to his word; if Catholics be they that profess the universal faith of Christ; we are truly Christians, and Catholics, believing so, and professing so. Lutherans we are not, Zuinglianes we are not, Caluinists we are not, because we maintain not any private or proper doctrine of Luther, or Zuinglius, or Caluine, no more than the faithful aught in the primitive Church to have been called Paulines, or Petrines, or Athanasians, or by the name of any other such minister of Christ. Be ye called diversly, franciscans, Benedictines, Dominicanes, jesuits, and whatsoever other title ye can take up: we are not grieved at the multitude and variety of your names, who being in truth almost any thing rather than Christians, delight in any name rather, then in the name of Christians. But to us this one name is sufficient, and such as are equivalent therewith: we are content with it: we desire no other. As for the name of Protestants if you think it belongeth not to us, give it them whose it is: being not a name of Schism or sect, it may as well be used, as the name of Catholics: and for distinction sake only, being begun first at the diet of Argsburgh, we are enforced to use it.  
lastly Master Rainolds protesteth his readiness to submit himself to the truth, 
pag. 92.  to defend a fault, or to correct it. This indeed is too great indifferency and readiness, whereby it appeareth you are not resolved in yourself, but can be content to apply your judgement and travail in defence or reproof of any opinion, good or bad, true or false. Correct your faults Master Rainolds, but leave of to maintain them. I have in this book made them plain enough both to yourself and to others: you cannot but see them, God give you grace to acknowledge them, to be ashamed of them, and, as you have promised, to correct them. You know that in this book you have wrangled without measure, you have railed without shame, you have committed as foul and notorious faults in reasoning, as any man could do: your Logic is nought, your divinity is worse, and your conscience, as it may seem, is worst of all. If there yet remain in you any drop of that simplicity, which you profess, then give over defence of such untruth, reform your judgement, and return by repentance from whence you are fallen, If you continue in wilful Apostasy, your blood be upon your own head, you have been warned, and would not hearken. I refer you to the lords judgement, who shall get glory either by your conversion and salvation, or else by your final hardening, and condemnation: The Lord hath made all things for himself, yea the wicked for the day of evil.   

M. RAINOLDS HATH DIVIDED HIS BOOK INTO Chapters: which division I have orderly followed in mine answer. The argumen of his Chapters is set down in the table following.  
CHAP. 1. 
Concerning the Epistle of S. james. Pag. 1.  CHAP. 2. 
Of the Canonical Scriptures, and English Cleaergie Pag. 20.  CHAP. 3. 
Of Luther preferring his private judgement before all ancient fathers. Pag. 47.  CHAP. 4. 
Of Priesthood, and of the sacrifice continued after Christ. Pag. 58.  CHAP. 5. 
Of penance, and the value of good works, touching justification, and life eternal. Pag. 92.  CHAP. 6. 
Of reproving the ancient fathers for their doctrine touching good works. Pag. 133.  CHAP. 7. 
Of Master jewels challenge. Pag. 146.  CHAP. 8. 
Of Bezaes' translating a place of scripture, Act. 3. and of the Real presence. Pag. 172.  CHAP. 9 
Of certain places of Saint Chrysostom touching the Real presence. Pag. 193.  CHAP. 10. 
Of the place in S. Luke's Gospel, which Bezae is charged to have corrupted. Pag. 209.  CHAP. 11. 
Concerning the translation of the English bibles. Pag. 218.  CHAP. 12. 
Concerning the latin bible, which Master Rainolds maintaineth to be more sincere, than the Hebrew now extant. Pag. 227.  CHAP. 13. 
Of the new Testament in latin: and a comparison of the vulgar translator with all other of this age. Pag. 32●.  CHAP. 14. 
Wherein Master Rainolds laboureth to prove, that it is the very way to Atheism, and infidelity to leave the ordinary translation of the Bible, and to appeal to the Hebrew, Greek, and such new diverse translations, as the Protestants have made. Pag. 345.  CHAP. 15. 
Of the New Testament set forth in the College of Rheims. Pag. 364.  CHAP. 16. 
Of the faults found in the Annotations of the New Testament. Pag. 377.  CHAP. 17. 
Of certain blasphemies contained in the Annotations. Pag. 401.    

AN ANSWER TO MASTER RAINOLDS REFUTATION.  

CHAP. 1.  
Concerning the Epistle of S. james.  
ALThough our Adversaries have continually endeavoured to abase and extenuat the authority of the holy Scriptures, 
The Papists are enemies of the scriptures in many respects.  by matching with them the credit of Traditions devised by men, by submitting them to the judgement of Fathers and Counsels, and hanging them upon their interpretations, and most notoriously by bringing them into captivity under the Pope, so that his pleasure and determination must stand for their true sense & meaning, as it is confessed by themselves, and known to the world: yet will they seem nevertheless to be very zealous in defence of the scriptures, & charge the Protestants with that impiety, whereof themselves are most of all guilty. As this hath been their common practice of long time, thereby to make some believe that we contemn the Scriptures of God, which of all Christians are to be had in most high regard and reverence, and of us always have been esteemed no otherwise, than their incomparable majesty & authority requireth, being the word of the eternal God: so of late Edmond Campian in his book, made this the first and principal cause of his Challenge, 
Camp. ra. 1.  for that he saw us through despair (as he sayeth) compelled to lay hands, and offer violence to the holy books of the Bible. For proof whereof Luther is charged to have written contemptuously, and contumeliously of the Epistle of Saint james: which though it had been true, and could not have been denied, yet did it nothing at all touch us, who therein agree not with Luther, neither are bound to justify all his sayings & private opinions, no more than they willbe content to avouch whatsoever hath been spoken or published by any one or other famous man of their side? 
We no more bound to defend Luther in all his sayings, than they will be bound to defend whatsoever hath been said by their writers.  Which thing if they will take upon them to perform, then let them profess it, or else they offer us the more injury, that object still against us a saying, which was never either uttered, or allowed by us.  
This might suffice men of indifferent reason: but our adversaries will yet continue wrangling about nothing, and will trouble the world with frivolous writings, being neither ashamed, nor wearied of any thing. For what matter is it worthy so much ado, and so many words, whether Luther ever spoke so of Saint james epistle, as Campian saith he did, or no? If he had so spoken, as in truth he hath not, for any thing I can understand, what have they won? what have we lost? what matter was it, to multiply words so much about? Is this the controversy between us and them? do we strive about men's words and writings? Is Luther our God, or the author of our faith, or our Apostle? No, they shall not bring us thus from the defence of God's truth to skirmish with them about men's sayings: we will not leave the great questions of Religion, and fall to dispute about matters of other nature & condition, such as this is concerning Luther's particular judgement of S. james Epistle. The truth of God's word is it for which we contend, against the which if any man have spoken any thing, let him bear the blame himself, and let not the common cause be charged therewith. So if Luther, or any other learned man of our side, have either interpreted the scriptures in something amiss, or have doubted of some one book of Scripture, whereof doubt also hath been of old in the Church of Christ, we are not to defend their expositions, or to approve their judgement: and therefore in vain do these men spend so much time, and take such pains to prove, that Luther uttered reproachful words against the Epistle of Saint james: which, as though it had been a principal matter for their advantage, not only the Censurer in his defence, and Gregory Martin in his discovery, have spoken thereof, but now also my new adversary Master Rainolds in his book against me beginneth with the same, and saith, he hath thought good to set it down, and prosecute it somewhat more at large. But I for my part have not thought good to spend my time, and cumber the reader about such unnecessary, and impertinent discourses as these are, which the adversaries devise, and wherewith Master Rainolds hath stuffed his book: only it shallbe sufficient, for answer to Master Rainolds, who in truth deserveth no answer, plainly and briefly in every point to clear the truth from his cavils and slanders, for the satisfying of the godly in this behalf.  
And first, what a silly argument he gathereth, 
M. Rainolds argum. that we have left no ground of faith, because Luther somewhat toucheth the credit of Saint james epistle.  for that Luther hath written somewhat hardly of Saint james his Epistle, that therefore the Protestants leave no one ground, whereupon a Christian man may rest his faith, I trust any man of mean discretion, can easily perceive. For the injury done to Saint james Epistle by Luther should not be objected against the Church of England, which doth receive the same, as the Canonical word of God, but against Luther, if he did so deserve, and such as maintain Luther's opinion herein. But neither I, nor any other that I know in our Church ever denied, much less doth the whole Church deny that epistle to be worthily rekned among the books of sacred Scripture, 
S. james Epistle not doubted of in the Church of England.  nor have taken upon us to defend either Luther, or any other, for rejecting the same. Indeed because Campian railed upon Luther, charging him to have disgraced that epistle with despiteful terms, I answered, that Luther had not so written of it, as Campian affirmed, which still I may truly hold, for any thing hath been showed, either by any other, or by Master Rainolds himself, who, like a profound scholar, handleth this worthy matter thus at large.  
Furthermore how doth that follow Master Rainolds, that if Luther thought Saint james epistle not to be Canonical, or equal in Authority with the epistles of Saint Paul, and Peter, that therefore he left no ground for a Christian man's faith, to stay upon? are all the grounds of our faith in Saint james epistle? is all foundation of Religion overthrown, if Saint james epistle should not be Canonical? Do they that deny or doubt of that epistle, destroy the credit of all other books of holy scripture? God forbidden, that so we should think. 
divers ancient learned men and Churches have denied the Epistle of S. james.  Amongst the Ancient writers of estimation, Eusebius calleth this same epistle of Saint james, about which you make so great ado, in plain words, a Bastard. I think you will not say that Luther hath written worse, or more against it. 
Euseb. lib. 2. ca 23. jeron. in cattle.  And Saint Jerome saith, It was affirmed, that this epistle was published by some other under the name of Saint james? whereby appeareth that many Christians in ancient time thought it to be in deed counterfeit: and yet did they not therefore overthrow all the foundations of our faith. 
Euseb. lib. 7. ca 25.  Dionysius Alexandrinus writeth (as Eusebius reporteth) that many of his predecessors utterly refused, and rejected the book of Revelation. 
Concil. Laod. cap. 59 junil. lib. 1. cap. 3.  And so doth the Council of Laodicea leave the same out of the number of Canonical books. junilius Africanus, an ancient father, rejecteth not only the books of judith, Hester, and Maccabees, as they are worthy, in that they are not canonical, but also of job, Ezra, and Paralipomenon, which notwithstanding are canonical scriptures. And nevertheless for all this they left some stay for Christians in the other books of Scripture, wherein a man may find sufficient ground to build his faith upon. Yea Jerome was not afraid to discredit the truth of the history, written in holy Scripture, concerning David's marrying with Abisag, calling it, according to the letter, that is, the true and natural sense, 
Hier. epist. 2. Vel. figmentum esse de mimo, vel. Atellanarum ludicra.  no better, then either a poetical fiction, or unseemly jest: and therefore deviseth a proper Allegory of Wisdom, which cherisheth and refresheth a man in his age. I will not urge Father Jerome for his unreverent words, but sure I am he hath deserved more reproof for the same, than Luther hath done, for any thing ever uttered by him against S. james Epistle. By these examples you may learn not to be so rash in your judgement, and hasty in your conclusions, as you show your self to be in the very beginning, that because Luther denied Saint james epistle to be Canonical, following the ensample of others, hence do gather, not only that he, but we also, although herein disagreeing from him, and denying no one book of Canonical scripture, neither of the old, nor new testament, do raze the foundation of faith, and leave no ground for Christians to stand upon. We leave such ground, and thereupon do build our faith, as ye shall never be able to shake with all the force ye have. Verily your Pope, and ye all that hang upon him, cannot well stand on this ground, because it is too narrow, and slippery for you, and therefore ye seek larger room, in the Fathers, councils, Traditions, whereof you speak. 
The grounds of Popish faith.  These are in deed fit grounds for your Church to be founded upon, the corruptions of Fathers, the decrees of men, superstitious inventions, forged traditions: whereunto if you did not more lean, and somewhat stay yourselves, then to the books of holy scriptures, your Church, your Pope, your Cardinals, your monks, your friars, yourselves should surely lie in dust shortly.  
But now to come to Luther, whom still you charged, and me also, about Saint james epistle, I could use as many words against you, if the cause required, as you have against me, & handle the matter by points as you do: but what end, or use should there be of such kind of writing, or what profit could arise thereby to the Church of Christ? Had you clearly gained all that, for which you contend, yet had you not proved any thing at all against our Church, or faith, nor yet against me, but only that Luther's writings have been changed, and altered: which because you have so painfully evicted, I pray you take it unto you, and use it most to your advantage. Howbeit for all your needles and unthrifty labour spent herein, yet doth Campian still remain charged with that untruth, whereof you would so fain acquit him: which you may soon perceive, if you call to remembrance what Campian in his book objected to Luther, concerning this epistle of Saint james: namely, that he called it contentious, swelling, 
Campian. Rat. 1.  dry, strawen, and thought it not worthy an Apostolic spirit. All this doth Campian avouch Luther to have written of Saint james epistle. Now if Luther have in deed thus written, then have I unjustly accused Campian of untruth: if otherwise, then hath Campian slandered Luther foully. To know the truth herein. I used all convenient diligence in examining all the copies both dutch and Latin, that I could get: and when I found in them no such words, but rather the clean contrary, I was persuaded, as I had good cause, that all this was but a forged matter, and therefore said it was untrue. Afterwards it fell out, that I light upon an old Dutch Testament of Luther's translation, with his prefaces, wherein I found something, like in one point to that which Campian had objected: the which when I had read, I dissembled not, but confessed it in my answer to Gregory Martin. And in that preface Luther in deed writeth, that Saint james epistle is not so worthy, as are the epistles of Saint Peter, and Paul, but in respect of them is a strawen epistle. His censure I mislike, and so himself, I think, afterwards, seeing those words in latter editions are left out. Yet I trust every indifferent reader will grant, that there is odds between this that Luther writeth indeed, and that which Campian saith he writ. For it is one thing to speak simply, and another thing to speak in comparison. Campian saith, Luther calleth saint james Epistle straw: Luther saith, That it is in comparison of Saint peter's, and Saint Paul's epistles, straw. If you can by all your wisdom prove these to be all one, and will farther busy yourself about trifles, I am content to give you the reading, but I will not vouchsafe to answer any more such strawen, or rather wooden replies. And sure, Master Rainoldes, if you can write nothing to purpose, and yet will needs be writing something, it were better for you to sit down and pick straws, than so to trouble yourself and others, wherein you shall purchase nothing else but commendation of a straw writer, and your book shallbe judged more worthy to be burnt, then to be answered.  
But seeing you have taken in hand to prosecute this matter so largely, 
M. Rainolds helpeth not, where greatest need is of his help.  why do you fail in that thing wherein most of all we need your hand and help? For this that you bring concerning straw, hath already been confessed somuch as is true: your part had been now farther to have showed, that Luther likewse called the same epistle contentious, swollen, dry, not worthy an Apostolical spirit, as he is accused by Campian in the same place. But for proof hereof you can bring forth nothing and therefore you confess, that Campian laid more to Luther's charge concerning this Epistle than was true: so that if in one poor word you have a little avouched the credit of your jesuite, for whom you fight: yet in three or four other you have condemned him: which you slyly pass over notwithstanding, as though Campian had never spoken so, or you had nothing to do therewith. Indeed I grant it maketh small matter, what Campian hath lied of Luther: but you that take upon you to defend him, may not think you have performed your duty, if of much that he hath said, you be able to justify his saying in one little point, & in three points have failed. Wherefore either cease to quarrel still about this one word, or show your proofs for the rest also, or acknowledge your lewd and miserable wrangling, as in deed you must, howsoever the matter standeth concerning Luther in this behalf. For what if Luther had plainly and constantly affirmed of Saint james Epistle, as much as Campian hath objected, though untruely? Is this a cause sufficient why you should make all these outcries generally against all Protestants? why then may not we by like reason complain of all Papists for that, which Cardinal Caietane hath written both of other books of holy scripture, and namely of this same Epistle, whereof we speak? was not cajetan a pillar of your Church, a peer of the court of Room, the Pope's Legate in Germany against Luther? Doth not this famous Cardinal of Room set down in plain words, that the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews doth gather insufficient arguments to prove Christ to be the son of God, that the second and third of john are not Canonical scripture, 
Cardinal Caietane denieth sunday books and parts of Canonical Scripture in the new Testament, where fore Catharinus hath written against him.  that the Epist. of Jude is Apocryphal, that the last Chap. of S. Mark is not of sound authority, that the history of the adulterous woman in S. john is not authentical, & namely of S. james Ep. that the salutation is profane, having nothing of God, nor of jesus Christ?  
But what speak I of Caietane disallowing certain books, and parcels of divine scripture, whereas Hosius another Cardinal, and one chief founder of all your late sophistications, hath written most dishonourably, and vilely of the whole scripture? for thus he saith: Scriptura quomodo profertur á Catholicis, est verbum Dei: quomodo profertur ab haereticis, 
Hofius contra Brent. lib. 4.  est verbum diaboli: that is, The scripture, as it is brought forth by the Catholics, is the word of god: as it is brought forth by the Heretics, is the word of the devil. So that by this notable Cardinal's judgement, if a Protestant, that is in their language and meaning, an heretic, shall allege for proof of Christ's eternal divinity the beginning of the Gospel written by Saint john, this scripture shall now become of God's word, as it is, and always shallbe, the word of the devil, because it is used by such as they account and call heretics. O blasphemous hand and tongue! And can you prove this Master Rainolds? can the word of God be made the word of Satan? It will not stand with your honesty to maintain it. God's word, by whomesoever it be uttered, though by the devil himself, is not the word of the devil. God is immutable, so is his word. Then hath Hosius blasphemed, in calling God's word the devils word: which you ought to consider, who think you have found somewhat against the Protestants, when you show what Luther hath written in some disgrace of Saint james Epistle. I can further put you in remembrance, what others of your side have taught and maintained to the great slander and derogation of the Scriptures, and that not in one word or two, but in earnest and long discourses. 
Pighius Hierarch. li. 1. Cap. 2.  What doth Pighius labour to persuade in one whole Chapter, & often in other places by occasion, but only that the Scriptures have all their credit & authority from the Church, as though they had not any of themselves, & from the lord, by whose spirit they were written. For thus he saith, All authority of Scripture among us dependeth necessarily upon the authority of the Church: 
Neque enim aliter cis credere possemus, nisi quia testimoniumillis perhibenti Ecclesiç credimus.  for we could not otherwise believe them, but because we believe the Church giving testimony unto them. And again, The primitive Church hath made certain proof unto us, that the writings of all the Evangelists are of canonical truth, and not the Evangelists themselves, that were the writers. And against SS. Mark and Luke he disputeth at large, and boldly avoucheth, that they were not meet witnesses of the truth of those gospels which they writ, 
Marcum & Lucam nonsuisse testes libneos veritatis scriptorum àse Euangeliorum Ecclesie.  & therefore even while they lived, that credit was not given to their Gospels for themselves, no not of those that certainly knew they were written by them, yea and farther also had their very principal copies written with their ownehands, but for the Apostolic Church. Yea this presumptuos and arrogant spirit of Pighius proceedeth farther yet and saith, that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists, not to the end that those writings should bear rule over our faith and religion, 
Non quidem ut scripta illa praeessent fidei religionique nostrae, sed subessent potiùs. Hoc Euangeli 'em, inquit, unicum solumque designans Eu● gelium esse, non que nos Matthaei, Marci, Lucae, joannis que dicimus evangelia quat vor. Hier. li. 3. ca 3. Ceusur. Colonien. pag. 112. Cusan. epist. 2. & 7.  but rather be subject thereunto. And yet a little more blasphemously, That they are not the true Gospel, which Christ, ascending into heaven, commanded his Apostles to preach to every creature. What should I rehearse his often reproachful comparisons of scripture to a nose of wax, and a rule of lead, which may easily be turned, bowed, and applied every way at our pleasure? which also the Censure of Colen hath affirmed of them in like manner. And to the same effect hath Cardinal Cusane long before set down that the Scriptures must be expounded diversly, and framed to the time, and practise of the Church, so that one time they are to be understood and interpreted one way, and an other time an other way. Which is more unreasonable and absurd by many degrees, then if one should prescribe, that the Lady must conform herself to the fashion and manners of her handmaid.  
William Lindane hath been and still is a stout Champion for the Pope, 
Lindan Pan. Lib. 1. c. 17.  in whose defence he hath uttered many bold blasphemies against the Scriptures, as namely that the Evangelists took in hand to write the Gospels, 
Non ut aliquam totius evangelii methodum insormarent, non ut Christianae fisdei summam consor. berent. Lib. 3. cap. 1.  not to the intent to set down any form of the whole Gospel, or to write the sum of Christian faith. And that the authority of the word not written is greater than of the word written, which question he saith may easily be determined howsoever to some it seemeth full of difficulty and perplexity: 
Lib. 3. cap. 6. De to to in universum sacrae scripturae corpore accipiendum.  and that whereas Saint Peter hath affirmed of Saint Paul's epistles, that in them are somethings hard to be understood, the same must be taken and meant generally of the whole body of the Scriptures: so that according to this man's doctrine there is not in all the scriptures one easy sentence, and S. Peter was overseen to say, that but somethings in the epistles of Saint Paul were hard, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  when he should rather have said that all things were hard. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 1. cap. 22.  Furthermore that it is extreme madness, to think the whole & entire body of evangelical doctrine is to be fetched out of those sole Apostolic letters written with ink, 
Dementissimae insaniae. Ex pusillo novi testanmenti libello.  and that little small book of the new testament. Thus scornfully wirteth this proud Papist of the divine scriptures, and exemplifieth his meaning by a notable similitude, that it is as great a want of wit to esteem & judge that all evangelical doctrine is comprehended in the books of the new Testament, as if one should say, that the whole frame of the world is contained in some one sensible creature. So that by his comparison the doctrine of the gospel doth infinitely in largeness excel all the scriptures of the new testament. Such mad & wicked sentences hath he throughout his whole book many.  
Ambrose Catharine saith, It is the Pope's proper privilege to Canonize scriptures, 
Catharin. in epist. ad. Galat. cap. 2. Ipse canoniz at scripturas, & reprobat.  or to reprove scriptures, to Canonize true Saints, and to reject false: meaning thereby that the holiness, authority, and estimation of scriptures proceedeth from the Pope. Wherein yet he seemeth to have foully forgotten that canonical scriptures are a great deal more ancient, than the Pope: and therefore could not receive their Canonization from him. But thus they utter their mind, that scripture is no otherwise the word of God, then as it is approved, authorized, and Canonised by the Pope, which is in effect to bring the holy ghost under the censure & approbation of a man, and such a man as he. I omit, because I will not be tedious, a number of such sayings more, wherein the holy scriptures of God are shamefully & intolerably dishonoured by these men in their writings and disputations: and yet to procure a little envy to Luther, they accuse him with out all measure continually for calling the epistle of Saint james a straw epistle, not absolutely & in itself, but only in respect of S. Peter and Paul's epistles. Thus much now have I thought good (for satisfying of the godly) to answer. If you will not be satisfied, you may write again twice as much more: who can let you? this matter requireth no longer talk.   

CHAP. 2.  
Of the canonical Scriptures, and English Clergy.  
FRom Saint james Epistle Master Rainolds proceedeth to entreat of other books, refused by the Church of England, which yet he saith were not further disproved in times past, than that epistle of Saint james: whereupon he would have his reader believe, that in allowing some books, and rejecting others, we are led by opinion & fancy, not by learning, or divinity. Wherein, Master Rainolds, yourself have showed, that opinion, not learning, ruled you, when you writ this. For Saint james epistle was never disproved by the whole Church of God, but only by some of the Church: but those books that are refused by us, were by the whole Church distinguished from the canonical scriptures, & had no greater credit, than they are of with us, as shall appear.  
The reason therefore of our refusing them, is not, as you imagine, because they contain some proof of your Romish Religion, which we cannot otherwise avoid, but by denying the books to be of Canonical authority: but because they do bewray themselves of what stamp they are by most evident marks: and therefore have been generally of the whole Church heretofore set in the same degree, that they are left by us. These Reasons you saw coming against you, and because you durst not openly encounter with them, you steal by an other way, & let them pass. But I must call you back a little, though it be to your grief and trouble: and require of you a plain and direct answer, how those books of the old testament, which are commonly called Apocryphal, written first in Greek, or some other foreign language, can be Canonical? For all books of holy scripture in the old Testament were written, and delivered to the Church, by the holy prophets of God, being approved by certain Testimonies to be indeed the Lords Prophets. Therefore Abraham answered the rich man, 
Lue. 16.29.  requiring to send Lazarus to his father's house, They have Moses and the Prophets: whereby it is plain, that the whole doctrine of the church then, was contained in the books of Moses, and the other Prophets. 
2. Pet. 1.19.  And Peter saith: we have a more sure word of the Prophets, meaning the scriptures of the old testament. And so the Apostle to the Hebrews writeth that God spoke to our fathers by the Prophets. 
Heb. 1.1.  By which testimonies of Scripture it is proved, that none could write books to be received of the Church for the Canonical word of God, but only they whom God had declared to be his Prophets. But the writers of those Apocryphal books, were no Prophets, as may easily appear: For than they would not have written their books in Greek, as is confessed most of these were, nor in any other tongue, then that which was proper to the Church of God in that time, as Moses and the Prophets after him, writers of the holy scriptures, had done. The Church was then amongst the jews, and the Prophets were the messengers, & ministers of God in that Church, and unto it they delivered, & dedicated their books. Wherefore the Greek tongue, being not the tongue of Canaan, nor of the Church then, was not chosen by the Prophets to write, and set forth therein the doctrine and Religion of the Lord: so that the very tongue wherein these books were written being not the tongue of the Prophets, doth plainly convince them to be no prophetical, & therefore no canonical books of the old Testament. And here I omit particular arguments, which might be brought against every one of those books severally, whereby it may be proved invincibly, that though you entitle them with the name of Canonical scriptures, yet they had not the spirit of God for their father.  
Against this reason you bring Saint Augustine's authority, 
De doct. Christ. l. 2. 8.  who reckoneth them amongst the Canonical books of scripture, and so you say did the Catholic Church of that age. But that this is a most manifest untruth, appeareth by S. Jerome, 
Praesa. in Pro. Solom.  who plainly writeth that the Church readeth those books, but receiveth them not amongst the Canonical scriptures. So although Saint Augustine had thought them to have been of equal authority with the writings of the Prophets, which are called properly Canonical: yet was not this the common judgement of the Church in those days, as Saint Jerome doth let us understand, who lived in the Church of that age. 
In what sense S. Augustine calleth these books canonical.  Saint Augustine calleth them indeed Canonical, by a general and improper acception of that word: because they are red in the Church, and contain profitable and Godly instruction: but yet not so, as though there were no difference between them and the other which are undoubtedly Canonical. For in that very place Saint Augustine opposeth Canonical scriptures to such books, as by perilous lies and fantasies might abuse the reader, 
Periculosis mendacus & phantismatibus.  and bring prejudice to sound understanding. And then giveth a rule to prefer those books that are received of all Catholic Churches, before them, that some Churches receive: & of those that are not received of all, to prefer those that the most & of greatest authority do receive. whereby you may see the vanity of that you said before, that the catholic church then judged them to be canonical. And further if Saint Augustine himself had been of your opinion, he would not have given this admonition to prefer some before some: but would have straightly, and precisely charged, that no difference should be made, but all received alike, being all of like authority. As for Daniel, albeit some part of him be written in the Chaldey tongue, yet was it understood of the Church, being then in captivity under the Babylonians: and that tongue is but a diverse Dialect from the Hebrew, and differeth little from it.  
My second reason, 
Pag. 21.  you say, is of more force: and if I prove it, you promise to be of my judgement. Let us then set down the reason first, and see the proofs afterward. I said, between thosde books Apocryphes of the old Testament, and Saint james epistle there was this difference, that they were refused of the whole Church, and so was not Saint james: wherefore we had reason to reject them, and not this. By the whole Church I meant, not only the primitive Church of Christians, as you supposed, but the Church of the jews before Christ, which never allowed those books for Canonical, as yourselves confess: which is an invincible argument against them. For had they been Canonical, that Church would not, nor ought not to have rejected them: and other Church there was none then, to allow them. So by your judgement it must be thought that diverse books of Canonical scripture were never received for many years in any Church: which how absurd it is every man seethe. The Apostle writeth, that unto the jews were committed the oracles of God: 
Rom. 3.2.  whereby is meant his word: But these books the jews never received, and therefore they are of another sort, than those that contain the oracles of God. And that the jews did not amiss, in rejecting them, it may be understood in that they were never reproved by Christ or his Apostles for the same. Their false expositions of scripture are often times noted, and their errors confuted: but they are never found fault with, for refusing these books of scripture, whereof if they had been guilty, they should not have escaped reprehension. This argument you deal not with: but expound my words of the primitive Church, whereas I spoke specially of the Church before Christ. For though the Catholic Church never thought these books to be Canonical, as that word is properly taken, yet it used in some places to read them, for instruction of manners, 
Hieron. praef. in Solom.  not for confirmation of faith, as S. Jerome teacheth: but the old Church of the jews never vouchsafed them so much honour as to read them publicly. And that the Catholic Church received not these books for Canonical, though it read them, you have already heard the witness of Saint Jerome: who also in another place writing expressly of the Canonical books, 
Hieron. in prologo Galeats.  excludeth these out of the Canon, and calleth them Apocryphal. Hereunto might I add many testimonies of Counsels, and writers, both old, and new, wherein appeareth what judgement the Catholic Church had of these books.  
Gregory the great, who in your opinion was the head of the Catholic Church, being Bishop of Rome, 
Writers old and new esteem those books for Apocryphal  and therefore one that by likelihood should not be ignorant of the Church's judgement, calleth the books of Macchabees not Canonical, yet set forth to the edification of the Church. 
Greg. in job. li. 19 cap. 16.  Thus for 600. years after Christ you see these books were not esteemed in the catholic Church for Canonical: which also must be thought of the rest, whereof we speak, seeing there is one and the same judgement of them all. And that this judgement hath ever since continually remained in the Church, is proved by 
a c. 49. in Graeco Veronensi.  Damascene, by 
b De sacram in prol. li. 1. cap. 7.  Hugo S. victoris, by 
c in Leu. li. 14. cap. 1.  Radulphus, by 
d in prol. in li. Apocryp.  Lyrane, by 
e in prol. josu.  Hugo Cardinalis, and many more, who plainly do affirm those books in the old Testament, that the Church of England now accounteth Apocryphal, to be so, and not, as you would have them taken, canonical. Yea since your Tridentine assembly Arias Montanus, a man of your own side, though not so absurd, & corrupt in judgement, as most of you, in his Hebrew Bible interlined, is not afraid thus to write of the same books, and that not in a corner, but in the very forefront, and principal leaf of the book. There are added (saith he) in this edition the books written in Greek, 
Bibilia Montani. 1584.  which the catholic Church, following the canon of the Hebrews, reckoneth among the Apocryphal. Thus it is evident, that these books have been, and are refused by the catholic Church, and that our Church judging them Apochrypall, consenteth with the judgement of the catholic Church; and yours in receiving them for canonical, have not herein a catholic judgement.  
Now for Saint james epistle, where you demand how it may appear that it was not refused by the whole Church, I would know, whether you will say it was indeed refused by the whole Church, or no? if you will so say, than you shall, as much discredit the authority thereof, 
S. james epistle was never rejected by the whole Church, but by some particular Churches only.  as ever Luther or any Protestant hath done. For as the whole Church never received any book for canonical, but that which was truly Canonical: so the whole Church hath never refused any as Apocryphal, but such as were indeed Apocryphal. If then the whole Church of Christ hath refused Saint james Epistle, it will necessarily follow, that S. james Epistle is not canonical. But that the whole Church ever refused it, is untrue, as maybe proved by the testimonies of writers, and Histories of the Church. 
Euse. l. 2. c. 23.  Eusebius, that was the greatest adversary of it, and did most sharply censure it, yet in the same place confesseth, that both that and the rest were received and published in most Churches. Wherefore when you say, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that for this part you must credit me upon my word, herein you bewray either great ignorance, or desire to quarrel. The difference then which I put between the Apocryphal books of the old testament, and these books of the new, that they were rejected by the Church wholly, these not so, is fully proved: whereupon it followeth that the Church of England had greater reason to refuse them, than these, and was therein led by learning, & knowledge, not by fancy and opinion, as you say. What learning, or what divinity is your Church led by, first to esteem of these alike, then to allow for Canonical, such books, as you confess, and can not deny to have been refused by the whole Church?  
Where you say, my reasons make most against myself, 
pag. 23.  I know not how I could have written more plainly, & more consonantlie to myself, than I have done. But some are so froward, that though it be beaten into them with hammer, yet they will not seem to understand. I say Luther followed the judgement of the ancient Church, in refusing Saint james Epistle. what maketh this against myself? Can you deny but some of the ancient Churches refused it? Doth not Eusebius prove it, when he saith, it was received in most Churches? Then it followeth, not in all Churches. And would Eusebius have called it a Bastard, if some Churches had not so accounted of it? But what if some refused it? doth it follow therefore that the whole Church did so? you may not think, M. Rainolds, to cast upon us such a mist, but that we shall be able to espy your walking along. Saint james epistle was never refused of all Churches generally, it was refused only by some: Luther in refusing it agreed with the ancient Churches, not with all, but some, as many as refused it. But the greater number of Churches received it, as Eusebius witnesseth, and our Church is led by God's spirit, and true learning, to follow them. But for the Apocryphal books of the old Testament, I have proved sufficiently, and can further declare, if need require, that both the greatest part of the Church, and the whole Church hath reproved them. As for that Jerome saith, The Church readeth them, it maketh little for their credit, 
S. Jerome a great enemy to those apocryphal books.  seeing he addeth immediately, it was, to edify the people, not to confirm the authority of Ecclesiastical doctrine: and that though the Church read them, yet it receiveth them not among the canonical scriptures: wherein he hath plainly cast them down from that height of authority and majesty, whereunto you would so feign lift them up.  
The Tower conference is here brought in to no purpose. 
Pag. 25.  Their scope was to show, that in the primitive Church, not only some particular persons, but whole congregations have doubted of many books of Scripture, and yet notwithstanding lost not their dignity of true Churches of Christ: and therefore that Luther doubting, or denying some of them, cannot for that cause justly in any indifferent judgement be condemned, seeing whatsoever they object against Luther in this behalf must light upon the ancient Churches & fathers, that have thought herein, as Luther did. Wherefore your conclusion that you set down in the end of this your idle, & wandering talk, is only devised of yourself, and not maintained by us. For you father upon us, that we think we may refuse all such books, as of old have been doubted of: 
pag. 28.  which is as far from our thinking, as heaven is from earth: and if any man have ever uttered such a thing, as I think none hath, it is his own private conceit, not the approved and constant judgement of our Church. The books in the old Testament, that we refuse, besides that they carry in their foreheads evident notes of Apocryphal writings, have not only been doubted of, but clean cast away by the Church of God, as hath been proved: all the books in the new Testament do we wholly admit as canonical, not refusing any parcel or word thereof, because we acknowledge in them the spirit of God, and see no reason to move us otherwise. For though they have been doubted of in former times, yet it was upon no certain ground, and by few, in comparison of those that received them, undoubtedly. 
Pag. 29.  Thus in a word the neck is broken of all your notes that follow, where in you labour to say as little in many words, as possibly may be said. That we rent from the body of the Scriptures in the old Testament, Toby, judith, Hester, Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, the prayer of Manasses, the song of the three children, the story of Bell, herein we do the canonical Scriptures no injury, dividing from them such books as are not of that absolute authority, that they which are in truth canonical, may remain entire, and whole together: no more than the shepherd doth injury to the sheep, in sorting the goats and other cattle from them.  
But which of our brethren are they, that join to these the two books of Chronicles, and the song of Solomon? If you can name any such in these days, it will soon appear they are not brethren of ours. You will not (I suppose) charge us therewith, and yet perhaps you will have men suspect us as guilty thereof. But your boldness is intolerable, that knowing both the common consent, and practise of our Church, do notwithstanding both labour to cast wrong fully upon us some suspicion for refusing these, and furthermore also plainly and most falsllie avouch, that we deny sundry books of the new Testament, setting down in a row Saint Luke's Gospel, 
M. Rainold accufeth us for denying some Canonical books of the old Testament, & divers of the new, which all the world knoweth to be a great slander.  the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistle of Saint james, the second of Peter, the second and third of Saint jobn, Saint Jude, the Apocalyps, a part of Saint john's Gospel. What meant you, Master Rainold, thus to say, and thus impudently to lie? Are you gone to Rheames, and have you left all conscience behind you? Care you not to publish in print to the world so great, so many, so manifest untruths? before you use to make your sacrifice at Mass, do you not use to confess your lies, as sins, and yet will you print your lies, without repentance? Of these our Church denieth nor one, doubteth not of one. If you mean some Protestants in Germany, whatsoever they think of Saint james, S. Jude, the second of Saint Peter, the second and third of S. john, yet the epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalyps of Saint john they do receive as canonical. Saint Luke's gospel came never yet in doubt or question amongst us, and I muse what the occasion should be of this your so fowl untruth. If because in the Tower conference of the fourth day one said, that the Laodicean Council omitteth S. Luke's gospel, it is too frivolous, seeing that was a slip of memory or oversight in him. And though the Council had so done, as it hath not, yet how followeth it that we therefore do so?  
My distinction of the whole Church, & some Churhes, is as clear as the day: & it is to be observed, that whereas in it resteth the sum of this your second Chapter, and you are desirous to have it removed, yet you bring nothing once to stir it. That S. james hath been doubted of in such sort, as judith, Macchabees, the counterfeit Hester, (for the right Hester we embrace) is proved already false: and that our own doctors refuse it, is an other untruth. For were it, as you say, of that conference, yet is it but one single man's sentence, and that by way of arguing.  
thirdly, you descant upon Bene habet, It is well, 
pa. 30.  but so simply and fondly, that every one may see you are a trifler. It is well, I said, that Campian could not charge Luther, for denying a book, which never any Church denied, but for denying such a one, as had been heretofore by some Churches denied. And although I seek not herein to defend either Luther, or those ancient Churches that refused the same, yet is Luther's offence not so heinous, as it should have been, if this had first proceeded of himself, without example of other Churches. If you will burden us with refusal of S. Luke his Gospel, the known truth will easily acquit us of that accusation. But nothing can be so falsely surmised, that you will not find in your hearts to burden us withal. As for Atheism, I doubt not but your own conscience doth tell you, our doctrine is far from it: which when you forsook, I will not say, how near you approached to Atheism, in yielding to the straw opinions at Rome, but I am assured, you went from Christ, to follow Antichrist: and of a minister of the Gospel, became an open enemy of the Gospel. If you repent not, it had been better for you never to have been borne.  
Those forefathers of whom I spoke, have given such a blow to your great fathers of Rome, 
pag. 13.32.  as you and your companions shall not be able to heal his wound. And though he live still, and breath, yet is he scarce able to stand on his feet, and carrieth upon him that mark, that shall daily more and more discover him to the Saints of God. Aerius, Vigilantius, iovinianus, if they taught any thing against the truth of God's word, let them be esteemed as they deserve. We lay the grounds of our religion, not upon the writings or opinions of men, be they good, or bad, learned, or unlearned, Catholics, or Heretics, but upon the written word of the eternal God: and therefore we pray not, as you do, nor offer sacrifice for the dead, we worship not, nor invocate Saints, we think the honourable estate of marriage is pleasing to the Lord as well as single life. For thus have the Prophets, the Apostles, the Lord himself taught us: As for Martion, Cerdon, the rest, we abhor them with all their damnable heresies, because the word of God condemneth them: the more is your fault, in saying they are our fathers. But you have drawn since your departure so hard a skin over your conscience, 
Fowl untruths affirmed of us by M. R.  as you fear not to utter any untruth be it never so desperate. You say we match S. Luke and the Apocalyps with the book of judith, and that we say most plainly we are not bound to admit those, and all the forenamed books, but may refuse them: which for shame of the world you would never have written, but that like an Atheist your pen is a ready instrument to publish any untruth. The book of judith in deed admit we not: and that is no blasphemy: prove it if you can. But what should I require you M. Rainolds, to prove any thing, that have taken upon you to say all things, and prove nothing?  
You reason, as if you had made a fray with reason, 
Pag. 33.34.  that we are like those old brutish heretics, called Alogi, who denied the Apocalyps of Saint john, because we say, we know as certainly the scriptures to be scriptures, and every book thereof, as we know the sun, to be the sun, which is as contrary to those Alogi, as the light is to darkness. But who ever doubted of the sun, you say, that it is the sun? of Saint james epistle Luther doubteth, and the Lutherans: wherefore you say, I condemn them for the veriest sots that ever lived. Not so, Master Rainolds, if you could see. For though we are as fully persuaded of the one, as of the other: yet doth it not follow that the clearness of this truth appeareth alike unto all, 
We must be persuaded & assured of many things that are not seen, no less, then of those things that we see with our eyes.  but to such only as it is revealed unto. Know you not as undoubtedly there is a God, as you know there is a sun? If not to you, yet to all Godly, the knowledge of the one is no less certain than of the other, though we cannot behold god with our eyes, as we may seeth sun? Will you then conclude, that all are stocks and stones, which cannot perceive this so clear, and evident a truth? Do not yourselves think all those books, for which you contend with us, to be as truly canonical, as that the sun shineth? you will not, I am sure say otherwise. Do you then besides an infinite number of ancient writers, condemn those of your side, for stocks, and sots, that denied them? To omit the rest, of whom I spoke before, 
Sixt. biblioth. lib. l. Driedo de Catal. serip. li. 1. c. 4. add difficult. 11.  was Sixtus Senensis a sot, for denying your books of Hester? was Dryedo a sot, for denying Baruch? Thus must it be, or else, your argument is too childish, I will not say sottish.  
Here is brought an argument for Traditions, such a one as M. R. divinity could afford. 
Pag. 35.  It cannot, he saith, be proved by scriptures that S. Mat. S. Mark, S. Luke, S. john his gospel, & S. Paul's Ep. are Canonical scripture, that is, penned by divine inspiration: then we must believe some what, which by scripture cannot be proved, & so tradition is established. I would your other traditions were of this sort, then should we sooner agree. But between this, and the rest of your infinite traditions, there is no likeness. For this is grounded upon the word written: the rest have no footing on that ground. Although it is not expressly set down in thus many words, S. Matthewes gospel is Canonical, 
How we know the gospel of S. Matthew, S. Mark. etc. to be canonical scriptures.  & so likewise of the rest, yet that we cannot otherwise come to the certain knowledge & belief thereof, but by report, is a vain, & foolish fantasy. For the history itself and doctrine therein contained, do plainly show & convince the book to be Canonical, that is, written by divine inspiration: so as although the Church's commendation and testimony of it may confirm our judgement in believing the same, yet our faith is builded upon the written word itself. And so your other argument falleth of faith by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 
Rom. 10.17.  For when we hear the doctrine of these books preached unto us, we believe the same in every point: whereof it must needs follow, that the books are Canonical, containing so heavenly and spiritual doctrine, as the like can not be written of any, but the spirit of God only: so being enforced to allow, and embrace by faith the doctrine of those books, how can we but acknowledge the books themselves to be canonical? wherefore in that you say, we find not this word in the scriptures, unless you think no word is found in them, but such as is set down in express terms, you are abused. For this word is found in them by necessary collection, & so be not your vain unwritten Traditions, and therefore are neither part nor parcel of God's divine word.  
But here is by the way to be noted, how this man seeking to disprove my comparison of the sun, 
pag. 36.  hath suddenly overthrown the principal stay of their religion, which is the visibleness of the Church. That which is known by sense, saith he, is no article of faith: for these two are directly opposite. Then the Church is not known by sense: and so visibleness is not a mark of the Church. For if it be, then is it not an article of faith, to believe the Church. Thus sometime you can reason well, but than it is against yourself. The similitude was brought not to match our belief of scripture with knowledge of the sun, that as we know the one by sense, so the other: but that we have certain and undoubted belief of the canonical scriptures by themselves, as we know the sun by itself. Your belief in deed of the books of scripture is natural, and to use your own example, such, as when you believe Tusculans Questions to be written by Tully. For as you are led thus to believe of this book because it hath been so accounted in all times by constant tradition ever since: so likewise you have no better reason to discern the canonical scriptures from other books, but only this common received opinion of the Church, which you call Tradition. We have this as well as you, and we have also an other, better and surer than this, which you have not: yea, which you blasphemously deride, the testimony of the spirit, whereby the authority of the scriptures is sealed in our hearts and we are thoroughly induced to receive them, as the most blessed Testament, and truth of God. For example, that there is a God, who created heaven and earth, both the Scriptures teach, and the creatures themselves confirm, so as no man ought to stand in doubt thereof, Yet notwithstanding this persuasion cannot be faithfully settled and rooted in man's heart, unless it be approved, and as it were sealed unto us by the holy Ghost: without the confirmation whereof, great doubtfulness and distrust will arise in our minds continually, through the great corruption of our nature. Even so that these scriptures are in truth the very word of God, not only themselves do prove by their subject matter, & argument, but also the testimony & judgement of the Church, which ever so esteemed them, may invincibly argue the same. And yet for all this that we faithfully receive them, and submit ourselves unto them, as to the word of God, without wandering or suspicion, God's holy spirit must inwardly persuade our hearts, that this indeed is his word, and therefore of us by all means to be embraced, and believed. Thus it appeareth how false it is, that you have noted in your margin, that the Protestants refusing the Church, believed not the scriptures. We refuse not the Church, but we know the Scriptures of God have greater credit and assurance, than the only approbation of the Church.  
I have already answered whatsoever you bring out of Augustine, the Council of Carthage, or any other, 
pag. 38.39.  both in what sense those books of the old Testament are called canonical by them, also how the other of the new Testament were refused, or received in times past. You shall never be able to prove that you set down in your margin, wherein the sum of your whole speech is briefly comprised, that S. james epistle, and the epistle to the Hebrews, have been as much doubted of, as the books of the old Apocryphal Testament, which the Protestans reject. The most you can allege is, that some Churches have doubted of those epistles but I have before showed, that the whole Church rejected these of the old Testament. This was mine answer to M. Martin's demand: this is mine answer still, which you cannot with all your endeavour take away. Something you writ for a colour and fashion, but you come always behind with your reckoning.  
It offendeth you that I said, we have seen, we have confuted, we have trodden under foot all the arguments of the Papists, and whatsoever they could say. Unless you have some new harvest growing, which yet hath not been reaped, I might truly say, as I said: for you have uttered all your store, such as it was, and we have seen, and confuted it long ago, and that by the written word of god, against which, no tradition, no religion, though never so ancient, so universal, so glorious, may prejudice any thing. What reasons moved you to depart from us, and become a feedesman of the Pope, I leave to the Lord, and your own conscience: for any thing that I could ever see (and I have laboured to see the truth, and what could be said against it, by the best of your side) I do with all my heart rejoice in the cause which we maintain against you, and I think it to be the justest, and honourablest defence, that ever was undertaken. What you have learned since you went, and how substantially you confute my brag, as you call it, shall hereafter further appear, as it hath in part already done.   

CHAP. 3.  
Of Luther preferring his private judgement before all ancient fathers.  
HEre again is repeated an other quarrel about Luther to no purpose in the world, but only to discredit him a little with the simple sort. For our adversaries are so wasted and spent for good reasons, that whatsoever they light upon, though never so unfit to frame good arguments of, they handle it with great earnestness, like seely fletchers, that having no store of steles left in their shop, are sane to make their blots of every crooked stick. What maketh it against the truth of our reliligion, if Luther preferred his own judgement before the fathers? is our doctrine therefore false, and yours true, either in whole, or in part? Others desire to reap great profit of a little labour: but you are content to take a great deal of pain, for no commodity at al. I would not herein vouchsafe you an answer, but that I have respect to the reader's weakness, who by such slanders may be abused. Your title showeth plainly there is in this Chapter no truth to be looked for at your hands: 
pag. 42.  you say Luther preferred his private judgement before all ancient fathers and Doctors: wherein you would have men think, he was unmeasurably arrogant, and wilful. But Luther's spirit was far from this insolent, and immoderate presumption, as may by his own words appear, which you have noted.  
For he saith not, that he more setteth by his own private judgement, than he doth by all the fathers, and Doctors, as you report, 
Luth. cont. Regem. Angl. fol. 342. unius maiestatis aeter nae verbum, evangelium. Dei verbum est super omnia, etc.  but that he setteth against the sayings of fathers, of men, of Angels, of Devils, the word of the only eternal majesty, the Gospel. And again immediately he saith. The word of God is above all, the majesty of God maketh with me, that I care not though a thousand Augustine's and Cyprians stood against me. 
God's word is of more authority, than all men, or Angels.  Is this to set his private judgement against all the fathers? is this pride? is this presumption? must God's word, and majesty, and Gospel, yield to the judgement of fathers, be they never so many? This forsooth is your modesty, that though the Lord hath spoken it, yet if the fathers say any thing against it, you will not prefer your judgement, grounded on the scriptures, before the ancient fathers. Accursed be such modesty, that doth so great injury, and dishonour unto god. This civility towards men, is treason, and blasphemy towards the lord. Remember what Elihu saith. 
job. 32. v. 21.22.  I will not now accept the person of man, neither will I give titles to man. For I may not give titles, lest my maker should take me away suddenly. If this affection was in Luther, as it was, what fault can you find therein?  
You ask of me the reason, why I so busily defend Luther. I ask of you the reason, why you so continually accuse Luther. If you seek for some reasons to accuse him, I cannot want better reasons to defend him, your accusations being so untrue. That you say, we advance him into the place of Christ, or at least among his Apostles, belike you imagine that Luther is to us as your Pope is to you, whom you more esteem, and honour, than Christ, and all his Apostles. For say they what they will, their saying hath little force or authority, if it like not your holy father: but his saying must prevail, whatsoever they say to the contrary. You think it good reason I should give over all defence of Luther, seeing he bore extreme hatred, as you say, against the Sacramentaries: & here you bring in much to that purpose, which yet you know is not the matter you took in hand. But it is always the property of such discreet, and worthy writers, whatsoever they find, though from the cause, to hale it in by some means in one place, or other. I answer in a word, Luther dissented bitterly from Zuinglius, and O Ecolampadius, in the matter of the sacrament, as it falleth out often times, that sharp contentions may arise amongst Godly and learned men: yet it is no cause, why we should not answer in Luther's behalf, when he is wrongfully charged by you. Therefore you come to scan my defence of Luther particularly, 
pag. 48.  and find yourself occupied in devising divers senses of Luther's words, and then disputing against them. First, if all the fathers teach one thing, and bring scriptures for them, & Luther the contrary, & bring scriptures for him: whether in this case Luther may prefer his judgement before all the fathers? This is not the case. M. R. that Luther meant: you must therefore proceed further yet in your suppose. Next than you put case, If a thousand Augustine's, & Churches teach some doctrine, citing no text for it, and Luther bring some text of scripture after his sense, against the same: the matter is not in citing texts, but in delivering the doctrine, that is approved by the text. Then leave your childish trifling, and take Luther as he meant. If Augustine, or Cyprian, or any other father maintain any thing against God's word, Luther, or any other minister of Christ, may in such case prefer his judgement, warranted by the word of God, before theirs. If you deny this, you are not worthy to be called a Christian: and yet closely you do deny it, in that you reprove Luther, and condemn him for saying the same. And where you say, I can bring no instance that ever the ancient fathers did so, have you forgotten what fell out in the Council of Nice, 
Socrat. l. 1. c. 11.  when the father's agreeing to dissolve the marriage of ministers, were withstood by Paphnutius, 
One man maintaining the truth of God's word may lawfully dissent from others, although never so many. August. count petil. l. 3. c. 6.  and yielded in the end? Here one Paphnutius judgement was preferred before all the other three hundred fathers. And so often times the judgement of many hath been corrected by one. S. Aug. saith, whether of Christ, or of his Church, or of any other thing, that appertaineth to our faith, and life, I will not say we, not to be compared to him that said, though we, but as he added: If an Angel from heaven shall preach any thing besides that ye have received in the legal and evangelical scriptures, let him be accursed. If we may accurse them, how many, and whosoever they be, that teach contrary to the Prophetical, and Apostolical scriptures, then may we prefer our judgement in such cases before them. Saint Augustine's words you see, are very sharp, but he learned thus to speak of the Apostle himself. 
August. epi. 19  In an other place Saint Augustine saith; For all these (fathers) yea above all these, the Apostle Paul offereth himself: I flee to him, I appeal to him from all writers, that think otherwise. This was S. Augustine bold to write, even to S. Jerome, and feared not any suspicion either of arrogancy or heresy for the same: such account than must be made of the truth, that we must stand with it against all the world, and not for reverence of men's persons give it over, or betray it, or be afraid to defend it. If this be so, as you will not, I am sure, for shame or fear deny openly, then have you nothing to burden Luther in this behalf.  
When you say, Though the fathers in the councils of Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon, had alleged no direct and evident place against Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, yet the Christian people were bound to believe them, grounding themselves only upon the catholic and universal faith of the Churches before them, it is boldly, and bluntly spoken. These godly and catholic fathers assembled in Council against those heretics, confuted them by the authority of God's word, and as it were cut the throat of their heresies, with the sword of the spirit. This was only the weapon then used, and with this they prevailed, 
The counsels and fathers confuted all Heretics by the scriptures.  as likewise have all other godly counsels ever done against all heretics, and enemies of the truth. For in Religion there is no truth, but grounded upon scriptures: no error or heresy, but repugnant to scriptures: no heretics, but refuted by scriptures. They dealt not against the heretics, as you imagine, omitting scriptures, and grounding upon the faith of Churches: but they proved their faith to be grounded upon the scriptures. So Cyprian, a wise and Catholic Bishop writeth, that in controversies of Religion, we must have recourse to the origine of truth, 
Cypria. de unit. Eccles. & in Epist. ad Pompey.  whereby he meaneth the scriptures, and that the cause of heresy is. for that the head is not sought: which he declareth, further adding, that the doctrine of the heavenly Master is not kept. And therefore, if those fathers had objected nothing, but the common belief of the Churches, against those heretics, they had taken a wrong course, and should never thus have stopped their mouths. But they had a surer way to convince heretics, than you have: who being of all heretics the greatest, would take away all means of confuting heretics, that so yourselves might not be espied, or not controlled.  
As for helvidius, 
Ambrose. Epist. 81. & 79. Hieron. count Heluid.  who denied the blessed virgin to have remained a virgin afterward, the father's Jerome and Ambrose, alleged against him not tradition only, but the scriptures especially: although what Saint basil hath written of this whole matter, you may read in his sermon of the Nativity, wherein he is not affrayed plainly to affirm, that after she had borne our saviour Christ, 
Basil. de Christi ●tiuit.  whither she married again, or remained a virgin still, belongeth longeth nothing to the mystery of faith.  
Again you imagine a third sense of Luther's words, 
Pag. 51.  by supposing a thing impossible, that if all Churches and fathers teach against Scripture, & Luther with Scripture, than Luther may think himself a better man than they al. What Luther's meaning was, you have heard, and therefore it skilleth not what you suppose further. Indeed M. R. as you say, the Church falleth not from Christ to Apostasy: but this is true as well of the Church in the old Testament, as in the new. yet as the visible Churches of the jews fell away from God, and became open enemies unto our saviour Christ: so it might come to pass since Christ, that the particular Churches and congregations did corrupt the doctrine of the Gosepll, and slid into that Apostasy, which the Scriptures foresaid should overspread the Churches afterward. 
1. Tim. 4.1. 2. Thes. 2.3.  But the Catholic Church, which is the number of Gods elect, can no more fall away from Christ into Apostasy, than the course of heaven can be changed. For it standeth upon Christ the rock: and hell gates shall not be able to cast it down.  
Here again you come in with Luther's opinion of the sacrament, 
pag. 52.  wherein as he dissented from us & the truth very much, so your popish Transubstantiation, than which was never a more impious, and absurd heresy maintained in the Church, he utterly abhorred. And what though herein Luther something swerved from the truth? might he not therefore, being in other causes assured thereof out of the word of God, reject the opinions of such as dissented from the same? By this reason no man in defence of God's truth may challenge, or bid defiance to the adversaries thereof, seeing they have no privilege or Charter granted to them, but that themselves may also be deceived. Luther was an excellent man, and a worthy servant of Christ, whose ministery especially it pleased the Lord to use, in revealing to these times that son of perdition, who sitteth in the Temple of God, and advanceth himself above God yet was Luther a man, and therefore no marvel if he were not exempted altogether from ignorance, and infirmity. And what miserable perverseness is it in you, that being not able to maintain your own heresies against Luther, will think to escape in the judgement of men, from being condemned, because Luther himself in one point of doctrine erred? May no man convince error, but such a one, as is free from erring at all himself? the scriptures are left unto us, to be our rule of truth: by them must all doctrine be squared, and directed, they sit in the highest seat of judgement to give sentence in every cause. With them did Luther cut down your errors: of them have we learned to think of the sacrament otherwise then Luther did: to them do we submit ourselves in every thing we teach, and are contented that our whole Religion be tried by them: so that if you, or any other can show wherein we disagree from them, we are ready, and willing to be reform. But one error of Luther cannot serve to excuse infinite errors in the popish Church. Thus have you my answer, as plainly as I could devise, in this matter: which though you have handled at large, as became a man of your learning, leisure, and discretion, yet in the end, you cast it away from you as not worthy to have any time bestowed about it. Now therefore I trust hereafter you willbe better occupied.   

CHAPTER. 4.  
Of Priesthood, and of the sacrifice continued after Christ.  
SEeing you will needs be called & accounted Priests, & that in the proper sense, 
pag. 56.  and signification of this word, I require no pardon at your hands for terming you, as I did. For if Christ be the only Priest of the new Testament, and his sacrifice never to be repeated, as we are plainly taught by the word of God; what Priests can you be, but Baalites, and what sacrificers, but Antichristian? show your order, your Author, your institution: otherwise we must esteem and speak of you, 
Heb. 5.4. The Popish priest hood was not ordainied by Christ but is contrary to the Priesthood of Christ, and therefore worthy to be contemned & detested of all faithful Christians.  as such a generation deserveth. It is not lawful for any to take honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as Aaron: If you can prove that God hath called you, it is meet you be received, & reverenced, as the ordinance of God in all functions deserveth: but this can you never do, and therefore both your name, & your profession is of all the godly to be detested, as a venomous plant, never planted by the heavenly father. 
Mat. 15.13.  Two ways you have chosen, by which you will prove yourselves lawful priests: principally, you say, by mine own words, secondarily by deduction out of the scriptures. Let us consider of both these arguments in order, and so it shall appear in the end, that your Priesthood was hatched of an ill egg. 
pag. 57   
And here you declare evidently to the world in the very begininng your pitiful ignorance, 
M. R. affirmeth that we deny Melchisedech to have been a Priest: how untruely all the world can witness. Gen. 14.18. Psal. 110.4. Heb. 7.1.  not knowing against whom you fight. For was it ever of us doubted, that Melchisedech was a Priest, and offered sacrifice? doth not the scripture teach the same most expressly, and that in many places? yet you say, you could never obtain so much of our brethren: which argueth that God hath smitten you with marvelous senselessness, and as it were suddenly bereaved you of your understanding. Thought you any so simple as to believe you, that we deny Melchis. to have been a Priest, & to have done the office of a Priest, which consisteth principally in making outward sacrifice? Bestowed you so litlte time in reading the writings of those you call our brethren, that you know not what their judgement was herein? or could you find in your heart at adventure thus to report of our brethren in a matter whereof you were ignorant what they taught? Take heed Master Rainolds, you may abuse the ignorance of some, but God willbe revenged of you for your untruth. As for your reason, that if Melchisedech sacrificed, that was in bread and wine, because there is no mention made in the scripture of any other sacrifice, I marvel you see not the looseness of this conclusion. 
M. Rainolds thinketh Melchisedech could not make sacrifice, unless it were when he met Abraham with bread & wine.  For how is the head and body of this argument joined together? Melchisedech was a Priest, therefore he sacrifided in bread and wine. Of sacrificing in bread and wine, there is no word in the scripture, which only recordeth, that Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine; whereby is noted that Melchisedech presented Abraham with victuales, 
Gen. 14.18.  when he returned from pursuit & slaughter of the kings: which is so clear in the text, that it is confessed by your own Champion Andradius. Is this then an excellent proof that Melchisedech sacrificed in bread and wine, 
Andrad. Defence. Concil. Trident. lbi. 4.  because he relieved Abraham & his servants with bread and wine? And that seeing the Hebrew word which the holy ghost used, never signifieth to sacrifice, in any one place of the scripture, but only to bring forth, as all men know that have but a little taste in the Hebrew tongue. 
Hetsi in the Hebrew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek, and proferens in the latin Vulgar edition itself.  But if he sacrificed not thus, then saith M. Rainolds, his sacrifice is not mentioned in scripture. And what if the scripture hath not particularly set down what sacrifice Melchisedech offered? was it not sufficient to declare that he was a Priest, unless it were also added, what manner of sacrifice he offered? will you not believe the scriptures testifying that Melchisedech was a Priest, unless you understand what sacrifice he made? How many Priests doth the scripture speak of, and yet omitteth their kind and manner of sacrifice? Can you then reason, they were no Priests, because it is not expressly noted, in what things they offered their sacrifice?  
Furthermore, was not Melchisedech a King also? and yet we read not any where in scriptures what Kingly duties were performed by him, unless you will acknowledge this to be a token of his royal dignity, that he relieved Abraham and his men with provision: which though it be no proper mark of a King, seeing it may be done by others also that be no kings, yet doth it rather show unto us a Kingly estate in him (as it is alleged by learned men) than a priestly. For to bring forth bread and wine, that is, meat & drink for the sustenance of a multitude, must rather be thought a princely magnificence, than a priestly sacrifice. Seeing then it is as necessary for us to believe that Melchisedech was a King, as that he was a priest, because he was a figure of Christ, not only concerning his preisthoode, but also his Kingdom: 
M. R. argument proveth Melch. to be no king  then must you as well note unto us what princely act of his the scripture reporteth, as you demand of us what sacrifice he offered. For if this proveth not he was a King, then to use your own words, there is no syllable in the scriptures of any kingly deed, that ever he did: and so by your profound and invincible reason, as you call it, we must be forced contrary to plain scriptures to deny he was a king. For that he was a priest, beside he is so called in the scriptures, may also further appear unto us by his doings, in that he blessed Ahraham, which duty belonged to the priest, as well as to offer sacrifice. Thus your goodly argument, whereof you brag so much, if it be of such invincible force, as you pretend, though it may put a sacrifice in Melchisedechs' hand, yet it taketh the kingly crown from his head. Wherefore you see, if you can see any thing, that your proof whereupon you lean, will not one lie fail you, if you press it too much, but also break in pieces, & hurt yourselves.  
You see therefore how little cause you had to charge my fellows and masters, 
pag. 58.59.  as you name them, with stubbornness, who never denied, nor doubted, but that Melchisedech was a very priest, and executed the office of a priest, which chiefly consisteth in sacrifice and oblation, as the Apostle teacheth. 
Heb. 5.1.  Then your fellows & masters must needs be stubbornly set in maintenance of falsehood, if they either taught you thus to write, or will commend you for writing thus beyond all compass of modesty and truth. But now, as though Melchisedechs' sacrifice could have been no other, save that which you dream of, you gather of my acknowledging him to have offered sacrifice, that therefore he did it in bread and wine: which is an absurd, and senseless kind of gathering, meet for such a petty proctor of the Pope's sacrifice, as Master Rainolds is. The scriptures testify that Melchisedech was a priest, and this both I, and all my fellows and masters ever confessed. That the sacrifice which Melchisedech offered, was bread & wine, the scriptures no where give us to understand, & therefore we believe it not, & you can never prove it. You allege the testimony of Moses thus: Melchisedech rex Salem, 
Gen. 14.  proferens panem & vinum (erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi) benedixit ei. Melchisedech king of Salem, bringing forth bread & wine (for he was a Priest of the most high god) blessed him, that is, Abraham, you must have a divine power of working miracles before you can prove hereof that Melchisedech offered bread and wine in sacrifice, 
Melchisedech brought forth bread & wine: 〈◊〉 he offered sacrifice in bread and wine. Upon such lose arguments hangs the popish Priesthood and sacrifice.  seeing your own translation saith no more, but that he brought forth bread and wine: and that was, as I showed before, for an other purpose, then to offer sacrifice: unless with the same mouth, wherewith you said even now, that we deny Melchisedech to have made sacrifice, you will also further say, that to bring forth bread and wine is to offer sacrifice: whereas no man seethe not, that this may be done many ways, and for many other uses, then for this of sacrifice. Wherefoe your reason, Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, is not of the same length with your conclusion, that therefore he offered sacrifice in bread and wine.  
But that you say is a reason of his priesthood, which I deny, and it is the thing in controversy: & should by you have been proved, not barely affirmed. For though as you report the words of Moses, it may seem that the reason of Melchisedechs' bringing forth bread and wine was, for that he was the Lord's priest, yet Moses in in his own language saith not so, but thus, And he was a priest of the most high God, as it is also translated by Pagnine, and Vatablus, and Arias Montanus, according to the original verity. And though sometime it may so be taken, yet how can you prove that so it must of necessity here be taken? And if it be, your sacrifice for all that will not here of follow, as you may learn by Andradius your greatest Doctor, 
Li. 4. deafen. Trid.  who maketh that a reason why Melchisedech, being a Cananean, and joined perhaps in blood or friendship with some of the Kings that Abraham slew, notwithstanding was so far of from seeking to be revenged of Abraham, that he met him friendly and presented him with gifts, because the bonds of country and kindred are not so strong, as of godliness & religion. 
popish arguments confuted and rejected by papists themselves.  So the reason is not as you imagine, He offered sacrifice in bread & wine, therefore he was a Priest: but by Andradius judgement, he was the lords Priest, and therefore he refreshed Abraham a true worshipper of the Lord.  
But what if all this were granted without resistance, that Melchisedech offered a sacrifice in bread and wine? it must be cast in a strange mould, before the sacrifice of your Mass can any ways be framed hereof. For first this sacrifice might be a figure of Christ's body and blood, represented and offered unto us in bread & wine with out any such unholy sacrifice as is imagined in your Mass. And so did the ancient fathers mean, when they applied this history of Melchisedech to the sacrament of Christ's supper. 
How the fathers apply Melchisedechs' fact to the sacrament of Christ's supper.  Wherefore when you have digged as deep as you will yet shall you not find the mine or spring of your sacrifice here. Again, what resemblance is there between Melchisedechs' bread and wine, and your Mass, wherein you teach is neither bread nor wine remaining at all? That you bring out of Musculus and Calvin, concerning referring those words (and he was a Priest) to that which followeth, and he blessed him, you are not able to confute, and therefore you do well, and wisely to note it, but show no reason against it: and so likewise you set before your reader an other place of Calvin, wherein he writeth that their opinion is confuted, who seek out the chief resemblance between Christ and Melchisedech in offering of bread and wine, seeing the Apostle who standeth upon other points not so notable, and principal, as that, speaketh not so much as once thereof. This was to hot for you to bear, & therefore you let it fall to the ground, covering it with the naked names of Jerome, & Gregory Nazianzene. Out of Caluins' words by you repeated, you will the reader to note two things, 
Pag. 62.  which being noted never so much, make nothing for your profit. The first is, that Calvin, and the calvinists (as it pleaseth you to speak) find nothing wherein Melchisedech sacrificed, and so by sacrificing prefigured the sacrifice and Priesthood of Christ: whereunto I have already answered, and further add now, that we find in Melchisedech as much as the Apostle hath found, 
We expound and understand the figure of Melc. in such sort as the Apostle hath taught us  & the Apostle hath found as much as truly can be found: unless you will say the holy ghost was grossly & foully overseen in omitting the chiefest thing, wherein Melchisedech represented our saviour Christ. We think it no shame to find no more than the clear light, and wisdom of God's spirit could find, wherewith the Apostle, examining & searching throughly the whole history of Melchisedech, hath not given the least inkling of your surmised sacrifice. He showeth diverse properties in which Melchisedech was a figure of Christ, comparing not any sacrifice of Melchisedech with the sacrifice made by Christ, but the person of Melchisedech with the person of Christ. So you have found such a property betwenee them two, as he never saw, and therefore must needs account yourselves wiser than he, which we by your leaves cannot acknowledge, and therefore refuse your invention.  
The second is, that the ancient fathers acknowledge Melchisedech to have sacrificed in bread and wine, and so to have foreshowed Christ's sacrificing in like manner. 
What is to be answered to the father's comparing Melchisedeches bread and wine to the Lords supper  To this an easy answer may serve. First, that whatsoever the fathers teach without warrant of God's word, must be judged no better than stubble and straw, which hath no use in the building up of gods spiritual Temple, but serveth only to be burnt. secondly, that the fathers, not one of them all, apply this of Melchisedech, to the Popish mass, which was not hatched in the days of the ancient fathers, but is a latter bird of antichrist's brood. Thirdly, that none of the ancient fathers do prove by this any real sacrifice of the Church, wherein Christ is to be offered continually, as the Papists do most wickedly and horribly maintain. lastly the fathers only meant to commend the excellency of the Lords supper, which Christ instituted in bread and wine, by this fact of Melchisedech, that brought forth bread and wine, as it were in these signs shadowing and figuring Christ unto us, who long after appointed the same to be sacraments of his body and blood. This was the cause why they so often allege this example of Melchisedech, as you may perceive by Cyprian, who saith. In sacerdote Melchisedech sacrifice, Dominici sacramentum praefiguratum videmus: that is, 
Cypr. ep. 63.  In Melchisedech the Priest we see the sacrament of the Lords sacrifice prefigured. Thus Cyprian writeth in the same epistle, that you allege here, by whose words you may learn to what purpose the fathers applied that of Melchisedech, far otherwise than you do. And in that Cyprian calleth bread and wine his body and blood, therein is no difficulty, meaning sacraments of his body and blood. As for the new oblation that Irenaeus speaketh of, 
Iren. li. 4. c. 32.  it is the prayers and alms of the faithful, which they offer unto God in the celebration of the Lords supper: which is so far from your sacrifice, that you may as soon make the north and south pole meet together, as this testimony of Irenaeus with your idol of the Mass.  
In that you bear your reader in hand, I have dissented from Calvin, and the Protestants, that argueth a weakness of your brain, which causeth you to utter such idle talk. All Protestants, not only I, confess that Melchisedech was a Priest, & that he offered sacrifice: doth it follow therefore M. R. that the sacrifice was in bread & wine, as you pretend? whom then do I forsake? with whom do I join? what fantasy is this that troubleth your head so much?  
In this taking you begin to throw out arguments, 
Pag 63.  which must needs be full simply and miserably made. Howbeit sooner may you devise many formal syllogisms for your sacrifice, then make one sound reason in divinity for confirmation thereof. Thus you have framed your argument with your own hands: 
A syllogism of M. R. examined & answered.  That Christ did, and appointed to be done, that may & aught to be done: But Christ at his last supper offered sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech, and appointed the Apostles and priests to do the same: Ergo the Apostles & priests may, & aught to offer sacrifice. This syllogism seemeth to be terribly compounded, and to prove invincibly the sacrifice of the Mass: doubtless Master Rainolds is persuaded he shall herewith fray us all away. But be not dismayed (good Reader) the light driveth darkness before it, and truth cannot be vanquished with an army of false arguments, be they never so cunningly framed, much less with such slender sophisms as these. Your Assumption hath two parts, & they both are false: whereof the conclusion following cannot be able to look the truth in the face. For where you say I have acknowledged the former part, I acknowledge no such thing, nor ever did. 
Two grand and capital untruths in the assumption of M. R. Syllogism.  Christ at his last supper offered no sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech: Christ appointed not the Apostles, nor any else, to offer the same. Neither of these parts shall you prove whilst you live, though you live the last on the earth. For what sacrifice offered Christ at his supper? and what was the effect thereof? was this a sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech? then was it not the same he offered on the Cross: for that was not of Melchisedechs' order, being not in bread and wine, as you will have it, but the very body of jesus Christ. But your Church maintaineth that the sacrifice which Christ offered at his supper, was the same that he offered on the Cross. Thus handsomely your dreams hang together.  
Again if Christ at his supper offered such a sacrifice, as was prefigured by Melchisedech which you affirm, then must it follow that Christ fulfilled that figure perfectly, and so the same sacrifice nead no more to be offered: whereof ensueth the desolation of your masmongers, whose occupation only and wholly standeth in renewing the sacrifice of the mass. Then would I demand what virtue and effect that sacrifice had, which you teach to have been offered by Christ at his supper? Did Christ thereby fully appease the wrath of his father? Did he fully redeem mankind? Or did he these things, but yet so slenderly & insufficiently, that there needed another sacrifice after, namely his own death upon the Cross? Answer plainly as becometh a divine, yea a Christian, yea a reasonable man. 
A true Syllogism opposed against M. Ram. false & heretical Syllogism.   
And because you framed an argument for me, as you say, I will do as much for you, and thus I frame you another. If Christ offered are all external sacrifice of himself at his supper in bread & wine, than did Christ fully redeem mankind by a sacrifice made in bread and wine: But Christ redeemed not the world, by a sacrifice made in bread & wine, but by the sacrifice of his own body upon the cross: Ergo Christ offered no such sacrifice, in bread and wine at his supper. The parts are plain, & need no further proof. And where you say, that seeing Christ was prefigured by Aaron & Melchisedech, therefore he offered a sacrifice both in bloody manner, as Aaron did, and in unbloody, as did Melchisedech, I see you labour to put life into the dead carcase of your argument, but all in vain. For it cannot be showed either by scriptures, or else by any ancient fathers of the Church, that Christ offered any real sacrifice, but only in bloody manner. 
Heb. 10.14.  Wherefore the Apostle so often repeateth the word (Once) excluding thereby all other manners of offering this sacrifice, but one. By one oblation (saith the Apostle) hath he made perfect for ever those that are sanctified. Tell us what manner of oblation that was, bloody, or unbloody? bloody, I trust, you will confess: and therefore no unbloody was necessary, which neither could have helped, seeing without shedding of blood there is not any remission of sins. 
Heb. 9.22.  Whereby also may appear that though the sacrifice of the mass be gainful to such Popish Priests, as M. R. & his companions are, yet in truth being unbloody, it is utterly unfit, and unable to purchase remission of sins. Such merchandise is lightly to be valued, as it deserveth.  
But to answer a little further, concerning Melchisedech, the similitude between him and Christ consisteth not in offering unbloody sacrifice, 
In what respects Melchisedech was a figure of Christ.  as you untruely and wickedly imagine, but as the Apostle teacheth, in that Melchisedech, was both a king, and a priest, and is set forth unto us in the scripture as eternal, and more excellent than Abraham, and the Levitical priests. In these respects was he a figure of Christ the eternal king and priest, far excelling all the priests of the levitical order. Because these things make nothing for your sacrifice, you devise a matter that was not, to prove a thing that is not, and so build one lie upon another, the unbloody sacrifice of Christ upon the unbloody sacrifice of Melchisedech. But this is the just judgement of the Lord upon you, that seeing you have trodden under your feet, the blood of the everlasting Testament, you should be given over to effectual illusions, to embrace an unbloody sacrifice, which is the devise of your own brain, for the true & glorius sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.  
This former argument of M.R. hath begotten another like to itself, 
Pag. 64.  or rather more monstrous. Thus it standeth; 
another Syllogism of M. Rain. like to the former, answered.  They who may & aught to offer sacrifice, as did first Melch. & afterward Christ, are truly & properly sacerdotes: But priests of the new Testament may & aught to offer sacrifice in such sort: ergo they are truly & properly sacerdotes, priests. The Minor is the same with the conclusion of your other argument, as evidently false, as the word of god is clearly & undoubtedly true. For if your priests offer sacrifice, as Melchisedech and Christ did, then are they priests of Melch. order, & not priests only but kings. For so was he the figure, & so is Christ the truth. You cannot pull in sunder these two offices, but if you will needs be priests, & that properly, according to this order of Melchis. then seeing that order of priesthood hath a kingdom inseparably annexed to it, it must necessarily follow, that you are also kings, and that properly, which were a very proper thing indeed, and greatly to be accounted of. 
Popish priests if they be according to Melchisedechs' order, must not be priests only, but also kings  If you divide these offices in sunder, it is blasphemy; making a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, whoeis not also a king: If you take both jointly to yourselves, then will every hedge Priest be a gentleman, a lord, a King. As this is most absurd, & monstrous, so is that also, that you should be priests according to Melchisedechs' order. For then further ought you to be eternal, without beginning or ending of days, without father or mother, as Melchisedech is described unto us in the scriptures, and as Christ is in truth, and only Christ. So taking upon you this priesthood of Melchisedech, you commit horrible sacrilege, and treason against the person of Christ our saviour, who will in time tread such vermin under his feet, that creeping on the earth do presumptuously challenge to themselves his special prerogatives and royalties.  
S. Augustine calling the ministers of the gospel Priests, speaketh improperly, 
Pag. 65. August. de eivit. dei. Lib. 20 cap. 10.  as hath been answered. For although he saith, that all Christians are unproperly called Priests, and others in the Church are so called properly, yet he meaneth not that there are any such priests in the Church, as Melchisedech, or Aaron, or Christ was: but only that they are so termed by an usual, and peculiar name, which is not in custom of speech given generally to all Christians. This to have been S. Augustine's meaning, and the judgement of the Church heretofore, we may learn of Peter Lombard, 
How the fathers call the ministers of the gospel Priests. Sent. lib. 4. Dist. 12. ●.  to let the ancient writers pass. For Peter first asketh this question, whether that which the Priest doth, may properly be called a sacrifice & oblation. His answer he maketh thus, To this may be said briefly, that which is offered, and consecrated of the Priest, is called a sacrifice, and oblation, because it is the remembrance, and representation of the true sacrifice, and holy oblation that was made upon the altar of the cross. If then there remain in the Church no sacrifice in proper and natural sense of the word, as your own doctor, and Master of sentences confesseth, there can not be remaining any Priests, that may so be called properly. For such as the kind of sacrifice is, such is also the kind of priesthood: if the sacrifice be not a sacrifice properly, the priesthood cannot be a Priesthood properly, but only by a figurative and unproper manner of speech.  
That Augustine was a priest himself, 
Pag. 66. August Cofes. Lib. 9 cap. 11.12.13.  you labour to prove out of his book of Confessions: in which place though he speak of an altar and sacrifice, yet he meaneth not such altars and sacrifices, as you have erected and offered in all places. This sacrifice that he speaketh of, is the sacrament of Christ's death, the altar is the Lords table, the remembrance of his mother in offering this sacrifice on the altar, is giving of thanks to God for her in celebrating the Lords supper. Although I deny not, but the superstition of praying for the dead was then crept into the Church: so that if you will needs urge that Monica desired to have prayers made for her, I will not greatly stand with you herein. But that any real sacrifice of Christ, as you mean, was offered for quick or dead in those days, that I deny, and you can not prove it by this, or an● other testimony of S. Augustine.  
Where I say, that Christ hath committed his Church to be ruled by Pastors and Doctors for ever, and not to Priests, 
pag. 67.  you demand whether this appointment had effect or no & give me warning to beware (as though some danger were at hand) what I answer. But we shall easily, I trust drive away this craking Annibal from the gates of our City, who cometh only to make a show, and hath no force to hurt. 
Ephi 4.11. Ministers of the Gospel are vever called priests in the new Testament.  That Christ ordained Pastors and Doctors to rule his Church, the scripture is plain, so that you may not forshame deny it: now if these were priests truly and properly, then should they have been so called, and by this name commended unto us in the scriptures. But whereas their office is declared diversly in great variety of names, y●t is this name never once given unto them in no Gospel, in no epistle, in no book of the new testament. And may we think that if the ministers of Christ in the new Testament were by God's institution very Priests, as these men bear us in hand, and had commission to offer so excellent a sacrifice, as no Priest ever the like, save Christ himself, may we think, I say, or is it likely that this name should never have been found in all the new Testament in this sense, where are so manifold titles given unto them, as of Elders, Overseers, Rulers, Shepherds, Watchmen, Ministers, Stewards, Servants, and such like? Of all which names none pleaseth their humour: but Priests they will be called & accounted, as though God's spirit which appointeth offices in the Church, could not have given fit names unto them, but would rather give them any name, then that which is their proper name. Any man then, that hath but half an eye, may soon see, that the holy ghost in avoiding this name so carefully, hath given our Popish Priests a clean wipe, and both left them out of the door, and shut the door against them: & though they strive never so much to creep in, yet are they to be driven away by lawful authority, and kept forth, as they that have nothing at all to do in God's house.  
But here M. Rainolds hath gotten a doughty argument, which I think because he knew not how to bring it in fitly in some other place, hath halde it in here out of place. He bids me show where this Church for many hundred years was gogoverned thus, which is as common an argument with them, to use his own words, as Dunstable hiewaie. For this reason is even their common packhorse to bear the whole burden, when all other fail, where was your Church, where were your ministers before Luther? Whereunto, that you may perceive how far we disagree from the Donatists, of whom you speak, I answer, that our Church was never so straited, but that it might be found in all countries christened, and our ministers had the chiefest rooms, till Antichrist by little and little had driven them out: and then afterwards the Lord continually raised up, and provided for his Church, such pastors and doctors, as were necessary for the gathering of the saints together. Further answer in this place is not needful.  
As for Augustine the monk, 
Pag. 68  and Laurentius, and the rest, whom you call the first Apostles, and converters of our nation, I neither acknowledge them for Apostles, nor Priests: yea sure I am, if they were true Apostles, than were they no Priests, and if they were Priests, their Apostleship was of a wrong stamp. And though Beda so call them, yet it followeth not that they were popish priests, seeing he used but the phrase of common speech, by which the preachers and Ministers of the word and sacraments were so called: in which respect myself also called S. Jerome a priest of the Roman Church. But this though an usual, yet is it an improper kind of speech.  
What wanteth in reasoning, you supply in railing. 
pag. 69.  john Bale you call a sink of iniquity: Calvin, you say, is more execrable than the rest: of such flowers Master Rainolds garden (good reader) hath abundance, as lightly thou shalt find any where. Those servants of Christ, of whom you speak your pleasure, have noted the fathers for their declining from the purity of the gospel, & that may they in some things worthily do, even as Paul did Peter. And touching this matter we have in hand, there were amongst them some superstitious offerings, 
The fathers acknowledge not the Popish sacrifice.  which even the papists themselves have abandoned: but that the fathers were priests in our meaning, or thought they had any real sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, you have not showed, nor can. 
Tertul. ad Scapul.  The fathers deny that any such sacrifice remaineth. Tertullian saith, we sacrifice, for the safety of the Emperor: but to our God, and his: but as God hath commanded with pure prayer. Tertullian knoweth not of any external sacrifice among the Christians: for than would they have offered that also for the Emperor. 
justin, in dial. cum Tryphone.  And justinus Martyr before him, saith, that Christians have learned to offer the sacrifice of supplications, and thanksgiving only. Which he would not have said, if Christians had learned to offer the sacrifice of the mass. S. Chrysost. saith, 
Chrys. in epist. Hebr. hom. 13.  If Christ be perfect, never sinneth, alway liveth, why should he offer for us many sacrifices? And again, There is no other sacrifice: one hath purged us. After that remaineth fire and hell. S August. saith, Christ only is our priest, our sacrifice, our Temple. 
August. de fide ad Pet. Di●. c. 2.  I omit many more: by these testimonies the Godly reader may understand, that in the primitive Church was no such sacrifice, nor priesthood, as the Popish is pretended to be. And therefore I see no cause, why I should be afraid to stand in maintenance of M. jewel that godly and learned Bishops challenge in this behalf, which hath not hitherto, nor cannot be disproved. And though you, as also many of your fellows are still pinching at it, yet you are all content to let it rest, as Doctor Harding left it, which was full greatly to your discredit. And as for the Doctors that Calvin allegeth, although they force the scriptures, as he saith, manifestly to a wrong purpose, in applying Melchisedechs' example to the matter of the sacrament, yet none of them proveth that sacrifice, that Master jewel denieth, and therefore you do but idly and triflinglie spend your time, and trouble your reader with your follies. But you would, I dare say, better entertain him, if you had any better provision. 
Calvin. de vera Eccl. reform.  Yet you might have seen that Calvin in that place censureth those fathers with these words by you alleged, for an other place of scripture wrongly & strangely applied, not for defending the unbloody sacrifice as you affirm.  
Then you come to lift at my argument, 
pag. 74.  which I gathered out of the Apostle against your sacrificing Priests: but your strength faileth you much in this enterprise. The Apostle saith, that Christ hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, an everlasting Priesthood. 
Heb. 7.24.  Here you rehearse diverse interpretations of the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Apostle useth: although there are none but meanly seen in that tongue, that need your help therein. For that properly is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that passeth not away from one to an other. And herein the Apostle compareth our saviour Christ with the Priests of Aaron's order, & showeth a manifest difference, that the Levitical Priesthood rested not in one man, but went from man to man, by reason of death, which suffered not one & the same Priest continually to enjoy his office: but Christ liveth for ever, and therefore his Priesthood abideth with him only, 
The Apostles reason excludeth the Popish priests no less than the Levitical.  and is not in execution enlarged to any other. And this reason of the Apostle debarreth as well the popish, as the Aaronical priests. For the Priests of the popish order are no more exempted from necessity of dying, then were those priests of Aaron's stock, so that they are no less opposed unto Christ, than the other.  
Herein therefore lieth the force of the Apostles argument, that the Priesthood of the new Testament belongeth only unto him, that is immortal: for otherwise he had not put any necessary difference between that and the other: whereof it doth invincibly, and necessarielie ensue, that the only priest of the new Testament, is jesus Christ. This Chrysostom concludeth out of the Apostles words most plainly: 
Chrys. in Hebr. 7. homil. 13. S Chrisost. plainly condemneth all popish priests  As there were (saith he) many priests, because they were mortal so there is but one, because he is immortal. For can they answer for themselves, that though they die, yet Christ liveth, whose partners herein they reckon themselves to be? might not the jewish priests likewise have said as much, seeing it cannot be denied, but their priesthood also was referred unto Christ? But as those Priests together with their Priesthood expired, when our saviour Christ, the true Priest and sacrifice, was exhibited, so their was no place left for other Priests, nor other sacrifice, all figures being in Christ most fully and perfectly accomplished. Yet as though Christ had been either a mortal priest like to Aaron, and his children, or his sacrifice had not at once satisfied the wrath of God, they substitute to Christ an infinite multitude of priests, far more than were ever the Levitical priests, & take upon them blasphemously to offer again daily the same sacrifice that Christ once offered, which is impossible for any to offer, but only the son of God himself. O that Christian people would consider the horrible dungeon of iniquity, that lieth hid under the abominable sacrifice of the popish mass, than which the sun did never behold a thing more loathsome and detestable in the eyes of the God of heaven.  
This therefore is a sure reason, and shall stand against the gates of hell, and force of all papists, that Christ is a Priest for ever, and hath an everlasting Priesthood. Therefore he is the only Priest of the new Testament, and his Priesthood is not communicated to any other: and so your priests are no priests, your sacrifice is no sacrifice, your Religion is no Religion, your Christ is no Christ, your God is no God. Depart from them whosoever will not be partakers of their condemnation.  
To show this reason to be childish, 
Pag. 76.  you have brought indeed a childish exception. Christ is (you say) a true man for ever, a king for ever, our doctor, master, and teacher for ever: yet are there many men, kings, doctors, & teachers, besides Christ. 
An objection of M.R. answered.  This man is suddenly so drowned in the dregs of popery, that he hath lost all taste and sense of truth: for else he would have been ashamed of such an answer, which nothing cometh near the matter. We speak of those offices, which Christ was appointed to bear by the anointing of the holy ghost, and special commission from God: you bring instance of things that be of an other condition and nature, as to be a true man, an earthly King, an outward minister of the word, & such like. Christ is our only king, Prophet, and Priest: so that in this sense, in which these are given to him, none can be King, Prophet, or Priest, but he. For he only is our spiritual King, he only is our teacher, and author of all heavenly doctrine, he only can offer the sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the world. If you think any can be a King or Prophet in this manner, but only he, you take his honour from him, and give it to an other, to whom it doth not appertain: which you do indeed most notably in sesing yourselves upon his Priesthood, which doth as truly belong to him alone, as the other of his Kingdom and Prophecy do. Now then weigh with yourself, what a witless objection you have made: and if you can bring no better defence for your Priests, than your have hitherto done, you have good cause to be sorry, and ashamed that ever you changed your copy, and of a minister of the Gospel, became a priest of the popish order. God give you grace to repent, that the fruit of Christ's priesthood may not be denied unto you another day.  
That which followeth, is but a supply of superfluous words, without wit, without learning, without truth. The comparison you make between an earthly prince and Christ, doth nothing fit your purpose. For if you have as lawful authority under Christ to exercise a priesthood, as the civil governors have under their prince to execute their office laid upon them, then show your commission, and we require no more. For as no man dare presume in the affairs of the state to command or enterprise any thing in the prince's name without a sufficient warrant from the prince: so may no man take upon him any ecclesiastical function in the Church, ulnes he have a commandment from the Lord. But Christ never gave you any such commandment, he never laid upon you any such office, he never called you to this honour, to be his fellow priests: else bring us your Charter, that we may see it, and show us your letters of orders, that we may try them. And further you are to consider that although the prince bestow offices & preferments upon his subjects, as pleaseth him, yet his Regalities he keepeth to himself, and no subject will presume to challenge them. Pharaoh gave joseph as great authority, as any princes use to give any of their servants: yet the chair of estate he kept to himself, & therein he was above him. But you most rudely and arrogantly intrude yourselves into Christ's seat, and will not only be his vicepriests, but as good priests as he, joined in the same commission with him, according to the same order of Melchisedech, that he was of: & so you are not content with such offices as he hath appointed unto you, but you claim his chiefest principalities, which is no less a fault, then high treason against the highest majesty.  
M. Rain. maketh an end of this treatise with an other foolish cavil taken out of the communion book, wherein, he saith, commission is given in some cases, to the minister, to remit sins. why say you, in some cases? The Minister of God hath power to forgive sins, not in some cases only, but in all whatsoever, if the sinner repent & believe the gospel. This authority is given unto him by Christ, this the parliament, & communion book confess, this the ministers daily practice amongst us. Nevertheless you are still as far from your purpose, as before. For this maketh not our ministers to be priests, but preachers of repentance, which bring the glad tidings of the gospel, to all those that be heavy laden, and desire to be refreshed. Neither have they power themselves to forgive sins, 
Mar. 2.7.  (for God only forgiveth sins) but having the word of reconciliation committed unto them from God, they offer pardon, and in his name pronounce pardon to the sinner, that turneth from his sins unto the Lord. If you know this, why strive you against a known & confessed truth? If you be ignorant what commission the ministers have received of Christ, then be content to learn it out of the word of god. As for your priests you have alleged nothing, to prove their calling and authority lawful, and I have showed that the scriptures giving all priesthood, after Melchis. order, to Christ only, have wrung in sunder the necks of your popish sacrificers, and therefore it is the duty of all Christians whose salvation consisteth in the sacrifice & priesthood of Christ, to think of you, as you are indeed, enemies of Christ, Baalites, idolatrous Antichristian Priests whose punishment shall be with the Beast in the lake that burneth with fire & brimstone for ever. The Lord open the eyes of his people, that they may see your wickedness, and beware of you, lest they be in wrapped in the same condemnation with you.   

CHAP. 5.  
Of penance, and the value of good works touching justification, and life eternal.  
IN the beginning of this Chapter M. Rainolds chafeth and layeth about him on every side, 
Pag. 82. etc.  striking now at one man, now at another, sometime this way, sometime that, as though he were suddenly fallen into some malady, & great distemperature in his head. The occasion riseth upon my words, in saying our adversaries doctrine cannot stand, unless we will allow for good those things that in the writings of the fathers are most faulty. And who knoweth not, if he have read any thing in the fathers, 
The Popish religion gathered of the corruptions of fathers, & former times.  but that the popish religion for the most part is even a very scum of ancient & new errors, or as it were a body consisting of rottenness and corruption? Their free will, their merit of works, their purgatory, their sacrifice for quick and dead, their transubstantiation, their Pope's Supremacy, their superstitious fasts, their worshipping of Images, their praying unto Saints, their praying for the dead, their satisfaction, forgiveness by works of penance, whereof Master Rainolds hath now taken in hand to speak, and other many more the like points of false doctrine they can as soon prove out of the scripiures, as they can draw a fountain of water out of a flint. And therefore although for a fashion, in defence of some of these, they pretend scriptures, yet being easily beaten from them, they fall at last to rail on them as not containing sufficient doctrine, and rather willbe tried and judged by the writings of fathers: at whose hands albeit they find not such relief as they would make men believe, in no one controversy between us & them, as hath been oftentimes plainly proved, notwithstanding by reason of the father's manifold oversights and slips, & the corruptions that daily increased in the Church, they may bring somewhat, such as it is, for their maintenance. wherefore that we will not admit the fathers for judges in matters of Religion, but hold them hard to the trial of the Scriptures, which they cannot abide, this doth put them out of patience, & driveth them into vehement passions. But let them mend themselves where they can: they shall never get at our hands more than this, to receive that which the scripture delivereth, to reject that which the scripture reproveth: to read the fathers with indifferent and free judgement, weighing all their doctrine in the balance of god's word, and thereby either allowing, or refusing the same. This we must do, or else of fathers we make Gods, of men's writings we make canonical scriptures, of doctor's opinions we make articles of faith. And herein we do no otherwise, than we are taught both by scriptures, and fathers to do, as hath been showed a thousand times, This shallbe your answer, & more you are not to look for of me, neither in this question of penance, nor in any other: and though it be your grief to have your nose held to this grindstone, yet shall the truth thus be cleared from your mists, & God shall have the glory.  
Where I have said, 
Pag. 87. True repentance wherein it consisteth.  that repentance consisteth in inward sorrow for our sins, and amendment of life, not in outward penalties, and chastisements of our bodies, M. Rainolds granteth the former part, but denieth the latter. join them both together (saith he) the● greatly please God. Though he labour with all his force to smother the truth, and keep it from shining forth, yet is he constrained to confess that no external chastisement of the body, or rigorous manner of discipline, whatsoever we can submit ourselves unto, profiteth any thing, without the inward grief of mind conceived for our sins. Wherein as he hath given a right sentence agreeably to god's word, so hath he marked with a black coal the superstition of the Romish sectaries, whose whole repentance is nothing else, but a voluntary affliction of their bodies, by abstaining from meats, by whipping their carcases, by putting on rough apparel, by lying hard, and such other outward exercises, of which the Apostle generally pronounceth, 
1. Tim. 4.8.  they profit but a little. Then he must confess, that Repentance standeth not in outward penance, as they term it, but in the inward sorrow of the soul. For this alone pleaseth God, & turneth away his wrath from us although we do not join therewith external penance: but external penance is nothing worth, unless we have an inward sorrow. Seeing then true repentance may stand without that painful, and extreme punishing of the body, I conclude by necessary consequence of reason, that it is not any part of true repentance, although sometime it hath a profitable use, for the furthering and practising of repentance. If you grant this, as you must, than we shall agree in this matter. For I deny not, but some outward penalties may be used, and do please God, not of themselves, but because they help as means in true repentance. As for example, he that offendeth in eating or drinking too much, must not think that he hath sufficiently repent of his sin, if he punish himself by fasting never so much, unless he be also inwardly sorrowful for the same, and purpose ever after to live soberly: which affection if it be wanting, though a man fast all his life long, yet he hath not truly repent. But the godly Christian, who hath perhaps offended in surfeiting, or drunkenness, and is truly sorrowful therefore, hath repent, though he fast not every friday from morning to night, but useth a sober and moderate diet every day. Nevertheless if he prescribe unto himself, without superstition of satisfaction or merit, some abstinence for a time, that thereby he may be further estranged from that vice, who will deny but this is well and Christianlike done? And this was commanded by God in public and private fasts, and practised by the godly, as we read in the scriptures. Thus may you see what an idle head you have, that allege so many testimonies of scripture, to prove a thing, which no man ever hath denied. I perceive your leisure is great, but you should have more discretion to use it well. In a plain case, wherein we need not your help, you bring plenty of scriptures: in a matter of controversy and debate, which beggeth relief at your hands, you pass by, as though you heard not: which yet I impute not to want of compassion, but of ability. We dispute not whether the children of God have used, and aught to use sometimes outward punishing and afflicting of their bodies (for this we do willingly confess) but whether this outward affliction be a proper part of repentance, and whether it satisfieth for sins. The first is an error, the second is an heresy, or rather blasphemy. These things you should have proved, for these we deny: the other being not denied, required no proof.  
The Apostles place was rightly alleged, 
Pag. 90. Colos. 2, 23.  & you cannot tell how to shift it from you. He condemneth the superstition of such, as put holiness in outward things, and namely in punishing of the body, which Ambrose calleth vexing of the body: Oecumenius, not regarding the body. whether this belong to you, let all the world judge, seeing you make it a part of repentance, and think to deserve thereby a great recompense at the hands of almighty God. But because you perceive the edge of this scripture to be sharper than you would, you seek to blunt it some what, and therefore say, it is obscure: whereas nothing could be spoken more plainly, if the light of your understanding were not dammed up.  
The reason, which I brought against the works of satisfaction, 
pag. 92. Satisfaction for sins wrought only by the sacrifice of Christ's death.  is grounded upon the rock, that never can be shaken, even the word of god, that abideth for ever. For as the redemption of mankind is to be ascribed only to the sacrifice of Christ's death, and cannot without singular blasphemy be assigned to any other thing: so likewise is the satisfaction for sin appropriated to the same sacrifice of Christ, & cannot without like blasphemy be given to any works of man, how excellent soever. You make it a small matter to satisfy for sin, that teach it is in the power of man, by his own pains and penance, to appease the wrath of God, whereby it plainly appeareth, you neither know the grievousness of sin, nor the justice of god, that requireth a greater punishment for sin, than any man is able to suffer: yea you charge the Lord himself with injustice, in that having laid the guiltiness of our sins upon his son, and punished them all in him, is not content with that punishment & satisfaction, 
If we do satisfy for our sins, then hath not Christ satisfied for them.  but exacteth of us a further payment and satisfaction for the sins, for which Christ hath once sufficiently satisfied already. The prophet saith: He is punished for our transgressions, 
isaiah. 53.5.  he is bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace is laid upon him, & by his stripes are we healed. And immediately again he repeateth the same, and saith, The Lord maketh the punishment of us all to light upon him. 
Ve●. 7. 1. joh. 1.7.  The Apostle john saith: The blood of jesus Christ doth purge you from all s●●ne. 
Apoc. 1.5.  And in his revelation he saith: that Christ hath washed us from our sins in his blood. Thus are we taught in the scriptures of God to believe, that our sins are forgiven, and we reconciled to God, not for any thing that we can work or suffer, but only for the death & blood-sheading of Christ. So all your satisfactions are hanged upon the hedge, and serve for nothing else, but to plunge you deeper into the pit of condemnation, which you shall never escape, so long as you trust to any satisfaction, but only of Christ.  
As for your Tridentine council, which you allege, it is but a babble. A child may soon espy the vanity and falsehood of this divinity, that you deliver us here, by warrant of that Council. 
Concil. Trident sess. 14. ca 8.  This it is, The satisfaction which we undertake for our sins, is ours, but yet by Christ jesus: which in effect is all one, as if they had said that Christ himself hath not satisfied for our sins at all, but only hath purchased to us a faculty and ability every man to satisie for his own sins. 
The scriptures teach that Christ himself hath satisfied for our sins. 1. Pet 2.24.  This is the mystery of your satisfactions, a mystery of great impiety. For the scriptures teach the clean contrary. S. Peter saith, that Christ hath borne our sins in his body upon the cross. And how hath he borne them, if he hath not satisfied for them? did he take them upon himself to return them back to us again? or did he not perhaps fully satisfy for them? Tell us then how far Christ hath satisfied, and how much remaineth for us to satisfy, that we may know how to divide aright the satisfaction between Christ and us. But accursed for ever be they, that deny the satisfaction of Christ to be most perfect, and will supply it by their own diligence and labour. Christ hath perfectly redeemed us, therefore Christ hath perfectly satisfied for us. 
The work of Christ's redemption is our satisfaction  For this redemption consisteth in fully satisfying the warth of God against sin. Neither is it possible for any to satisfy for sin, but a redeemer only. For this cause was the name of jesus given to our Redeemer, because he saveth us from our sins. 
Matth. 1.21.  And how is this salvation wrought? 
2. Cor. 5.21.  In that he became man for us: that is, our sins were imputed to him, 
Heb. 10.14.  and he made a sacrifice for them: and by this one oblation hath consecrated for ever those that are sanctified. Then is there left to us no part of satisfaction, but when soever we repent of our sins, and believe in the satisfaction of jesus Christ, we are clearly acquitted of all our offences, for the merit of that perfect sacrifice, which Christ offered for us. If you deny this, think of yourself as you list, you have no more part in jesus Christ, then hath an Infidel.  
That you rehearse out of Brentius, 
pag. 93.9.4.  and Andreas Fricius, is idle, and serveth only for stuffing. Brentius saith truly, we must not only take away nothing from Christ that belongeth unto him, but not give him more, than the scriptures have taught to be due unto him. For he is injuried and dishonoured both ways: nevertheless this, that you will seem to give him more than we, is by no means to be accepted, for so much as it taketh from him a thousand times more, than it can pretend to bestow upon him. For in ascribing that virtue to the sacrifice of Christ, to make our works of force to satisfy for ourselves, you pull away from it violently that full and perfect power of satisfying once for all of itself, which doth truly and properly belong unto it? so herein you may well be compared to those wicked jews that made curtsy to our Saviour Christ, and yet did buffet him on the face with their fists. Andrea's Fricius if he have any private opinion of his own, let him take it to himself: he may not obtrude it upon the Church, without warrant of God's word. And yet out of his words by you rehearsed, what can you gather, serving for proof of man's merits or satisfactions?  
What your opinion and judgement is, 
Pag 95, etc.  M. Rainolds, of my learning and writings, I trust you think I make no great account. Verily among the whole rabble of popish proctor's, there is none, that I have read, of less wit and learning, than yourself. What account your fellows make of you I cannot report, but if they esteem you for one of their worthies, you are more beholding to them, than you have deserved of them. For alas what have you brought, th● in truth is worthy answer? what have you said, wherein appeareth any learning more than most common? what cause have you thus to brag in yourself, thus to contemn others? God give you grace to see, to know, to examine yourself, that you may perceive your own weakness and poverty. If I should boast of myself, mine own tongue would condemn me: this childish & profane manner I leave to you, and your companions, who hunt so greedily for the praise of learning, that you despise the simplicity of God's truth and Gospel. Yet there is none of us, how unlearned soever you think we are, but by the grace of God and light of his word, can easily discover the falsehood, and corruptions of your Religion. Let us now consider upon what points you were bold to utter so fondly your judgement of me, and thereby make trial of that profound learning, which you take to yourself with out cause, as shall here, and every where appear.  
First you charge me, 
Pag. 98.  that I understand not M. Martin's meaning: which though it were true, yet were it (I trust) a venial offence. But I perceived his meaning well enough & framed mine answer directly to the same. The question was: whether to attribute to our sufferings the virtue of satisfying for our sins, be not injurious to the passion & satisfaction of Christ, I said it was, and so I say still. Master Martin allegeth against me the words of the Apostle Saint Paul's, who saith, we shallbe heirs with God, 
Rom. 8.17.  and follow heirs with Christ, if we suffer with him, that we may be glorified with him. Mine answer was, that our sufferings are required, not as causes of our salvation, and eternal glory, yet to be borne of necessity, unless we will fall away from his grace and glory. Wherein now have I swerved from M. Martin's purpose? His argument was you say, to prove, that good works are not injurious to salvation, because the scripture requireth them as necessary to salvation. But why tell you not, how M. Martin meant they are required as necessary? then had you disclosed your own folly. For we grant they are necessarily required in that sense, that the Apostle teacheth, and are not in that respect any ways injurious, or derogatory to the sacrifice of Christ. But this proveth not that they satisfy for our sins: for than should they be efficient causes of our salvation, as you would have them to be thought, and then should they derogate greatly from the merits of Christ. Were you so astonished, that you could not make mine answer agree to M. Martin's argument? or had you a pleasure thus to cavil?  
secondly you say, 
pag. 99 etc.  I understand not S. Paul alleged by M. Martin, yourself setting down such an exposition of his words, as both is contrary to his whole doctrine, & disproved by the very words themselves. For where you say, this place of the Apostle proveth invincibly, that works are the efficient causes of our salvation, it shall easily appear, that herein you do not only misconstrue the Apostle, but utter blasphemy against the blood of Christ: such a notable expositor are you become of the holy scriptures. S. Paul saith, we are joint heirs with Christ, 
Rom. 8.15.  if so be we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified with him. Doth this prove our works or sufferings to be causes efficient of our salvation? By what divinity? by what Logic? by what sophistry? wherein lieth the invincible necessity of this consequence? doth not the Apostle himself conclude the contrary in the words immediately following, when he saith, 
Rom. 8.18.  I account that the sufferings of this present time, are not worthy of the glory that shallbe revealed unto us? 
Our sufferings are not worthy the glory of heaven, and therefore deserve it not  If then there be not any proportion at all between our sufferings and eternal glory, as the Apostle plainly affirmeth, how can our sufferings be causes efficient of that most excellent glory & salvation, which Christ hath purchased for us? doth he not call it our inheritance, when he saith, we are the heirs of god, & fellow heirs with Christ? then doth it follow most invincibly, that it is not obtained by our works, but doth belong unto us by the right of our adoption, whereby we are made the sons of God. Nevertheless as the father requireth obedience of his son to whom he leaveth his inheritance, so the Lord most justly may exact of his children to whom he hath prepared a kingdom, 
Eternal life belongeth unto us by right of our adoption, and is not purchased of us by our works.  all duties of service and obedience. And as the obedience of the child is not the cause efficient of the earthly inheritance, no more are the works of godliness, wherein the faithful are occupied, causes efficient of immortality and salvation. When the earthly father saith to his natural son and heir, thou shalt inherit my lands, and goods, if so be thou wilt obey my will, can your wisdom hereof gather an invincible argument, that this obedience in the heir, is the proper and efficient cause of that inheritance? so when the Lord speaketh to his children in like manner, I will give unto you eternal life, if you can be content patiently to wait for the time of your full deliverance, and to suffer afflictions in this life, as it is necessary for you to do, who but a blind papist will argue hereof, that these afflictions endured in the mean time are causes of eternal life, which is the free gift and grace of God? and yet is this M. Rainolds invincible argument, or rather invincible sollie and ignorance.  
Now where he maketh a comparison between Christ's sufferings & ours, 
pag. 100  and because Christ's sufferings merit eternal life, 
No comparison between the merits of Christ, and our good works.  reasoneth that ours therefore do the same, he deserveth that all the boys in the school should clap their hands against him, as not only disputing most absurdly, but dishonouring our saviour Christ intolerably. Will you match yourselves with Christ, your works and your sufferings with his? you make a very unequal & most unreasonable comparison. For is there in you that perfection of virtue and excellency of grace that was in Christ, whereby he fully satisfied the law of God, and therefore deserved worthily the Kingdom of heaven? All our righteousness is unperfect, all our obedience is full of infirmity, whatsoever we can do or suffer, is stained with some pollution of sin, and therefore of due can merit nothing at the hands of God, much less the Kingdom of heaven and life everlasting. Thus your sum was not rightly gathered, as you may see. 
Pag. 102, Rom. 6.23. Eternal life is a free gift, and therefore is not obtained by merit of good works.   
thirdly M. Rainolds saith, I understand not S. Paul, alleged by myself, that eternal life is the gift of god. Whereupon I gather that seeing it is the free gift of God, our works are not the causes thereof. For if our works were causes efficient of eternal life, the Apostle would not say that eternal life is given freely unto us by God, seeing to give freely, and to give upon desert, cannot be verified of one thing. But eternal life is a free gift, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  as the Apostle doth affirm expressly, and therefore is not purchased by merit of our good works: where is to be noted the opposition between eternal death and life, touching the cause of either, which the Apostle doth so plainly propound unto us. The proper working cause of death is sin: so the Apostle saith, The wages of sin is death: 
Rom. 6.23.  so that no man's labour is more truly the cause of his reward, than sin is the cause of death and condemnation. Why did not S. Paul on the other side say likewise: the wages of good works is eternal life? Nay why said he the clean contrary, that eternal life is the free gift of God? Can you tell us any cause, but onelly to exclude from our works all merit of eternal life? And where the Apostle admonisheth us, 
Phillip 2, 12.  to finish our salvation in fear and trembling: his meaning is nothing less than to ascribe the finishing of our salvation to good works, as though the Lord began, and left the rest for us to finish: but to teach, that we must run our race in careful obedience to God's commandments, until we come to the end of our course, & receive our reward. Nether may you bear us in hand here, because the kingdom of god is called in the scriptures a reward of our well-doing, therefore it dependeth upon the worthiness and merit of our good deeds. For it is a free reward of only grace, not of desert or merit: as the father rewardeth his son of love and favour, not of debt, seeing he oweth him nothing at all. This you have been answered a thousand times: & though you can say nothing to purpose against it, yet you will not submit your hearts to the truth of God, but seek occasions of wrangling without end.  
Fourthly you say, I understand not the state of the question, 
pag. 103. etc.  whereof I writ: and then you make a long discourse of grace, and works, of mercy and justice, to prove that in the regenerate there is not any contrariety between these, but that they may stand well together. A man would think yourself were not altogether ignorant of the matter whereof you speak, taking upon you to reform the judgement of an other: yet have you herein bewrayed more want of skill, than I would have thought had been in you, unless perhaps you dissemble your knowledge, which I do not easily believe. For although grace is not contrary to works, because the cause cannot be contrary to the thing, whereof it is the cause, yet who seethe not that grace may have an other effect besides good works, where of itself, alone is the cause, and must not in that respect be joined with good works, but discerned, and distinguished from them? By grace in this controversy I understand, not those graces of God's spirit, which are infused into us, when we are regenerate, as our adversaries do, making grace and works all one, but the love and mercy of God, as the scriptures have taught us to take the same: as when the faithful servants of God are said to have found grace in the eyes of the Lord: and when the Apostle writeth, 
2. Tim. 1.6.  that grace was given unto us in jesus Christ before all worlds. And so likewise in this question must it be taken, when we are said to be elected, called, justified, & saved by grace, that is, by the love of God, where with he embraced us freely, unless you will say we had grace and good works inherent in us before we were create●, yea before the world itself was framed. From this grace proceed both good works and our salvation, yet so as salvation is to be imputed, not to our works, but only to grace, and although these two are not contrary the one to the other, yet in the matter of salvation there is not the least cooperation between good works & grace, but works are wholly excluded from all society or fellowship in that business. 
Rom. 11.6.  So the Apostle hath plainly taught: If by grace, not of works. Again, If righteousness be by the law, 
Gal. 2.21. Rom, 4.2.  then hath Christ died in vain: Again, If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to boast, 
Gal. 3.11.18,  but not with God. Again, the just shall live by his faith: but the law is not of faith. Again, f the inheritance were of the law, than were it not of promise. wherefore in effecting our justice and salvation, good works may not draw in the same yoke with grace, notwithstanding otherwise they agree well together. Thus have I briefly answered all your frivolous discourse, and showed that you objecting ignorance of the question to me, in truth never understood it rightly yourself.  
The scriptures you bring for your purpose to prove that eternal life is of works, as well as of grace, are but wrested, and shamefully abused by you. When S. Paul saith, 
Rom. 2.6.  that God shall render to every man according to his works, we confess, and always have, that God not only doth recompense the wickedness of the sinner with deserved punishment, 
A reward we confess, merit we deny.  but also rewardeth the virtues of the godly with life, and felicity everlasting. And when Christ shall sit on his judgement seat, every man shallbe tried by his works, which in the wicked do deserve condemnation of themselves, and in the children of God are signs and fruits of their faith, whereby they have laid hold upon jesus Christ their only Saviour and justifier. But make your argument good, if you can, which you gather of these words, God shall render to every man after his works, therefore good works are efficient causes of our salvation: or as you most untruely and wickedly do set down, good works and evil are laid in indifferent balance, so that one is the cause of heaven, as the other is the cause of hell. This divinity M. Rainolds you never learned of Saint Paul, 
Pa 2.105. M.R. saith that good works and evil are laid in indifferent balance, that good works are the cause of heaven, as evil are the cause of hell.  but have drawn it out of the stinking puddle of popery: and it smelleth so lothsomelie in the noses of the godly, that if your senses were not by custom of such filthy doctrine altogether stuffed, you could not abide the savour thereof. Do good works deserve heaven, as evil do hell? what Prophet or Apostle ever said so? sin is indeed the cause of death, and deserveth everlasting pain, because it is a transgression of God's law: but good works are not the cause of heaven, nor can deserve eternal life, because they do not perfectly answer the justice of God's law, which pronounceth them accursed, 
Deut. 27.26. Gal. 3.10,  that abide not in all things written in the law, to do them. Are your good works so absolute, and entire in every respect, that being examined by the law of God, & laid in the balance of perfect justice, they are found in nothing too light? if you say so, you are passed all shame, you forget yourselves, you know not God: if otherwise, how can you escape the curse, but only by forgiveness through Christ? And so it followeth that eternal life is not of works, but only of grace and mercy, whereby our sins are pardoned, 
Psal. 32. Rom. 4.7.  and our iniquities covered, according to the doctrine of the prophets and Apostles. Thus your balance is proved to be false, and you shall one day see the difference, when you are laid in the balance yourself.  
That God is called a just judge, 
An objection of M.R. answered.  not only in respect of the wicked, whom he punisheth, but also of the godly, whom he rewardeth, and that he will render in just judgement to every man according to his works, what can you gather hereof against the free grace of our justification & salvation? Is just reward, and free grace so great an enemy one to the other, that they cannot be coupled together? This detecteth your gross blindness, that think the undeserved mercy of God to be contrary to his justice, as though because he giveth eternal life, as a just judge, therefore doth not give it freely, but in respect of the worthiness of our work. When god elected us to be his children, before we had done good or evil, yea when he gave us the first justice, as you call it, when we had committed many sins, and oftentimes offended him, was not this of only grace and mercy, without our worthiness and desert? you will not deny. Yet in this remained he just, unless you say that God is unjust in some of his dealings. Then is your argument in miserable case, whereof you make so great account, God doth give to his children eternal life of justice, therefore not of grace. God is just, in that he keepeth promise, and doth not deceive his of that reward, which they hope for: but the promise is free. For freely he promised, and freely he giveth. Yet in that he bond himself unto us by his free promise, it was just that he should perform the same, not for that we have justly, and worthily deserved any part of that reward, but because it is meet that God be always faithful in his words. And as for that you allege of Reward, & Rendering, you have been answered, that this reward and retribution is of the free mercy and grace of god: which answer you cannot disprove, and therefore whatsoever you have said, is to no purpose at al. Saint Augustine now must help you, or else you are gone. Yet saith he not in these testimonies, that works do fully and perfectly deserve the crown of immortality, as you say, and more too. The most he saith, is, 
In what sense the fathers affirm that heaven is due for our good works  that the crown is due unto our good works: which in some sense is true. For it is that reward, which God hath prepared and promised to the work, not because the work is worthy thereof, but because it pleaseth him so graciously and liberally to bestow such excellent rewards upon us, that have deserved so little. This will I make plain to have been S. August. meaning by his own writings, and then also further declare, that this was the constant and catholic belief of Christ his Church, by the testimonies of other ancient Fathers. 
August. de perfectione justitiae.  Thus writeth S. Aug. And that what the just judge, when he shall sit on his throne, shall find secret, or not throughly purged, by his mercy may be forgiven, that by seeing God, the whole may be made sound and clean. For judgement is without mercy, but to him which hath done no mercy. But mercy doth surmount judgement. Which if it were not so, what hope had we? for somuch as when the just king shall sit on his throne, who shall glory that he hath a chaste heart, or who shall glory that he is clean from sin? Therefore than the just being fully and perfectly cleansed by his mercy, shall shine as the sin in the kingdom of his father. here S. Aug. plainly teacheth, that when we come before the tribunal seat of Christ to be judged, we had no hope to escape condemnation, but that we trust our sins shallbe forgiven: whereof it followeth, that our good works cannot deserve, or by their merit procure unto us eternal life. For if we be justified and saved by pardon, we cannot any ways say truly, that justification & salvation cometh unto us by our deserts. In an other place he writeth, 
Cont. julian. Lib. 6. Cap. 1.  That our justification is wrought by remission of all our sins. If our justification consist in the forgiveness of our sins, how can it be ascribed to the worthiness & perfection of our works? Again in an other book he teacheth that Christ's justice is our justice: and so that we are justified not by our merits or righteousness, but by the justice of Christ imputed unto us. These are his words: 
In psal. 21. exposit. 3.  How then saith he, of my faults? but because he prayeth for our faults, and hath made our faults his faults, that he might make his justice our justice, speaking of our saviour Christ. 
In manuali. Cap. 22. Meritum meum miseratto Domini.  And that you may know what merits Saint Augustine trusted unto, I will further set down one other place out of him. All my hope (saith he) is in the death of my Lord. His death is my merit, my refuge, salvation, life, and resurrection: my merit is the compassion of the Lord. I shall not be void of merit so long as the Lord of mercies shall not want. And while the mercies of the Lord are manifold, I am also manifold in merits. Thus S. Augustine standeth not upon his own merits, as proud pharisees and papists do in the sight of God, but falleth down flat in confession of his guiltiness, and flieth only to the mercy of God in the merits of Christ. And this is our very Doctrine that we hold, and our hope of salvation that we have, for which we are by the Adversaries so much accused, and reviled.  
Origene lived before S. Augustine two hundred years, and was for his learning and skill in the scriptures universally renowned, although he be not sound in every point of Christian faith. Let us 〈◊〉 what he hath delivered unto us concerning this question in hand, whether our works can merit the kingdom of heaven. These are his words: 
Origen. in ep. ad Roman. c. 4. lib. 5.  But when I consider the loftiness of the words, in that the Apostle saith, to him that worketh, recompense is made according to debt, I scarcely believe, that there can be any work, that may of due demand the reward of God, for so much as even this same, that we can do, or think, or speak any thing, 
Quod erit debitum illius, cuius gratia nos praecessit?  we do it by his gift and bounty. Then how can he own us any thing, whose grace did prevent us? And therefore we must rather consider, lest perhaps, that he said, To him that worketh, the reward shallbe imputed according to debt, aught to be understood of the debt due to the wicked work. For that debts are called sins in the holy Scriptures, you shall often find. Then he allegeth sundry places to this purpose, and afterwards proceedeth thus: whereupon the same Apostle in an other place saith, the wages of sin is death: and he added not and said likewise, And the wages of justice is eternal life, 
Vitam veró ae ternam soli gratiae consig naret. I think it should be assignaret  but he saith, But eternal life is the gracious gift of God; to teach us, that wages which is like to debt and reward, is a recompense of punishment and death, and to assign eternal life to grace only. And thus determining that reward according to debt belongeth to the wicked in respect of their works, but not the believers, he goeth on forward and saith, To confirm as it were his former saying, to him that worketh not, but believeth in him, that justifieth the wicked, his faith is imputed for righteousness. the Apostle taketh a testimony out of the psalms, and saith, 
Cui Deus accepto sert justi tiam sine opers bus.  As David doth declare the blessedness of the man, whom the Lord accounteth righteous without works. This is Origenes judgement, that our ill deeds deserve of due and debt punishment, and condemnation, but that our good deeds cannot merit the reward of eternal life: & so hath he discovered the inequality of those balances whereof you speak  
S. Ambrose speaking of David saith, that he desired to departed out of this place of pilgrimage to the common country of the Saints, 
Ambros. de bono mor. Cap. 2.  entreating that for the pollution of his abode here, his sins might be forgiven, before he departed out of this life. For he that receiveth not here remission of his sins, shall not be there: and he shall not be there, because he can not come unto eternal life, 
Quia vitae aeterna remissio peccatorum est.  for somuch as everlasting life is forgiveness of sins. In these words we are taught that whosoever will have eternal life, must look to receive it, not for merit of his good works, but through forgiveness of his evil works: and this namely he affirmeth of David, the holy Prophet and servant of god, with whom in godliness and good works our Papists may not any ways compare.  
Saint Jerome hath many goodly sentences in his books against the Pelagians, flatly overthrowing the popish doctrine of justification by merit of our works: as when he saith, 
Hieron. ad Cte siph. adverse. Pe lag.  that before God, who seethe & beholdeth all things, and to whom the secrets of the heart are not unknown, no man is just. If in the sight of God, no man is just, as Jerome truly according to the holy scriptures maintaineth against the wicked Pelagians, who then can trust by his justice to be saved? or how can any man otherwise be saved, then by the clemency, mercy and forgiveness of the judge? can he that saith and confesseth, I am unjust, I ask pardon of my God for my sins, say with the same mouth, I have deserved heaven by my good deeds? Again S. Jerome saith, this is the only perfection of men, if they know themselves to be unperfect. And you saith Christ, when you have done all things, say, we are unprofitable servants, we have done, that we were bound to do. If he be unprofitable, who hath done all things, what shall we say of him, that could not fulfil all things? 
Si inutilis est, qui fecit omma: quid de illo dicendum est, qui explore non potuit? Lib. 1. adverse. Pelag.  and he proveth at large that never any either did, or could fulfil all, that of due was required of him. In an other book he saith, then are we just, when we confess ourselves to be sinners, and our justice consisteth not of our own merit, but of God's mercy, the Scripture saying, the just man is an accuser of himself in the beginning of his speech. Our righteousness by Saint Ieromes doctrine consisteth not in the merits of our good works, but in the confession of our sins, and mercy of the Lord. Furthermore he saith in the same book: In Deuteronomie it is plainly showed that we are saved not by our works & justice, but by the mercy of God, when the Lord saith by Moses, say not in thine heart, when the Lord shall destroy them before thy face, the Lord hath brought me in for my righteousness, etc. If the Israëlites could not deserve the land of Canaan to be given unto them for their righteousness, who can trust to receive the land of life for his worthiness? This was S. Ieromes faith, and this he constantly defended against such wicked heretics, that troubled the Church of Christ then, 
Mare. Erem.  as our Papists have long done. S. Mark the Eremite hath written a book against those, that think they are justified by works, wherein thus he writeth, Therefore the kingdom of heaven is not a reward of works, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  but the free gift of the Lord, prepared for faithful servants.  
S. Gregory came after S. Augustine the space of two hundred years, 
Greg. Moral. lib. 2. cap. 40.  yet held he the same truth, concerning this point, as by his writings appeareth. As if (saith he) a mind that is tempted, and taken in the need of his own infirmity, should say, Grace hath begotten me in the first faith being naked, 
Nudam me in prima fide gratia genuit, ●udum eadem gratia in assuntione saluabit.  and the same grace shall save me in the last day being naked: And further addeth, that though a man have some virtues, yet it is best for him, to cast himself down, to acknowledge his own infirmity and wants, 
Ad solam misericordiae spem recurrat.  to f●●e to the only hope of mercy. And thus writeth the same Gregory in an other place, Every sinner turning to God with weeping, 
In Ezech. lib. 1. hom. 7. in sins.  now beginneth to be just, when he beginneth to accuse that which he hath done. For why should he not be just that now is cruel by tears against his own injustice? Therefore our just advocate shall defend us to be just in judgement: 
quia nosmetip sos & cognosci mus, & accusamus imustos.  because we know and accuse ourselves to be unjust. Let us therefore put our confidence not in our tears, not in our deeds but in the allegation of our advocate. Can any thing be spoken more directly against the vain & damnable persuasion of Papists, that think they shall be saved by their doings and sufferings?  
Now let us descend lower to S. Bernard, who lived after Saint Gregory five hundred years, and see how the same doctrine hath been continued, and believed of the godly. 
Bernard. 〈◊〉 Cant. serm. 23.  Thus writeth Saint Bernard: It sufficeth to me for all righteousness, to have him alone merciful to me, to whom alone I have sinned. All that he hath decreed not to impute to me, is as though it had not been at all. 
Hominis justitia, indulgen. tia Dei. Sermon 61.  Not to sin, is God's justice: man's justice is the mercifulness of God. In another sermon upon the same book, If (saith he) the mercies of God are from everlasting and for ever, I also will sing the mercies of God for ever. Shall I sing mine own righteousness? Lord I will remember thy righteousness only. For that is mine also. For thou art made unto me of God righteousness. Need I fear lest that one be not sufficient for us both? It is not a short cloak, which (as the Prophet saith) cannot cover two. Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness. What is longer, than eternity? It will cover both thee & me largely, being a large and everlasting righteousness. And in me it covereth the multitude of sins: in thee O Lord, what else, but the treasures of piety, the riches of goodness? Here S. Bernard teacheth us two points against the Papists: one, that our righteousness, whereby we are justified before god, is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us: an other, that we are saved not by the goodness and desert of our works, but by covering and forgiving of our sins. 
Epist. 190.  Thus in an other place saith he to like purpose, A man was indebted, and a man made payment. For if one (saith he) died for all, therefore all are dead, 
 satisfactio unius omnibus imputetur, sicut ommum peccata unus ille portavit  that the satisfaction of one might be imputed to all, as he alone bore the sins of all. Again in this same epistle he saith, Therefore where reconciliation is, there is remission of sins, and what is that else, but justification? If remission of our sins be our justification, then can not the Popish doctrine be allowed, which teacheth that we are justified and saved by our merits. Yet further in an other place the same good father. 
Ad. milit. tem pli. cap. 11.  He that hath taken away the desert of sin, by giving unto us his righteousness, he hath paid the debt of death, and restored life. For so, death being dead, life returneth, as sin being taken away righteousness cometh again. Furthermore death is abandoned by Christ's death, and Christ's righteousness is imputed unto us. 
Mors in Christi morte fugatur & Christi nobis justitia imputatur.  Thus plainly doth Saint Bernard teach imputed justice, which our Papists now a days make a mock at, but to the destruction of their own souls.  
One other place more out of S. Bernard, wherein he writeth most sweetly and comfortably, that the testimony of a good conscience consisteth in three things. For first of all, it is necessary to believe, that thou canst not have remission of thy sins, but through the mercifulness of God. 
In. Annuntiat. Marie. ser. 1  secondly, that thou canst have no good work at all, unless he also give it. Lastly that thou canst deserve eternal life by no works, but also it must be given unto thee freely. And of this last point thus he addeth, Now concerning eternal life, we know, that the sufferings of this life are not worthy the glory to come, no not if one man should suffer all. For man's merits are not such, that for them eternal life is due by right, or that God should do any injury, unless he sholulde give it. For to omit, that all merits are the gifts of God, and so man for them is rather made debtor to God, than God to man; what are all our merits to so great glory? 
Quid sunt me rita omnia ad tantam gloriam.  Thus notably doth S. Bernard approve the verity of our faith & doctrine, concerning the cause and means of our salvation, and treadeth down and stampeth under his feet all Pharisaical and Papistical merits.  
And forsomuch as M.R. hath a special grace, more than any of his fellows, to object one Protestant against an other, and with such oppositions hath replenished his book, I may be bold to put him in mind, what one of his grand masters hath taught touching this principal controversy of our justification and salvation: 
Pighius against the Papists in the matter of justification teacheth the very same that we do.  I mean Albert Pighius, who notwithstanding he were a captain papist, and hath written much in maintenance of Popish religion, yet in this matter hath given all papists the slip, & hath subscribed to our doctrine. Out of his long discourse I will set down only this sentence: And thereof is it that our righteousness is placed in Christ's obedience, 
Pighius controvers. 2.  because the same is imputed to us being incorporate into him, as though it were our own: so that by it we are accounted righteous. And as once jacob, being not the first borne by nativity, hiding himself under his brother's garment, & having put on his coat, which smelled most sweetly, did insinuate himself to his father, that under an other man's person he might receive the blessing of the first borne: so also it is necessary that we lie hid under the precious pureness of Christ our eldest brother, that we savour of his sweet smell, that our sins be buried & covered with his perfection, & that we thus offer ourselves to our most loving father, that we may obtain of him the blessing of righteousness. Herein as Pighius agreeth with the truth & with us, so hath he much offended his own friends for thus leaving them in the plain field. Tapper the wise Dean of Louvain writeth bitterly against him for his opinion herein, and saith he learned it by reading Caluines' Institutions. Which perhaps was true, seeing of him also he learned much more. You see, Master Rainolds, our doctring justified both by the scriptures of God, and by the testimonies of most learned and godly fathers, and by consent of as learned a Papist, as your Church hath in these later times bred any. Now then peruse over again your whole tale, and weigh it in a true balance, and you shall find it lighter than any feather.  
fiftly you object, that I understand not our own doctrine, and here according to your manner, 
Pag. 110. etc.  you wander up and down, as a man that had lost his way, who though he know not whether to go, yet will be going still. It pitieth me to see your miserable folly, and blindness, wherinto you are willingly fallen. But thus will the lord deal with such as wilfully give over the known truth. Where I say, that we must necessarily suffer with Christ, if we will be glorified with Christ, this silly sophister asketh, how this standeth with our doctrine of only faith: as though there were any likeness of contradiction at all, between these two sayings. For know you what is meant by only faith? If you do not, you are to blame to charge me with ignorance of that, which yourself do not understand: 
justification by faith only excludeth not necessary duties of Christian obedience.  if you do, then can you not but plainly perceive, that the doctrine of necessary suffering with Christ, is not any way contrary to the Doctrine of our justifying by faith only. Although we truly teach, that only faith doth justify, because it is the only instrument, by which we take hold upon jesus Christ, and so are justified: yet we teach that iustifiing faith can never lack good works, and hereof it followeth that whosoever hath faith, must also bring forth the fruits of faith, which are good works, & that necessarily, thereby to declare, and testify his faith, as the Apostle Saint james doth fully prove. This necessary conjunction of works and faith, the effect and the cause, doth not disprove, but that our apprehension of Christ is to be attributed to only faith: 
Faith although it never be alone yet it apprehendeth Christ, & justifieth alone.  as the beholding of the light is the only & proper function of the eye, although the faculty of seeing cannot be divided from the sense of feeling. Yet no man will say that we perceive the brightness of the sun by our feeling, but by our seeing only. So though our faith can never be alone, but is always fruitful of good works, yet it only doth justify, and not good works, in that it only layeth hold upon Christ our righteousness. You have a weak head Master Rainolds, if you stagger at this. But blessed be God, that striketh his enemies thus with giddiness.  
To like purpose serveth that you allege out of Illyricus and others, concerning the controversy, whether good works are necessary to salvation. There is none so ignorant, but knoweth the judgement, and resolution of the Church. And although Illyricus be earnest, 
How good works are necessary: not as causes of salvation, but as effects of a justifying faith.  & saith, they are no way necessary to salvation, yet he confesseth a faithful man must needs do them, as duties necessarily required by the Lord: not that they are any ways the cause or merit of salvation. If you understand the proposition thus, then in this sense they are not necessary: for than should they derogate from the merits of Christ. But as effects of faith, and justification, so are they necessary: and this doctrine as it is true, so is it far from all papistry. For papists teach that works are efficient causes of their salvation, and that is most false, and injurious to the blood of Christ: Christians hold that good works are necessary fruits of faith, and that those who are justified, and reconciled with God, must walk before him in new obedience, and serve him in righteousness and holiness all their days. You wish I were a Papist for mine own sake: and for your sake again I wish that you were none. Which of these wishes is better, the day of the Lord shall make manifest. In the mean time enjoy that happiness, which you have purchased by your falling from us, or rather from Christ: I will be no companion of your Apostasy.   

CHAP. 6.  
Of reproving the ancient fathers for their doctrine, touching good works.  
IF wrangling were any ways to be commended in these great and weighty controversies of Religion, 
Pag. 114. etc.  than had Master Rainolds deserved praise and thanks for his pains in this behalf. But as in all debating and trial of truth it is accounted an unhonest part to devise false shifts for maintenance of untruth, 
The fathers in their writings have sundry weeds growing with the good corn.  so in matters of God's worship and Religion to use crafty cavillation is a most wicked and damnable practice. The ancient fathers holding the ground and foundation of doctrine, did oftentimes build thereon stubble and straw, partly by some superstitious opinions which themselves conceived of such inventions, and partly by the sway and violence of custom, whereby they were carried to a liking of those things, which they saw commended, and practised by others. And yet God forbidden that because of some errors which they held, we should raze their names out of the Calendar of God's Saints, or think otherwise then reverently of them.  
Among other infections that reigned in the father's days, this was not the least that they hoped in some sort to make some part of amends to God for their sins, by voluntary punishments, which they sustained in this life. Whereof although by a consequent it followeth, that they did injury to the satisfaction of Christ's death, yet they meant not directly to take any thing from it, but trusted by it only to be justified and saved. Nevertheless being led by a likely and probable persuasion of man's wit, that God would spare them, if they punished themselves, they trusted by this means to make some recompense for their offences, and therefore suffered much hardness, travail, and penalty in the course of their life: which if they had done simply with desire and purpose thereby to make themselves fit for the service of God, it had been a godly and profitable endeavour. And this no Protestant misliketh, seeing the Apostie hath taught, that it is expedient for all Christians to beat down and subdue their own bodies. 
1. Cor. 9.26.  But to put any confidence of appeasing God's wrath in these actions devised by themselves, cannot be excused in any whosoever.  
Howbeit I would not any should think that when the Fathers speak so often of Satisfaction and Penance, 
Satisfactions not always meant in respect of God.  they mean always a satisfaction unto God for sin, as the Papists do. For those satisfactions were nothing else, for the most part, but penalties appointed by the Church, for such to endure, as had by some open falling into greater transgression given a public offence to the Church of Christ. Such were brought under penance by the censure & discipline of the Church, which when they had accrodinglie performed, in token of their unfeigned repentance, than were they received again into the company of the faithful, and then was satisfaction made, namely in respect of the Church. Of these Ecclesiastical satisfactions we read often in the fathers and counsels: but hereby is not meant that by these they purchased remission of their sins at the hands of God. And yet I deny not but many did put too great superstition in these outward exercises, trusting something thereby to find favour with God, the rather for their hard usage of themselves. Which though it be an error, yet were they notwithstanding good men, and holy fathers, as I called them.  
In which respect, when you labour and spend much of your oil, to prove me contrary to myself, you may see what a trifler you are, and how unworthy of answer. Were not the Apostles holy men, 
Holy men may have & had their errors, and that in weighty causes of religion.  when they dreamt of an earthly kingdom in this world? yet this opinion is contrary to a principal article of our faith. were they void of holiness, when they believed that the gospel was to be preached to the jews only? which is greatly derogatory to the grace of God, and salvation of his people. Then every error doth not overthrow all holiness in the servants of God. In the primitive Church many holy fathers were infected with the error of Christ's reigning a thousand years on earth, who notwithstanding are worthily accounted Saints of God. Cyprian and many godly Bishops with him erred about the baptism ministered by heretics: yet lost they not for all that the opinion and name of holy fathers. Thus the vanity of your challenge appeareth in finding fault with me, for calling the father's holy, whom I charged with error: it being such as in them did not raze the foundation of the gospel.  
Your argument of the Church is frivolous. True it is, that he that maketh a schism in the Church, and cutteth himself from the same, cannot be saved. But to err in this point as the fathers did, is neither schism, nor so dangerous to salvation as schism. Nether is it like to the error of the Galatians altogether. For it was in the fathers only an oversight of infirmity, by leaning somewhat too much to their own reason, and not considering the matter so deeply as they ought: and yet they held not, that works are to be joined with Christ, as necessary causes of our justification and salvation, but ascribing the whole work of our redemption unto Christ, they erred a little in applying this redemption unto themselves. Your case is the same that was of the Galatians. For as they thought to be justified by the works of the Law, so do you: as they were warned of their error, so are you: as they without repentance lost the benefit of Christ's sacrifice, so shall you. If the fathers had been as often & plainly admonished, as you have been, they would being holy and sincere men, have reform their judgement: and keeping the head, though they erred in some part, the Lord will not impute that error unto them for condemnation.  
All that you allege here out of that worthy servant of Christ M. Luther, 
Pag. 120. etc.  I acknowledge for true, seeing it is the very same that the Scriptures themselves have taught. For this is the voice and doctrine of the gospel, that by faith only in the mediator, who by his sacrifice once offered upon the cross hath reconciled the father unto us, we are justified and saved. Then to live straitly, and to do good works with this purpose and persuasion, that thereby we shall obtain justice or salvation, is contrary to the truth of Christ's gospel, and may not in any be allowed, although otherwise most learned and godly. Will you reason hereby against Luther and me, because we charge the fathers with some oversight in the truth of this doctrine, in that they thought somewhat too well of their own deeds, we must therefore repute them for wicked men, and make them no better than Papists? They erred not somuch as you, they erred not so wilfully as you: and therefore though there bosom likeness between their error & yours, yet we account not of them, as of you, who besides that you err in this point of justification most damnably, have also multiplied your errors in other articles, & almost left no one ground of pure religion unshaken. And therefore you greatly deceive your own heart M. Rainolds, when you think yourself to be in the same case that the fathers were in, because sometime the fathers gave more to their works, than they should have done, you trusting to be justified and saved by the worthiness and merits of your works, which the fathers did not. So between you and them there is a great space of distance: although I grant that some things which they have written of this matter, and practised in their lives, tendeth somewhat to your heresy of justification by works. For the mystery of iniquity, which in papistry is fully finished, began to work in the Apostles age, & so continued still forward in the father's days, until it came to his height and perfection in the kingdom of popery. They slipped a little, you are fallen headlong into the pit: they were overseen through infirmity, you are blind of malice: they scattered some darnel in the Lord's field, you have plucked up by the roots the good corn. They have suffered loss of this building, being not agreeable to the foundation, yet are saved: you overthrow the foundation itself, and therefore cannot in this opinion be saved.  
The contradiction which you have found in my words, 
Pag. 124.  is a knot in a rush: your head is crazy, I perceive, by your wandering and frivolous talk: or else your wit is often very fugitive. Although the fathers sometime do require satisfaction by works, not only in respect of the Church, but of God, as appeareth by Saint Cyprian plainly in sundry places, and therein have obscured the doctrine of repentance and justification, yet they never meant so grossly, 
Satisfactions in respect of God, taught and practised in the primitive time, what they were.  as you do, that this satisfaction of theirs should be a worthy and sufficient recompense to god, for their sins committed against his most holy majesty: but that they ought to crave humbly for pardon at gods hands, by humbling themselves be fore him in fasting, and praying, and punishing their bodies in this life. This appeareth by the 55. epistle of Saint Cyprian, as I noted: 
Ne exoretur precib. & satisfactionibus.  who speaking of Christians committing Idolatry, saith, They make intercession, that Christ may not be entreated by prayers and satisfactions. This godly father ascribeth remission of sins to the pardon of Christ, being entreated by prayers and satisfactions. If remission be of pardon, then is it not of satisfaction, as you mean: if it be obtained by prayers, then is it not given to the worthiness of our works. Again he saith, I embrace with ready and perfect love, such as return with repentance, confessing their sins with humble and simple satisfafaction. 
Satisfactione humili & simplice.  What else doth he mean by this humble satisfaction, but humble and earnest supplication for pardon? in his book against Demetrian he saith, speaking to the heathen, we exhort while there is leave, that you satisfy God. And can the works of such men make a full satisfaction unto God? No: But Saint Cyprian expoundeth himself by & by in these words: Thou even at thy hour of death, and end of this temporal life, entreat God for thy sins, who is one & true: pardon is given to him that confesseth, and to him that believeth, gracious remission is granted of God's mercy. Thus with this godly father, to satisfy God, is to make humble suit and request to God for our sins: 
Salutaris indulgentia.  and gracious or saving indulgence is the effect of this satisfaction. Although their meaing was nothing so corrupt as yours, yea for the most part was sincere, yet the manner of doctrine is unsound, in that our satisfaction is required as necessary, whereas Christ hath already made a full satisfaction for us: and by occasion hereof it grew in time to be an opinion received of the most, that these satisfactions did in some part appease the wrath of almighty God, and deserve reward, which is contraie to the Gospel of jesus Christ. Where is now that contradiction M. Rainolds, which you imagined? look better what you say, or else we may worthily think your dealing is very childish, & undiscrete, & nothing seemly for a sober man, or learned divine.  
But little hope is there of more honest dealing at your hands, who as may seem, 
Pag. 127.  have hardened your face against the truth, & set yourself wilfully in the chair of scorners and slanderers. 
Fowl slanders and blasphemies uttered by M.R. against the truth of Christ's gospel.  For your railing at our doctrine of only faith, is too impudent, as though it left no place for bewailing of sins, for fasting, for praying, for watching, for giving alms, for doing good works: yea you call only faith, only fancy, and imagination. You were a very evil scholar in our school, who in all the time you tarried amongst us, and had the charge also of a Church committed unto you, did no better learn the doctrine of justification by faith alone, then thus untruely, and blasphemously to report of it. Doth faith exclude good works, because it alone doth receive & embrace jesus Christ our saviour and redeemer? is the faith of Christians, whereby alone Christ is apprehended and applied unto them, no better than a vain imagination and fancy? Repent M. Rainolds of these spiteful and malicious slanders against the eternal truth of Christ's Gospel: or be assured your portion shall be with infidels and renegades in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone for ever.  
Now that you bring against me, to prove us to be Ministers of Antichrist, 
pag. 128.  by the same reason that we prove you to be priests of Antichrist, let us in a word consider the force of it. I say, that seeing of Christ's priesthood there be two parts, the one to offer a sacrifice once for all, the other to make intercession for us, the Papists overthrow both, in that they teach that Christ is offered daily, & that there be innumerable Mediators. Master Rainolds saith, If they be Antichrists for offering sacrifice, we also are Antichrists for praying: for so much as the one belongeth to his Priesthood, as well as the other. A blind and witless cavil. They pretend to offer a sacrifice, no less than Christ himself, to make atonement betwixt god & man. 
An ignorant & unlearned objection of M.R. refuted.  This sacrifice is offered already by Christ, and never must nor can be offered again: and therefore they are indeed Antichrists, in denying the only absolute sacrifice of Christ. Again in appointing so many Mediators, by whose intercession they may be brought into God's favour, they do open injury to the other part of his priesthood, which is to offer prayers for us, that by the worthiness & acceptation thereof, we may be reconciled with God Do we pray in this manner, that for the virtue and merits of our prayers, God would be gracious unto us, and to others? Noah, but only for the merits of Christ: where as you pray to be heard of God, not only for Christ's sake, but also for the worthiness and merits of a thousand Saints, and so bereave our saviour Christ of these two principal offices belonging unto him only, as he is our Priest. Had you but a grain of true divinity in you as bog as a mustard seed, you could not thus grossly be abused with such absurd, and peevish sophistication.   

CHAP. 7.  
Of M. jewels challenge.  
IT much offendeth you, 
Pag. 129. etc.  M. Rainolds, that I will seem to uphold the challenge, which that learned and godly Bishop of Sarisbury, M. jewel, did once make against your side. But as the author thereof, while he lived, maintained the same most truly & worthily against your betters, so I have no cause to be afraid of any thing, that can be alleged in disproof of it, by you, or your companions, who may not rightly be compared with D. Harding, and such others, as then took part with him against the Bishop. And you may be ashamed to make mention of that challenge, which you have so long ago given over, as a desperate cause, wherein the chiefest adversary could not make show of proof, without using the testimonies of forged & counterfeit writers, as Amphilochius, Clemens, Abdias, Hippolytus, and such others, whereof no more account is to be made, then of fables, and shameless forgeries. Such were the chiefest proofs, which D. Harding was able to bring, and whatsoever he brought, hath been fully answered in the Reply by the Bishop himself: which book as yet though it hath been in some parts nipped at by divers, yet throughly confuted was it never. What you can do in this case may easily be geassed: & God knoweth, full little have you done to any purpose, as shall appear.  
Your beginning is of an other matter. 
Pag. 130. etc.  For this question of Peter's being at Rome, M. jewel made not any part of his challenge, knowing well enough, that this might easily be proved by testimony of fathers a great many. And this was I not ignorant of neither, when I said, that no Papist can prove, that Peter indeed was at Rome. For albeit I know that diverse have so written, since the Apostles times, yet can I not receive this as a sufficient proof, neither yet ought you, there being against it so many reasons out of scripture, 
All Popish religion hangeth upon a twine thread of Perers being & sitting at Rome: which can not be proved, nay rather is disproved by the scriptures.  whereof every one hath more weight, than all the testimonies of fathers alleged. You know, and can not deny that your whole Church & religion is built upon Peter's sitting at Rome: which being a matter of such consequence, as that the whole is upholden, and sustained thereupon, so as if it shake, all is in danger, if it fall, all is clean overthrown: it ought to be made manifest to all Christians, that Peter was at Rome, by greater proof and warrant, then is in the writings of men, which being as good as any of that nature can be afforded, is not of sufficient strength to stay the conscience desirous to be soundly and perfectly resolved in points of faith and religion: but now further being by sundry testimonies of holy scriptures utterly discredited, it must be thought that they have small conscience of truth, or regard of their everlasting estate, that hang the salvation of their souls upon so uncertain and rotten a stay. The first reporter of Peter's being at Rome was Papias, a man of mean credit & authority in the Church of God, 
Euseb. lib. 3. ca 39  and as Eusebius writeth of him, a father of diverse fables: a fit father of your faith. Of him Hegesippus received this, and of Hegesippus others, as in writing histories the latter follow those that went before: so that this whole matter is grounded upon Papias word, for which your pope hath good cause to give him thanks. Now the scriptures in many places weigh so strongly on the other side, that if many a thousand such as Papias should tell us Peter was at Rome, their report were not to be trusted. Peter promised to remain with the jews, 
Gal. 2.9.  and be their Apostle: and Paul assigneth unto him the Apostleship of the circumcision. 
Gal. 2.8.  If Peter were Bishop of Rome, how was this promise kept? Saint Paul writeth an epistle to the Romans, wherein he saluteth many persons by name, but of Saint Peter he maketh no mention: and from Rome he writeth many epistles at sundry times, and sendeth salutations to the Churches from many faithful, but of Saint Peter in none he speaketh ever a word. Doubtless it was because Saint Peter was not there. 
Genebr. Chre●● nol. l. 3. saecu. 1.  And if he had been Bishop, as your men affirm, twenty five years almost, it may be thought strange how it could come to pass, that when Saint Paul writ to Rome, and came himself to Rome, and tarried at Rome, writing from thence so many epistles, S. Peter should ever be absent for his charge.  
Other arguments might I use against this common opinion of Peter's sitting and dying at Rome. But as you lose all, if you can not prove him to have been Bishop there, so though you could prove it, and we should of necessity confess it, yet had you gained nothing at all. For though it must needs follow if Peter were not Bishop of Rome, that all your religion is false flowing from that head, yet being granted that Peter had been Bishop there, it maketh neither hot nor cold for proof of any point in question between us. 
pag. 133. livi. decad. 4. lib. 5.  Of this therefore no more now.  
The largeness of the challenge containing in number seven and twenty articles of controversy, you labour to extenuate, by an old history recorded in Livy of Titus Falminius host, who by diverse manners of dressing and preparing one only kind of meat, furnished his table with great variety of dishes. And would you bear us down, Master Rainolds, that this multitude of articles is but of one matter, drawn forth into sundry parts, by skilful varying and mincing the same? If any will look upon them, he shall soon be able to control you. The first of Private mass, the second of receiving in one kind, the third of common prayers in an unknown tongue, the fourth of the Pope's supremacy, the fift of the real presence, the seventh of elevation, the eight of Adoration, the ninth of Hanging the Sacrament under a Canopy, the tenth of Accidents without subject, the fourteenth of worshipping Images, the fifteenth of reading the scriptures in the vulgar tongue, the seventeenth of the sacrifice of the mass: can you deny that these controversies, being the arguments of several articles, are diverse and differing one from an other? And are not these weighty points, general heads, principal questions, great mysteries, and keys, as Master jewel calleth them, of your religion? some of the other articles (I grant) have more affinity together, yet not so great, except in one or two, but that they may in reason and nature be distinguished, and stand each by them selves without necessary support or defence, from others. And what though there had been a nearer respect between them, might they not therefore be propounded and handled severally? The manner of your own schools, and controversy lectures, prove the contrary, wherein every question according to the subject matter is divided into sundry articles, and every article hath a special treatise. Your tale therefore of the Calcidian host, who entertained the Roman Captain with one only kind of meat dressed diversly, commendeth the cunning of that cook, but serveth nothing to your purpose, though you set it out with as great show as you can.  
Three articles you acknowledge to be of weight, 
pag. 138.  The primacy of the Pope, thereall presence, and the sacrifice: wherein you have uttered your judgement of the rest, that they are not of such weight as your Church would have them to be esteemed. And of these three you might with as good reason except the two latter, & so make the first only a matter of weight. For that indeed is the substantial point, in mainteance whereof all your labours are bestowed. Otherwise were it not for defence of your Pope's wicked, unreasonable, Antichristian monarchy, you could easily agree with us for these two, & all the rest, I doubt not. But what think you then M. R. of private Mass? Is it a thing of no weight as here you would have it accounted? there is not, I suppose, any thing in your Church more used, or better liked. Your half communion, your latin service, your Images, your keeping the scriptures in a tongue unknown to the people, and other such heads of your Romish religion, are they of no weight? are they trifles? are they not worth the striving for? Then let your men give over all defence of them, let private masses be abolished, let the communion be administered in both kinds, according to Christ's institution, let the public prayers be said in the tongue that every country useth, let Images be burned and Idolatry forbidden, let it be lawful for the people of all countries to read the scriptures in their own language, let there be no controversy about the other articles. For while you stand so stiffly in maintenance of all these and others, you cannot truly say, and bear us in hand, they are not of weight in your account.  
That Master jewel promised to give over and subscribe, 
Pag. 140.  if any of those articles could be proved by scriptures, counsels, or Doctors, within 600. years after Christ, it was not because he meant ever to subscribe to your doctrine, or was unstaid in his religion, but of a most assured knowledge and resolute persuasion that you were utterly destitute in this behalf of all truth and antiquity, as indeed you are. Otherwise you may remember that our religion is grounded only upon the holy scriptures of God: and therefore though you brought against us writers and fathers never so many for these matters, as you can bring not one of credit and age, yet will we never subscribe unto you, having once subscribed to the certain truth of God revealed unto us in his holy, perfect, & written word, by which all sentences, opinions, and writings of men whatsoever, must be examined.  
Now cometh M. Rainolds to avouch the truth of these three notable articles, 
pag. 142. etc.  out of ancient writers against the Bishop of Sarisburies' challenge: & first of the Pope's supremacy. Where (good Reader) I pray the consider the wrangling and cavilling spirit of this sophister. 
Such tricks of untrue dealing hath M. R. used many.  Master jewel in that sermon wherein he bad defiance to the Popish sectaries, speaking against their private mass, and single communion, and having proved by evident testimonies of antiquity the contrary use and practise of the Church, in the end nameth sundry Bishops and Doctors of the Church, of whom he saith we have learned these heresies, as our adversaries account them. Among other he reckoneth Anacletus, and Sixtus, that were Bishops of Rome. Master Rainolds taking upon him to prove the Pope's supreme authority by the same witnesses that M. jewel here allegeth, bringeth in the decretal epistles set forth under the names of these two Bishops, which no man of wit, or judgement can once imagine to have been written by them, they are so foolish & unlearned: but yet the Church of Rome maketh no small reckoning of them, being the best evidences she hath to show for her unlawful & tyrannical usurpation. To what purpose M.R. do you object those Epistles in the cause of supremacy against M. jewel speaking of private mass and half communion? Have you thus sold yourself to devise crafty sleights, that you may abuse the simplicity of your Reader? Master jewel speaketh of one thing, & for proof thereof appealeth to those two Bishops among others: you bring against him their forged writings for an other matter, 
Reply Arciela 4. Diuis. 3.  wherein Master jewel himself hath already showed his judgement of them.  
But you say, 
Pag. 145.  what other books hath he seen of theirs beside these epistles? And what though he hath not seen any? what though there are none to be seen? might not he therefore say that we have learned of them this doctrine, which no man can doubt, but they followed, and practised, and left to their successors behind them? for it being the clear doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles, those godly and faithful Bishops so near the Apostles time departed not from it. 
De consec. dict. 2 peracta.  And a Bishop of Rome, Calixtus by name, reporteth that the Apostles ordained, and it was the practice of the Roman Church, that after consecration, all should communicate, unless they would incur excommunication. It is but loss of time to answer such palpable cavillation, as this book hath almost nothing else. And were it not for regard I have to the godly, that desire the adversary may be answered, though never so unworthy of answer in respect of himself, & might be offended, if he should pass without answer, I could easily have suffered M.R. to have enjoyed quietly the fruits of his labours, and otherwise spent my time more profitably to myself and others.  
Next in like manner S. Leo, and S. Gregory, two other Bishops of Rome, 
Pag. 147. etc.  but long after, are objected: and M. R. translateth out of the Centuries a great deal, to show that by confession of the more famous & learned Protestants (as he saith) the Roman sea had primacy over all Churches in Christendom.  
True it is that the century writers in that Chapter do largely and plainly discover the mystery of iniquity, 
Cent. 5. cap. 7. Col. 774. etc.  that in those days did mightily work for the obtaining of that universal primacy, which afterwards with much endeavour was gotten. And as the Church of Rome was then in great estimation and authority, far beyond other Churches; so the Bishops of that sea used all occasion to increase the credit and prerogative thereof, especially this Leo, and Gregory also not a little. All this, as it is in the Centuries discoursed, we confess, and withal justly mislike and condemn that ambition in those Bishops: but what gather you hereof M. R. for your purpose? doth this prove the Pope's supremacy? 
Great and many untruths avouched by M.R.  doth this disprove Master jewels challenge? Do the learned Protestants also confess the same? what notable and shameless untruths are these? Not one of all these examples alleged, doth argue the Pope's universal power or headship over Christ's Church, nor cometh near unto it. That Leo calleth it the chiefest Church: that he requireth Anatolius Archbishop of Constantinople to make relation unto him, if any matter of controversy should arise: that he willeth Maximus Archbishop of Antioch to write to the sea Apostolic, how the Churches there increase: that he reproved other Bishops, if they did aught amiss: that he appointed in some places orders, and ceremonies, and did these and many other such things, as in his epistles is manifest, although he took upon him more than he might or ought, & for advancement of his own seat, encroached much upon the liberty of other Churches, yet never meant he to make himself universal Bishop, 
Though Leo dealt in more matters than appertained to him, yet was he far from the top of the papal supremacy.  and head of the Church, which your Pope claimeth, and M. jewel denieth. This was his endeavour to lift his chair above the rest, to be accounted a chief Bishop, to be had in greatest regard, to procure to his seat a principal reverence, to obtain privileges, and prerogatives above others: but of this pontifical power, & universal jurisdiction, which afterwards your Pope's usurped, he never dreamt, for aught that you have alleged, or can furthermore allege out of his Epistles. And though you could, what had you greatly gained against M. jewel, who requireth a lawful and irrefragable testimony, his being partial, as in his own matter, and for his own commodity? Yet how far Leo was from the papal supremacy, may in one example appear, that he had not authority to call a council, but was feign to be an humble suitor to the Emperor, 
Epist. 33.  that he would by his commandment summon a council of Bishops in Italy: (which yet he obtained not) that the same Leo fell on his knees before Valentinian: 
Leo was of mean jurisdiction and authority in respect of the pope.  to have a council that a Council by the Emperor Martian being called at Chalcedon, he laboured instantly to have it somewhat differred until a more convenient time, & could not prevail. Doth it not evidently hereby appear, that he was not accounted, neither by the Emperor, nor the Bishops of Christendom, Head of the Church, & universal Bishop? And this is the thing in controversy, whereof you have not showed any proof as yet, for all your childish bragging: and what you will hereafter do, I need not greatly stand in doubt.  
For your demonstration following, which you full ignorantly and vainly commend, 
Pag. 150.  comparing it to the brightness of the sun in a summers day, hath no light at all in it, to show that thing, which you have taken in hand to prove, no more than the moon in the wane giveth light to passengers at midnight. And doubtless unless the Lord had in his displeasure towards you, bereaved you of common judgement and reason, you could not yield your understanding captive to such lose and light persuasion. The question in controversy is, whether the Pope were acknowledged for head of the universal Church within six hundred years after Christ. 
Cent. 5. p. 781.782.  This you say appeareth by the confession of the Centurye writers: and so you translate out of them many authorities, which being all put in one, conclude nothing to this purpose in the end. They show how the Popes have laboured to get superiority to themselves, especially in the example of Leo, who as he was learned and eloquent, and stoutly maintained the Catholic faith against Eutyches, so is he truly noted of ambition more than beseemed the minister of Christ. But admitting the Pope's testimony for the Pope's primacy, what have you found in the Centuries against Master jewel? that they warned Bishops of other provinces to come to general counsels? this is not the thing we require. Let them write to whom, and whither they list: this officious writing proveth not universality and supremacy of power, as any man may easily understand. That Leo could not appoint a Council, that he sued to the Emperor to call a Council, that the Council was gathered by the Emperors, not by the Pope's authority, I have already showed. What maketh then the writing of a few letters to prove the Pope's power in summoning councils? that they were precedents in general counsels? And can you or dare you avouch that this was so in all general councils? And though it were, what matter maketh it for your purpose? A general council must have a precedent: which presidency if it were granted to the Bishop of Rome in respect of his place, which was the first amongst Bishops, will you of your wisdom hereof gather, that he was Universal Bishop, and head of the Church? A senseless and frantic conclusion. That he confirmed general councils? This is like the rest, a worthy reason forsooth. All Bishops were bound to maintain and approve the godly decrees of councils, that so heresies might be repressed, and the purity of religion preserved. Is it then a great marvel, if the Bishop of Rome, that was accounted first and chief, confirmed good counsels, and disannulled wicked? who is he that hath the reason of a man, that will hereof conclude in sadness and sobriety the pope's supremacy? If M.R. be blinded, it is no wonder. All this, and ten times as much, can not prove that the Pope is the head of Christ's Church, or that he was so esteemed in the primitive age: and therefore that you allege out of Luther, that before Bonifacius the third, in the days of wicked Phocas the Emperor, the Bishops of Rome had no greater authority than other Bishops, is true. For albeit they had gotten greater privileges of honour and other preferments, partly through the reverent opinion, which the Emperors & Bishops had of them, partly by their own seeking, as appeareth in stories most evidently, yet sovereignty of power, and jurisdiction over the whole Church had they none, until Phocas the tyrant bestowed it upon Boniface the Pope, a worthy founder of the Pope's Antichristian supremacy.  
How Leo behaved himself in magnifiing his own dignity above measure, 
pag. 154. etc.  is to plain by his writings: so as although he thought nothing less, then of that pontifical supremacy and authority which afterward in that seat of Antichrist was erected, yet hath his pride been justly and worthily reproved, for claiming more honour than belonged unto him. But you must remember that all authority and honour is not that universal supremacy of power, which your Pope challengeth and usurpeth: the which neither Leo desired, nor yet Gregory the great, who succeeded him in that sea almost two hundred years after, did exercise, for any thing that you have alleged in proof thereof.  
The century Collectors declare indeed how that mystery of iniquity wrought and increased then in the Roman sea, 
Centur. 6. p. 425.  in that the Bishops thereof took upon them more rule and authority over their brethren, than they ought: and namely this Gregory, in whom the virtue & godliness of Roman Bishops died. But have you found in the Centuries such plain proofs ot the Pope's supremacy, as you affirm? First, you bring nothing, but the speeches or practices of Gregory, 
Gregory the great was no Pope, such as the l●tter pope's have been. Regist. lib. 11. ●p. 54.  who was a Bishop of Rome: secondly you can not thereof gather that he was universal Bishop, or head of the Church. For that he calleth the Apostolical sea head of all Churches, he meaneth nothing else, but that it was the chief Churhc, 
Lib. 7. ep. 62.  which is confessed. That he saith, the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolical sea, who denieth this? but what subjection mean you, M. R? that the Roman Church had power over the Church of Constantinople, to command, ordain, disannul at her pleasure? that is utterly false, and disproved by all stories that have written, testifiing that the Church of Constantinople accounted herself equal in all privileges too the Roman, save only that the Roman in order was the first. That he intermeddled in the doings of certain Bishops of diverse provinces, it is evident: but not in all Churches of all provinces over the world. For the Church of Christendom was then divided into parts, & the same were assigned to the government of patriarchs. The Roman province was greatest, containing the Churches of the west: wherein Gregory had authority, not by God's word, but by appointment of man: and yet his authority was no other, but the same that the other Patriarches practised in their provinces, & namely S. Chrysostom long before Gregory over Thrace, all Asia, and Pontus, as Theodoretus writeth. 
Theod. lib. 5. cap. 28.  What can you allege more for Gregory, than I can for Chrysostom? Gregory reproved & corrected Bishops of Cicilie, Africa, Spain: Chrysostom punished and deposed Bishops of Thrace, of Pontus, of Asia. Hereof is concluded no less the supremacy of Chrysostomme, then of Gregory: such notable demonstrations can you make.  
Yea how much S. Gregory always abhorred that tyrannical supremacy, 
Pag. 159. etc.  which your Pope of long time hath usurped over the Church, 
S. Gregory was not only himself no universal pope, but hath also in plain words condemned both that office & title universally.  is manifest, in that he so often & so bitterly inveicth against the name of universal Bishop: which he would not have done, condemning it wholly as most wicked, unlawful, ambitious, profane, Antichristian, if he had thought his own episcopal government and jurisdiction had extended over all Churches. For as john of Constaninople challenged that name, in the same sense & meaning doth Gregory reject it: but john meant only thereby to make himself a chief Bishop over all Bishops, and to bring under his jurisdiction the whole Church of Christ: and therefore it is evident, that S. Gregory utterly misliked, that any Bishop whosoever should have an universal authority over the whole Church, which is to bring the Church in subjection under him.  
That this was the meaning of that title of universsall Bishop, S. Gregory himself doth testify in these words, who by the name of universal, 
Lib. 4. epist. 38.  goeth about to make subject to himself all the members of Christ. And doth not you Pope affirm, profess, defend, proclaim by all means possible, that all the members of Christ must be subject to him, and that no hope of salvation remaineth for any, but such as continue in his obedience? Then deny if you can, but that the self same authority which Saint Gregory reproved in john of Constantinople your pope's have approved in themselves, even this last 13. Gregory, who lately deceased: and therefore by judgement of S. Gregory many hundred years ago they are Antichristian Bishops, 
The pope's of Rome with their universal supremacy long since condemned by Saint Gregory a Bishop of Rome.  and not Catholic pastors of Christ's Church. Wrangle all ye can, S. Gregory hath plainly condemned your Popes for taking upon them both the name, and office of universal Bishops. Andrea's Fricius, whom here again you allege, I have not to deal with all: what thing was meant by this name of universal Bishop may better be learned of S. Gregory himself, who knew best the meaning thereof. If you require further proof, consider that S. Gregory reporteth also that the council of Chalcedon offered that name to Leo, 
Lib. 4. cap. 32.  but he would not accept of it. Did the Council mean to take from all other Bishops of the world, yea themselves, all bishoply grace and power? what madness is it thus to think? what impudency to stand in maintenance thereof, as you do?  
Further, when the Bishop of Alexandria Eulogius, in a letter called Gregory universal Pope, 
Lib. 7. epist. 30. Indict. 1.  meant he to deprive himself of all bishoply authority? Nothing less. And yet Saint Gregory reproveth him for so writing, and will not suffer himself to be so called. The name than signifieth that universal authority over all Bishops and Christians, which john claimed, and your Popes obtained, and long practised, and will not yet give over. This was unlawful in john: this Gregory condemned not only in others, but in the Bishops of Rome also: therefore your Popes by witness of S. Gregory a Pope, are clearly convicted of unlawful and Antichristian usurpation. If your Pope refuseth this name of universal Bishop, why doth Bellarmine, his greatest divine, 
Cou●reon. 3. Quest. 4.  reckon this for one of the Pope's names of dignity? but chiefly why doth the Pope mislike the name, and allow the thing signified by the name?  
Concerning the two other articles, 
pag. 164. etc.  of Real presence, and sacrifice, you are content to say little, which in effect is nothing. For what have you brought to prove either of these your opinions? you tell us Saint Gregory was a Priest, and said Mass according to your popish fashion: but when will believe your report, you have told us so many untruths? That Bibliander calleth him the patriarch of ceremonies: that Melancthon saith, he horribly profaned the communion: that Illyricus rehearseth out of a popish writer certain of his miracles about the sacrament: that Paulus Vergerius hath written a book against his trifles & fables: that M. Bale preferreth Latimer before Austen the monk, whom he sent into England: that the Bishop of Winchester. M. Horn calleth this Austen a buzzard: 
It is not Austen that he calleth so, but Bonifacius whom they name the Apostle of Germany.  what maketh all this (I beseech you) against Master jewels challenge? how conclude you hereof your Real presence, or your sacrifice of the Mass? surely your masters that set you on work, and made you an instrument to publish these things, abused you much, that you might abuse others more.  
To Luther's judgement of Saint Augustine, 
pag. 166.  that after the Apostles the Church had not more excellent and worthy doctor than he, I willingly subscribe: but Luther accuseth the sacramentaries (as he calleth them) for mangling and abusing him in the question of Real presence: herein I have nothing to answer in Luther's defence. Saint Augustine teacheth no otherwise of Christ's presence in the sacrament than we do, as by the large treatises that have been written of this matter, doth appear: yea neither Zuinglius, nor Calvin, nor any other of our side, hath more fully and directly written a 'gainst the Real and corporal presence of Christ in the supper, then S. Austen hath in sundry places. That Luther judged otherwise, it was his error, which he retained of his old leaven, wherewith in time of papistry his judgement was corrupted. Hereof what argument can you frame against M. jewel? some thing would you feign say, but your words have no pith of reason in them.  
Saint Chrysostom (you say) hath written six books of Priesthood, 
pag. 168.  and none of ministerhood: verily this is a very poor argument for the sacrifice of your Mass. If this reason hold from the authority of Chrysostom, I trust the like will not be denied, taken from the authority of the scriptures. In the new Testament, Ministers are named six and six times, priests in your sense never: therefore no Priesthood remaineth, and so by consequence no sacrifice. But concerning the name of Priest, how it hath been used of the ancient writers, not in the proper and natural sense, but after the common custom of speech, I have already before declared. Thus have you M. Rainolds uttered all your skill in confutation of the Bishop of Sarisburies' challenge. Howbeit if D. Harding were alive, I suppose he would think you had deserved small thanks. Meddle no more M. Rainolds in this matter: the more ye stir, the less ye prevail: your learning is not much, your judgement is less, you are but a weak instrument to deal with him, whom D. Harding could not match. M. jewels challenge is proved wise, true, learned, to the praise of God's truth, shame of papistry, and worthy commendation of that famous Bishop, whose memory is everlasting, and most honourable among the godly.   

CHAP. 8.  
Of Bezaes' translating a place of scripture, Act. 3. and of the Real presence.  
MAster Rainolds leaveth M. jewel, 
pag. 170. etc.  and proceedeth to maintain a quarrel of M. Martin against Bezaes' translation of certain words uttered by the Apostle Saint Peter, and recorded by S. Luke. Act. 3. v. 21. It were a vanity to spend many words about so small a matter: and therefore suffering, this man, that knoweth no measure either of speaking, or holding his peace, to talk his pleasure, I will herein use no more words, than the thing requireth, that is, as few, as I can possibly.  
The words are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in latin, word for word, quem oportet quidem coelum recipere: the words both in Greek, and latin are ambiguous, as any man may see: in which respect Beza thought better to translate them thus, quem oporter quidem coe locapi, which, in effect and true meaning, is all one with the other, but yet some thing plainer. This worthy matter you handle by several points, as becometh a man of such discretion.  
First, you say, it is saucy and malapert for any man, of purpose to restrain that, 
pag. 172.  which the holy ghost hath left at large. If this be so, then hath your vulgar interpreter been over saucy and malapert often times. Examples of such sauciness I might allege many in his translation, if cause required. I grant a man cannot be too precise, and religious in translating the words of holy scripture: and that it ought to be the especial care of a godly translator, neither to restrain, nor enlarge any thing, as far forth as he may perform by skill and diligence: for so much as the text may afford a doctrine, sometime in his original and natural words, which by altering in the translation is soon marred. But these admit no other sense, than one; & therefore no matter whether a man say, that heaven must receive Christ, or Christ must be received in heaven; the meaning is all one. For as for the conceit of some, which you affirm may perhaps be true, that Christ should receive heaven, it passeth all compass of reason or divinity. How, I pray you, doth Christ receive heaven? by his divine power? but the Apostle speaketh of Christ's ascension, as in the text appeareth, and all interpreters understand the words: how then doth Christ receive heaven in his humanity, wherein he ascended, and whereof the Apostle speaketh? tell us if you can. Again, why saith the Apostle until the time that all things are restored, if he mean that Christ's divinity received heaven, which then received it no otherwise, than it hath ever, and shall ever receive it? for that by taking heaven should be meant the rule and government of heaven which Christ at his ascension received, this interpretation I know seemeth but absurd to yourself: and therefore you may leave it for others to defend, whom for this matter Beza hath fully answered. Your second & third points, where in you urge and prosecute M. Martin's reprehension, I omit, as un worthy of answer. Beza transtated the place truly in sense, as yourself cannot deny: the cause that moved him a little to alter the words, was to avoid doubtful and ambiguous construction. That Illyricus is not contented with this translation, what marvel, seeing he will have Christ's body contained in no place? If you be of his judgement, you may use his authority against Beza herein. But where hath Caluine reproved Bezaes' translation of these words? why have neither you, nor Gregory Martin noted the place, or set down the reprehension? you have good cause to be ashamed of such egregious trifling. 
pag. 175.   
Beza hath sufficiently cleared his translation from charge of corruption in sense by S. Nazianzens' authority, 
Nazianz. de filio Conc. 2.  who reporteth in Greek, these words of S. Peter even altogether in such sort, as Beza hath expressed them in his latin translation. So all you have to say against Beza or me in this matter, is for rendering a verb deponent by a verb passive, keeping threrein the sense most truly, and exactly.  
Your frivolous invective against our translations and translators, I pass over. 
pag. 176.  M. Martin hath written of this matter so much already, as your whole College of Rheims could utter: unto whose unlearned and weak discourse, which he calleth (a discovery) a learned Doctor hath made answer long ago. 
Martin's discovery.  The answer you have amongst you, confute it if you can. Otherwise in this behalf think yourselves fully satisfied.  
Here are we entered into a large treatise of Real presence, 
pag. 178. etc.  for which M. Rainolds seemeth to be very zealous and careful, lest it should receive some discountenance by the former words of S. Peter, as needs it must, translate them how you list, so you translate them truly. For Saint Peter, speaking of Christ's humanity, saith, that heaven must receive him, until the time that all things are restored. Hereof it followeth, 
Act. 3.21.  that Christ as touching his humanity is not received or contained in the sacrament, or else in any other place, than heaven. This is a plain, a certain, 
Christ ascending in his humanity into heaven hath left no place for Real presence in the sacrament.  an invincible truth: so not we have taken from you Christ's Real presence, but Christ, in carrying up his body out of this world into heaven, hath himself actually overthrown your fantastical imaginations of his bodily and carnal presence on the earth.  
Before you come to answer this argument, according to your old wont you speak and spend much idle talk, wherein nothing asketh answer, but that by conference of other places you would weaken the force of the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Saint Luke useth in reporting S. Peter's words. For you say that this proveth Christ's body to be contained in heaven no more, than Saint Luke, writing that Samaria received the word of God, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 8.14.  affirmeth the word of God was contained in Samaria. An objection doubtless that came from a deep understanding: to make the word of God, which was to be preached over the whole world, of like nature with a body, which must be contained in one place. If you can see any thing, you may soon see that the word, receive, is otherwise taken here, as also in the two other places, which you allege of receiving children and Apostles in Christ's name. Saint Peter speaketh of local receiving or containing: the other places understand a receiving of relief, or entertainment. Your reproaches, as they well become your person, so being usual, require no answer, but are to be contemned.  
Being come to the matter in hand, 
pag. 183.  you show yourself more hot and hasty in words, then discrete or pithy in your arguments. For that I said it is a contradiction, to maintain that one and the same body should together both be visible & invisible, circumscriptible and incircumscriptible, as you do most fondly imagine and teach of Christ's body, you charge me with infidelity for denying gods omnipotency, which every Christian professeth in the first article of the Creed. Of Atheism and infidelity take heed yourself, M. R you have already made a dangerous step. 
The papists to prove their Real presence are feign to flee to God's omnipotency, and thus to argue: god is able to make his body Really present in the sacrament, therefore so he doth.  God forbidden I should be guilty of that sin, whereof you do without all conscience or reason accuse me. God is omnipotent, and ever was, and ever willbe. But his omnipotency proveth not your Real presence. For have you learned to conclude, that seeing God is omnipotent, and hath power to do all things, therefore he doth all things, yea offereth violence to his own body for maintenance of your absurd & heretical assertions? must God's omnipotency attend upon your fancies? Cannot god be omnipotent, unless your real presence be granted? No such matter, thanks be to God: & so your accusation of infidelity is vain and childish. Albeit I suppose you are not ignorant altogether of your own scholastical doctrine concerning God's omnipotency. Your schoolmen teach that God cannot do any thing wherein a contradiction is implied: 
Thom. 1. p. 25. q. 3. art.  & that all other things he can do, and therefore is omnipotent. 
The popish schoolmen confute the popish fantasy of Real presence.  But herein a manifest contradiction is implied, that Christ's body should be visible and invisible together, that it is compassed and circumscribed in one certain place, and that also it is contained in an infinite number of sacraments, without any circumscription of place. And thus your own schoolmen teaching, and that truly, that god cannot do any thing, wherein is included a contradiction, because he cannot lie, have in deed ground to powder your conceit of Real presence, which without most clear contradiction can never be maintained. For if Christ's body be visible, how is it then invisible? If Christ's body have all properties of a natural body, whereof this is one, & that most necessary & inseparable, to be contained and circumscribed in one certain place: how can it then be true that his body is in infinite places without any circumscription at all? Never deny for shame, but if there be in the world any contradiction, this is one. And yet here Master Rainolds taketh in hand to prove contrary to the doctrine of their own schools, 
M.R. goeth about to prove that God can make two contradictory propositions true.  that God worketh as flat contradictories, as this: than which none can be devised more flat. But these examples, Master Rainolds, which you bring, are nothing like this, whereof I speak.  
For concerning the holy virgin's birth, therein is no contradiction. There was a miracle indeed, that a virgin should bear a son contrary to the course of nature. For to be a virgin, & yet to have a child, are not contradictory, if she have conceived and brought forth by miracle, as did the blessed virgin: 
M.R. objections nothing to the purpose.  but to be a virgin, & not a virgin at once, this is the contradiction. So for Christ's body to be visible & invisible, local and not local at once, is in every respect the like contradiction: and therefore impossible to be true.  
Your other example of Christ's entering in, the doors being shut, what show of contradiction hath it? Can you prove he entered through the doors? and if he did, then was there an alteration of qualities, & that by miracle, either in Christ's body, or in the doors, but no contradiction in nature: unless you know not what is a contradiction. Your third and last example of the fire in Nabucadnezars' oven, which consumed the Ministers, but hurt not those that were in the midst of it, appeareth to be of no weight, by that hath already been answered. You imagine belike that in every miracle a contradiction is implied: which is absurd. If you can prove that this fire was both hot and cold, than you say something to the purpose: but that it burned up some, and hurt not others, is no contradiction, because by miracle the force thereof was repressed. Thus are you truly and fully answered to your simple sophisms: and your Real presence is disproved by the eternal law of God in nature, whereunto he hath even bound himself, never to do any thing, wherein there is a contradiction to be found, as your own Divines have well and truly taught. Then may you see that my argument was not taken out of Aristotle and Euclid, as you say, but is grounded upon the eternal decree, and most unchangeable truth of God: to which your Real presence must give place, being nothing else, but an irreligious and contradictorius devise of your own brain. 
Pag. 185.   
By this is answered that which followeth, wherein are alleged certain miracles, vainly & altogether from the purpose. The question is not, whether is more repugnant to nature, to be borne of a virgin, or a body to be incircumscript (although herein you speak without reason or authority) but whether it be either agreeable to nature or God's will, that one & the self same body be at once circumscript and incircumscript, as you defend Christ's body to be.  
First you say the body of our saviour Christ was incircumscript in his nativity, 
M. R. affirmeth heretical untruths of Christ's body.  resurrection, & ascension. Although this be most false and heretical, destroying the truth of Christ's humanity, yet if it were granted, it argueth nothing, unless you will say, that when it was incircumscript, it was also circumscript, as now you affirm of the same body: for you confess his body is circumscript, and yet you say the self same body is incircumscript: and herein is an evident contradiction, which when you labour to defend, what do you else, but with intolerable boldness maintain most monstrous absurdities?  
Likewise S. Peter's body you say was incircumscript, by Paulinus authority, who saith S. Peter came out of the prison being shut. And meant Paulinus, that Saint Peter came through the walls or doors of the prison? so saith not the scripture. If the iron gate opened of it own accord unto him, why also might not the doors of the prison open, and give place unto him?  
secondly you say, Christ's body was invisible, when he passed through the midst of them, that would have cast him down headlong from the hill. This is more than you learned in the text. 
Luc. 4.30.  The scripture saith that he passed through the midst of them: But not, that he passed invisibly. Christ was able to escape their hands as well being visible as invisible. Also Elizeus was invisible, you say, and I say, it is untrue. 
2. King. 6.18.  For though the Syrians saw him not, yet remained he still visible: but the Lord cast a mist before their eyes, and struck them with blindness, that they could not see him: and so the scripture plainly affirmeth. The same may be said of Felix, whom his enemies could not see being amongst them. It was the Lord that shut their eyes, & blinded them with giddiness, who hath (as by this your reasoning may seem) taken from you also all your light of understanding.  
thirdly you say, the first heaven, according to the opinion of Philosophers, being a perfect natural body, is notwithstanding in no place. Be it even so: then I say, it is not in a place. Say you the same of Christ's body, and then shall you prove yourself to be a perfect heretic: and so must you say, or else you say nothing to the question,  
Can you deny, M. Rainolds, but that Christ's body is altogether of the same substance with our bodies, and hath the properties of a true and natural body? speak plainly, and tell us your mind, lest you give us cause to doubt of your soundness in this article, as you have here given very great. For if you confess this to be true doctrine, as you must, unless you be indeed one of those heretics that held the contrary, why bid you me look how I free myself from the filthy and wicked heresies of the Ebionites and Nestorians. Mark I beseech you (good reader) how this prating patron of Real presence, 
M.R. saith it is heretical to affirm, that Christ's body is consubstantial to ours.  would have it seem to savour of wicked heresy, to affirm that Christ's body is a true body, consubstantial to ours: and all this, because the same wicked heresy of real presence can never be defended, unless this be denied. Yea Master Rainolds saith, those heretics not only may, but must thereof infer, that Christ was begotten between our Lady, and joseph. Wherein as he hath avouched a plain heresy, which he cannot clear himself from, unless he will openly recant his own words: so is it most false, that he saith it must be inferred hereof, that Christ was begotten as other men. No such necessity, Master Rainolds. That he was miraculously borne of a virgin, is no reason but that his body may be of the same substance with ours, a true and natural body, endued with the same qualities and properties, that ours are, save sin, from his conception, and glory from his ascension: whereof in saying it must follow, that Christ was not borne of a virgin, you have uttered in plain terms an heretical assertion: defend it, or retract, whether you will. For if this follow thereof indeed, which is heretical, then that must of consequence be heretical, which yet is a most true and Catholic doctrine.  
A third answer you make out of Chrysostom, 
pag. 188.  who surely answereth nothing at all for you? He exhorteth that we believe Christ's words, This is my body, to be true, 
Chrysostom objected by M.R. maketh against hi●.  although we see not his body with our eyes. And who confesseth not this? we grant that the bread is Christ's body, as Christ said, who ever said the truth. But the meaning is, that the bread is a sacrament of Christ's body, 
Chrysost. Hom. 83. in Mat.  as S. Chrysostom in the same homily twice or thrice in plain speech affirmeth: not that the bread is changed into Christ's natural body, which Chrysostom never once dreamt of. And that you may perceive he meant no transubstantiation, the same he said of this sacrament, he also saith by and by of baptism: wherein yourselves accord with us, that no transubstantiation is wrought. As Christ is in the supper, so is he in baptism: invisibly, mystically, truly in both: carnally, bodily, really in neither. Chrysostom hath spoken never a word for you.  
But M. Rainolds according to his manner translateth a pace out of the Centuries, out of Melanchthon, 
pag. 189. etc.  Westphalus, and Luther: & with their sayings filleth a number of pages, only to show there is a difference of judgement among the protestants about the sacrament: which to be indeed true all the world knoweth. But what hereof will you have your Reader to conclude, 
Controversy among the Protestants about the sacrament confessed.  when he seethe that Luther, and some others mislike our doctrine, and reasons concerning the sacrament of Christ's supper? That neither he, nor we teach thereof a right? That you hold the true part? That no credit in other points is to be given to any of us all? This is the mark whereat you aim here, & else where, in citing so manifold testimonies out of our writers: which sleight although you must confess is false, and know yourself there is no plain dealing nor soundness therein, yet you are content for advantage to set it out with greatest countenance, that it may blear the eyes of the simple. If Luther teaching otherwise of the sacrament, then Zuinglius and Oecolampadius did, disputed against their reasons, this is no matter to marvel at: for granting the premises to be true, it is to late to deny the conclusion.  
The argument that is grounded only upon reason, in matters of Religion and faith, we grant most unfeignedly to be no lawful weapon in the Lord's warfare. And therefore whatsoever they have said against Philosophy and reason, 
Arguments taken from reason in matters of Religion what force they have.  when it disagreeth from the faith, which in the scriptures we learn, all that we allow with all our hearts, and never used thus any argument taken from natural reason against either you, or Luther. For reason must submit itself to faith we know, faith must not be restrained or stretched according to reason. But when reason in not controlled of faith, than I think you will not say, but an argument builded upon reason maketh a necessary proof. Now in this matter faith and reason are not contrary: no faith teacheth that Christ's body is without the properties of a true body: all reason proveth, that if Christ have a true body, as he hath, than his body is endued with natural qualities and properties of a body. Reasoning against this sound & immutable reason, you plainly show yourselves to be void of reason.  
Now that one and the same body (as Christ hath but one only body) should be at once of contradictory dispositions, as namely both visible, and invisible, both in a certain place, & in no certain place, as you teach, and boldly, but most untruly maintain, this is contrary not only to reason, but also to faith, which teacheth that God cannot lie, and therefore never can make two contradictories true; for in the one always an untruth of necessity resteth. As for example, if Christ's body be always visible and circumscript, then is it a manifestly, to say, the same body is invisible and incircumscripte: but Christ's body is always both visible & circumscript: and therefore in saying his body is invisible and incircumscripte, you cannot be excused from untruth and contradiction. In faith is no contradiction: in your assertion there is a foul and palpable contradiction: wherefore your assertion is not of faith. If I had to deal with Westphalus or Illyricus, further would I answer there speeches: but as you make them here to serve your purpose, I have not any more to say unto them. Then leaving them, I return to yourself M. R. to examine what you bring for defence of the cause, which you have taken in hand to maintain.  
The testimonies of cyril and Damascen you lightly pass over. 
pag. 198. De Trinit. lib. 2. The fathers against the Real presence.  Cyril saith that Christ touching the presence of his flesh is absent from us. Which though it be contrary to your Real presence, yet you say, you believe as your Creed: your belief perhaps is according to some new Creed: for of this belief, one part cannot stand in the same Creed with another. First the true, ancient, and Catholic creed teacheth, that Christ is ascended into heaven touching his humanity: whereunto Cyril agreeably writeth, 
The true Catholic Creed is contraie to the Popish Creed  that he is absent in flesh. your newfangled Popish Creed would have us believe, that Christ touching the presence of his flesh is in the sacrament. If his flesh be in the sacrament, then is not his flesh absent, but the scriptures, and fathers and all Catholic Creeds do set it down as a ground of faith, that Christ's flesh is only in heaven, and there remaineth until he come again in carnal presence to judge the world. What have you to answer now? forsooth, now must you fall into your former contradiction, that Christ's flesh is visible in heaven, and invisible in the sacrament: which doctrine is repugnant to divinity, to reason, to sense, to all principles of truth, as you have heard already: or else must you say, that Christ hath two bodies, one visible, and an other invisible: which though it be heretical, yet is it less absurd and unreasonable than the other. But answer what you list, this is sufficient to overthrow your real presence before God and all his saints, that Christ's flesh is absent from us: the sacrament is with us: and therefore Christ's flesh is not in the sacrament. Your assertions are to gross; your answers are absurd: your Real presence is a real contradiction.  
cyril, you say, was no sacramentary. No verily: for your sacramentary heresy was unhathced in cyril's time. But did cyril ever teach your real presence? a place you bring, that maketh nothing to this purpose. cyril speaketh not a word of the sacrament, 
cyril. in joh. lib. 4. c. 13.  but generally that Christ giveth us his flesh: which is true of those also that never received the sacrament. Wherefore cyril meant not any real presence, as you full ignorantly allege him. He only disputeth against the infidelity or curiosity of such as inquire, 
A popish ignorant argument, Christ giveth us his flesh to eat: Ergo we eat Christ's flesh Really in the sacrament.  How it is possible that Christ should give us his flesh to eat. we know that Christ can give, and doth give his flesh to all faithful: and make no doubt, nor question thereof. But think you all means of eating his flesh is removed, if real presence be denied? Consider this point a little better M. Rainolds; and I doubt not but you shall easily espy your own oversight. That you bring out of Peter Martyr, is idle. That which he saith, if Cyril should avouch, it were not to be granted, yourselves will not maintain: namely that Christ doth dwell in us corporally, and mingleth his flesh with our flesh. Then to what use serveth your real presence? tell us if you can: but prove by scripture that which you tell; else we shall not greatly regard what you tell us.  
Damascen you are content to handle as lightly. 
Damas●le orthod. fide. lib. 3. cap. 3.  He teacheth against your real presence, that the nature of Christ's body remaineth circumscript and visible, as it was. So your fantasy of Christ's body being present in the sacrament really, but incircumscriptly and invisibly, is proved to be vainer than any dream. Al you allege at large for the real presence out of him in an other place, 
Lib. 4. c. 14.  may shortly be dispatched. That Christ can make the bread his body, we grant. For Christ being god can do whatsoever he wil Only show that Christ will make of real bread, his real flesh, and then this controversy is brought to an end. 
The Catholic faith teacheth that Christ's body was made of the virgin once: the Popish faith that it is made of bread daily.  Christ indeed maketh the bread his body, not really, but sacramentally. For Christ hath not a body made of bread, his body was made once of the pure substance of his blessed mother: and other body then this, or oftener made then once, hath he none. Whereof all doctrine that teacheth Christ's body is made of bread, is impious and heretical: the popish doctrine of Real presence teacheth that Christ's body in the sacrament is made of bread, by changing the bread into his body through force of consecration: wherefore we may boldly and truly conclude that the popish doctrine of Real presence, which Master Rainolds holdeth, but miserably defendeth, is both wicked and heretical.   

CHAP. 9  
Of certain places of S. Chrysostom touching the Real presence.  
Two places out of S Chrysostom were alleged by M. Martin, 
pag. 20●. etc.  to prove thereall presence. The first out of his second homily to the people of Antioch, 
christ. hom. 2. ad pop. Antio.  wherein by an excellent and fit allegory, he compareth our saviour Christ to the Prophet Elias. For as Elias ascending bodily into heaven, left his cloak with Elizeus his scholar, so Christ the son of God ascending up, left his flesh with us. S. Chrysostom's meaning to any that readeth the place is evident enough: & M. R. though he multiply words after his simple manner, yet my former answer he cannot disprove. That Christ left unto us his flesh in the holy sacrament, who ever doubted? that therein we receive his true and natural flesh, we believe, we teach, and always did. But the Real presence of his flesh, such as you maintain S. Chrysostom never knew and we utterly deny. 
Christ left us his flesh: therefore he left it Really. A false popish argument.  For can you reason thus, and reason truly, that if Christ left us his flesh, he left it in real presence? this is the point: this prove if you can: else you talk to no purpose. Christ left his flesh, that is, a sacrament of his flesh, wherein is most truly and effectually, but spiritually offered unto us, and of us received, the very flesh of Christ.  
Having spent many unprofitable and superfluous speeches, at length you force the comparison, and show a threefold difference between Elias leaving his mantle, and Christ leaving his flesh. And are you indeed in your right understanding? who, I pray you, M. R. denieth this? you might allege not three only, but three and three points of difference between Elias and Christ's leaving the one his mantle, the other his flesh. This then being wholly granted, what is your argument? will you reason thus, There is great difference between Elias leaving his cloak, & Christ leaving his flesh: 
Strange arguments that M.R. hath learned of late to make.  therefore Christ left his flesh unto us really? If this be not your argument, frame an other yourself as you can.  
The first difference is, that Elias left his cloak, Christ his flesh. Flesh indeed differeth from a cloak: & so the difference is clear, but your argument is blind. How Christ left his flesh, I have said already.  
The second, Christ left his flesh with us, & yet carried the same with him into heaven: Elias leaving his cloak lost it. And how gather you hereof an argument for real presence? Christ carried with him into heaven his flesh in the natural substance thereof: Christ left with us his flesh in a sacrament of his flesh. If you still urge, that Christ's flesh is there, and Christ's flesh is here, let Chrysostom declare his own meaning, whose words you seek most shamefully to abuse. For that Saint Chrysostom spoke thus, not of the carnal and natural substance of Christ's flesh, but of the spiritual presence thereof, 
S. Chrysostom in his 〈◊〉 ordes driveth away all n●●●es of popish Real presence.  we may perceive by his words a little before of Elias: Afterwards (saith S. Chrysostom) Elias was double: there was an Elias above, and there was an Elias beneath. Elias touching his natural substance of body and soul, was only above: though in some kind of presence true also it is, that Elias was beneath. Even so our saviour Christ in carnal presence of his body is above: but in an other manner, namely in spiritual presence of the same he is beneath. This is Saint Chrysostom's plain meaning: which God wots maketh full meanly for proof of real presence.  
The third difference, Elias shed not his blood for his people, but Christ shed his blood, and imparted the same unto us. And would you have us think, that because Christ imparteth unto us his blood, therefore we drink it really? what should one answer such unworthy and senseless arguments? Leave your geasses, and speak to the purpose  
Here you talk, 
pag. 209.  as well becometh a man of your profession, falsely, vilely, blasphemously against the true doctrine of Christ's sacrament. I am unwilling to answer such profane speeches of an opprobrious & slanderous enemy. So much only will I speak as shall serve to stop the mouth of this railer. Do we think no otherwise of our communion, then as of common bread and wine, without all grace, virtue, and sanctification? 
M. R. reporteth falsely of our doctrine touching the sacrament.  do we make it a bare figure of Christ absent? Have we as good figures at our common breakfast, din●ers and suppers? Thus you say, but all the world knoweth you say most untruely. Common bread, common wine, 
We deny christs bo●y to be Really present in the supper: Ergo we make the supper a bare figure of Christ, Thus our papists unfeignedly reason.  bare figure was never any part of our doctrine: this is your unlearned collection of that we deny the real presence. For had you but half an eye, you might see how this slander is easily disproved. In baptism, a sacrament of Christ's own ordinance, there is not any real presence of Christ's blood or body, as yourselves confess. Now if one had as heretical a judgement of this sacrament as you have of the other, he might charge you as justly for denying Christ's real presence in the sacrament of baptism, as you do us, for denying his real presence in the sacrament of the supper. For if you reason with any truth against us, that we make it common bread, common wine, a bare figure, without grace, virtue, or sanctifying power, because we affirm that Christ is not present carnally & grossly therein: then must it as truly and necessarily follow, that the water of baptism is common water, 
The popish argument maketh the sacrament of Baptism no better than a bare element.  is a bare figure, is void of all spiritual effect: because in baptism there is no real presence. And surely by this your kind of argument it plainly appeareth, you have no other opinion thereof, then, as you have said, of common water, wherein is neither grace, nor virtue, nor sanctification: and of a bare figure, such as you may have enough, whensoever you wash your hands.  
Certain sentences of Zuinglius you snatch, to prove we think as basely & contemptibly of the sacrament, as you report of us. Zuinglius saith, it is nothing but a commemoration. Zuinglius meaneth not that the sacrament is only a bare remembrance of Christ's death: he teacheth and protesteth the contrary in a thousand places. His meaning is no other but to show, that Christ is not offered really in the sacrament, but that therein is set forth unto us a remembrance of his sacrifice: he opposeth commemoration, not to the spiritual presence, and participation of Christ, but to the imagined real and substantial presence of Christ's body. So when he speaketh of only figures, nothing but bread, he excludeth not the spiritual, but carnal presence, and that with the bread is not joined any material thing beside. Also that he compareth the sacrament to a King's banner, which is a token of his presence, serveth only to show that Christ is not bodily, but spiritually present. And therefore for aught you have alleged, Beza hath truly said, that there is no coatrarietie between the doctrine of these most excellent men, Zuinglius, OEcolampadius, Caluine, 
Bez. in. epist. 1.  touching the sacraments. For they taught both sound in truth, and most consonantlie among themselves.  
Thus all your notes following of difference between Saint Chrysostom's text, and my answer is discharged: and whatsoever else you babble in this place, to no purpose in the world, but to show your ignorance.  
The cloak, you say, was a more lively figure of Elias, than your bread and wine is of Christ. Now this toucheth neither Zuinglius, nor Caluine, but Christ himself, who appointed these to be figures and signs of his body. If you rail at Christ, no marvel though you rail at his ministers.  
By it Elizeus you say, received great grace and strength: that your bread shoul● give grace is against your whole doctrine. Indeed we say that with the bread is not mingled grace; for then both godly and wicked should be partakers of Christ's grace: but in the right use of the sacrament, to the faithful person is given most plentiful and excellent grace.  
The cloak, you say, had a virtue surmounting the ability of man. Yet I trust you will not say, this virtue and grace was in the cloak really, as you teach that Christ is in the sacrament. That you say, our bread is nothing but a sign or banner, as it were a maypole, or token of a tavern, such words do well be seem your spirit, Master Rainolds. The time will come, when the mouth of blasphemy shall be stopped.  
The other place of Saint Chrysostom hath less force for proof of Real presence, 
pag. 214. etc.  although Master Rainolds deck & garnish it all he can, as if he would make say thereof. The most that Saint Chrysostom saith is, that Christ sitting with his father above at the same moment is handled with all men's hands: 
Chrysost. de sacerdot. l. 3.  wherein first of all private mass, used in the Popish synagogues, ●eceaueth a blow. For Chr●sostome saith, Christ is handled wit● all m●ns hands 〈◊〉 the Popish mass the priest only h● adl●h all, that is handled. 〈◊〉 who is so ●imple not to see 〈◊〉 m●●ni●g of that godly and eloquent father, in this kind of speech? Do all men handle Christ with their hands indeed? doth Saint Chrysostom mean a real handling, as a man handleth bread? 
The papists will have Christ's flesh ●andled Really.  do yourselves think thus grossly, ●r else for a show pretend you to maintain the same? That Christ may thus be handled taken up, laid down, broken, eaten, swallowed, removed from place to place, tossed to and fro, and all this, as you speak, really, is monstrous, and loathsome doctrine, in the ears and hearts of all godly and reasonable men. This S. Chrisostome once to have imagined, never shall you show in this world. Chrisostome meaneth the sacrament of Christ, which we handle indeed, and which in some sense in called Christ himself. This to be most true, is plain by Chrysostom in the same place. 
S. Chrysostom expou●deth his own meaning.  For he saith, We see the Lord sacrificed, and the people are sprinkled, and made red with his blood: and this done plainly without deceit in the sight of all men. If Chrysostom may be allowed to expound himself, your gloss of real handling Christ in the sacrament must give place. For if he meant, as you mean, that Christ is handled indeed, then meant he also that Christ is sacrificed indeed in our sight, that the people are died and imbrued with blood indeed, that all men see the same indeed. For these speeches are all of one stamp, all after one sort to be understood: as one part is true, so is another. Then tell us M.R. if Christ be sacrificed indeed, if the people be imbrued with his blood indeed, if this be evident to all men indeed: you may not urge us so extremely in one, and give us the slip in all the rest. Let us then consider what reply you make to this answer, which to be true and sufficient you can not deny. 
pag. 220.217. The papists say they see Christ Really sacrificed in their Church.   
First you say, I am ignorant of the catholic faith. For in the Church catholic we see Christ offered. Then you maintain that S. Chrysostom, in saying we see Christ sacrificed, speaketh properly: for this, you say, is seen in the catholic Church. The godly, I grant, see in spirit this sacrifice of Christ: & thus the oblation of Christ is seen in the catholic Church. But we speak of a real sacrifice of Christ, which no man seethe, nor ever shall see. For a real sacrifice proveth a real death: & so Christ when he was sacrificed really, died also really. But no man seethe Christ dying, who died but once, & now liveth for ever. And they that really sacrificed our saviour Christ, did in that act really & wickedly murder him: & so your Priests if they be real sacrificers of Christ, are in the same action also real murderers of Christ. Take both, or refuse both: if you take upon you the one, you must not, nor cannot deny the other. Murderers of Christ you will not be accounted, & yet you profess yourselves to be sacrificers of Christ, & that openly: which is all one, as if the jews should confess, that they crucified Christ, but yet they murdered him not: wherefore it is in a word an heresy & blasphemy, to say Christ is sacrificed in the Church, otherwise then in a sacrament & remembrance of that one sacrifice, as both Chrysostom, & the fathers writ commonly: in which manner, and no other, he is seen to be sacrificed in the Church. That you add of seeing god, is poor divinity: & being admitted that we see Christ in the Catholic Church, how followeth your reason, therefore we see him sacrificed: if you have either wit, or religion, yourself may see you speak without all wit and religion.  
secondly you answer, 
〈…〉.  that I am ignorant of the Lutherans doctrine: and then, as you are wont, you rehearse certain places out of Luther, whereunto I have no need to answer. How cunning you yourself are of that doctrine, let others judge, when you say, 
Untruths boldly set down by M. Rainolds.  they acknowledge bread to be the body of Christ. Doth Luther or any Lutheran teach that bread is the body of Christ? Do they adore it, as you also affirm? This to be false who knoweth not? They neither acknowledge the bread to be God, nor give any godly honour to it. And that might Kemuitius have taught you in the same place that yourself allege. He saith we adore in spirit & truth, 
Kemnit. exam. pars 2. de Euchar. cap. 6.  not the bread, but Christ in the action of the lords supper. And so do we also acknowledge & teach that Christ in the supper is to be worshipped, & adored in spirit & truth of all Christians.  
That you allege out of Master Caluine for your third answer, 
pag. 223.  as it is of us entirely allowed, so it notably detecteth the falsehood of your slander, when you write and bear your reader in hand, that we make the sacrament a bare sign and figure. For we teach, and ever did, 
Calvin de coena Domini.  as Caluine doth in this place, that it is joined to his truth and substance: and not only representeth, but also exhibiteth unto us the body of Christ. Now than this being our doctrine touching the sacrament, as yourself may see in these words of Caluine plainly declared, cease for shame hereafter contrary to your own knowledge and conscience to charge us for making the sacrament a naked and only figure. But now Master Rainolds draw these things to the point, and match them with your conclusion, and then see what agreement there is between them. Can you gather of that Caluine saith, we see the body of Christ in a sacrament, that therefore we see Christ visibly sacrificed in the Church? such reasons are too lamentable, as here, and every where you bring us.  
Then Master Rainolds admitting this to be indeed a phrase of speech, 
pag. 224.  asketh whether it follow, that therefore it is a phrase of speech also to say, that Christ's body is there at all. I answer expounding Chrysostom by Chrysostom, and that in the same place and words, as Christ is handled with all men's hands, 
S. Chrysostom rightly expounded.  so is he visibly sacrificed, and so are the people made red with his blood: that is, by way of a sacrament. Therefore set your heart at rest M. R. out of this place shall you never prove your real presence. That you add of figurative expositions, is superfluous.  
Of Saint Chrysostom's vehemency in amplifications, 
pag. 226.  known to all that know Chrysostom, this place hath a lively example, peruse it yourself, Master Rainolds, compare one speech with an other, and say, if you can, otherwise. That you ask, whether he amplify a lie or truth, I answer, his amplification is true, as he meant it, and as it must of necessity be expounded. Of Priests and sacrifice enough hath been spoken before. Such priests as Chrysostom after the common manner of speech speaketh of, we acknowledged, which were the Bishops and Pastors of the Church. And concerning the amplification, which you say it is impossible to interpret of our communion, if you had will, this thing is possible and easy enough. We say therefore with Saint Chrysostom, we see Christ, that is, we see a sacrament of Christ. For Christ himself I think you will not say is seen. We see Christ sacrificed, that is, we see the sacrament of Christ's sacrifice administered, wherein Christ's sacrifice is recorded according to his commandment. The Priest is bend to the sacrifice, that is, the minister of Christ ministereth the sacrament of the sacrifice, & offereth the sacrifice of prayers and thanks giving. The people receive the precious blood. nay M.R.S. Chrysostom's words are more vehement than so: he saith, the people are sprinkled & imbrued with his blood: belike S. Chrysostom was here somewhat too vehement in your judgement. The exposition I leave to yourself, & tell us withal how the people are thus sprinkled in your Church, that come not once near the cup. Holy water sprinkling you have enough amongst you: but this sprinkling of blood, whereof S. Chrisost. speaketh, you must needs confess cannot belong to the people amongst you. Christ sitting in heaven is received in the Church, & who seethe not the meaning, that Christ sitting in heaven as touching his bodily presence, is in the sacrament spiritually received? This Doctrine is the Doctrine of our Church: and for this no man amongst us needeth to fear the controlment of any commissioner, so his meaning be sound, as Chrysostom's was, to declare a true spiritual presence and communication of Christ in the sacrament, not to ●●si●●ate a ca●nal being and receiving of Christ therein, which Saint Chrysostom in many places most plainly confuteth, and which he never thought any man once so fond to imagine.  
That Chrysostom compareth this sacrifice, with the levitical sacrifices, 
〈◊〉. ●29.  and that of Elias, proveth not yet a Real sacrifice of Christ in the sacrament. 
An●ther 〈◊〉 argument of M.R.  Let your reason thus be framed according to your mind. Chrysostom compareth and preferreth the sacrament of Christ's supper, wherein the sacrament of Christ's death is represented and recorded, to the sacrifices of the Levitical Priests, and of Elias: therefore as they offered some Real sacrifice of a beast, so the Priest now offereth a Real sacrifice of Christ. This conclusion holdeth not, Master Rainolds, it is too weak. Were you not at Rheims, you might see the force of Saint Chrysostom's comparison to lie herein, that the old Priests were appointed to sacrifice only a lamb, or goat, or kowe, or some other brute beast: but now the son of God himself is most lively, yet spiritually, not really, sacrificed in the Church, when the sacrament of this sacrifice according to his institution is received. Your eloquence in the end is nothing else but childish railing, necessary for such a cause as you have taken in hand to maintain, which cannot otherwise be upholden, or continue in any reasonable account.   

CHAP. 10.  
Of the place in S. Luke's Gospel, which Beza is charged to have corrupted.  
BEfore you come to the matter, 
pag. 23●.  it pleaseth you a little to whet your eloquence in railing at Beza, a man though much hated of Papists, who love none that loveth not their Pope, be he never so learned or godly, yet known to all men, even his enemies, to be endued with excellent graces of God's spirit, which have shined in him notably to the glory of God, and profit of the Church. Your spiteful reproaches cast against him & others are now of all esteemed, as they are in truth, feigned & slanderous, unworthy of any regard or credit. His skill in the bible hath sufficiently appeared, to your grief: and if you, Master Rainolds, would herein compare yourself with him, it were a token of your singular boldness and arrogancy. His skill in murdering men, you say, was better, which argueth you have no conscience to devise to speak, to write, most untruely. But say your pleasure, your reward with God and men is certain. Many I know have written against him much: & you may know that he hath fully answered them al. But of your Remish or Romish college of English students, I know not any that hath written aught against him in that tongue, which he could read and understand.  
The words are in Luke. 22. v. 20. which in the Greek that Beza translated, by construction indeed require, that the cup, which is called the new Testament, should be shed for us. In which respect Beza translateth them otherwise. For further knowledge hereof, you refer your reader to M. Martin: and so do I for answer, to M.D. Fulke. And here you might as well have cut of this long tail of your treatise which hath not in it one drop of learning or profit: you rail at me, you rail at Beza, you rail at the holy communion, 
pag. 235.  which you call profane & bakerly: but reason, scripture, or proof, you bring not any for your sayings. I see you are a resolute man: continue thus a while, and I nothing doubt, but he whose ordinance and sacrament you have thus boldly and wickedly blasphemed, willbe avenged upon that profane heart and tongue of yours. But let us hear what you say.  
First, 
pag. 239.  whereas I said if they understand by the cup, the blood in the cup, as they do, then is there mention made of double blood; you tell me, I lie grossly and intolerably: such courteous speeches I have no cause to thank you for: but let all men of wisdom be judges, whether I have not said the truth. Thus you make S. Luke to speak, this cup, that is, this blood, is the new Testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Is not here by your construction mentioned first one blood, than an other? your reply is pitiful M. R. For to say, This Christ is Christ the son of God, this God is God of heaven and earth, as it signifieth not a double Christ or God: so is it nothing like this saying of yours concerning the blood in the sacrament. For you cannot make the construction, as you pretend, this blood is the blood of the new Testament: the wordsstand otherwise: unless you will commit a greater fault, then that wherewith you charge Beza so heinously. S. Luke speaketh not, as you make him, this blood is the blood of the new testament: but, this cup is the new testament in my blood. If by cup, he meant blood, as you affirm, than our saviour Christ his blood was the new Testament in his blood. And is it all one to say, This blood is the blood of the new testament, and, this blood is the new testament in my blood? If it may be lawful for you, to alter and expound the words at your pleasure, then can you help yourselves well enough: but your exposition must be squared according to the words, not the words framed to your exposition.  
Again, 
pag. 240.  you say, where Beza correcteth Saint Luke in the latter part of the sentence, I rail at the first, so that between Beza, and me S. Luke hath never a word right: wisely considered doubties. The words are right, your exposition is fond and wicked. The cup you make to be the blood of Christ, who as yet was not crucified, nor his blood shed. If your doctrine be true, Christ's blood was shed already, and that really: else it could not be in the cup really. 
The papists teach that Christ's blood was really in the cup before his passion.  But if Christ's blood was shed sitting at the table, who was he, M.R. that shed it? who made the wound? who opened his side? who thrust his weapon in his heart? who pierced his hands and feet? This must you tell, if you maintain that his blood was then really shed, and powered forth into the cup. But by the cup M.R. is meant the wine in the cup, which is the new testament, that is a sacrament of the new testament in Christ's blood shed for us on the cross. This is a true and plain sense, agreeable to all analogy of faith, standing with the words themselves, followed of the ancient fathers.  
When at length will you make an end of this railing? it is to unseemly, to loathsome, 
pag. 241.  to odious: Indeed M.R. it must needs appear a great absurdity to all learned & godly Christians, who know & rightly esteem the price of our redemption, that to be shed for our sins, which was in the cup. Christ's blood was shed for our sins; which never came in the cup, but remained in his body, until the time of his death. And if Christ's blood was in the cup, when he gave the cup to his Apostles, then must it follow necessarily, that his body then was without blood, it being shed already, and contained in the cup. In the cup was only wine, a sacrament of his blood, which he gave in the same to his Apostles to drink, & whereof he drank himself: and so the scriptures expressly call it wine. If this were the thing that was shed for your sins, than was true and natural wine the price of your redemption: then are you saved by wine: then have you no part in Christ's blood. But the true Church believeth her sins to be washed away, not by that which was really contained in the cup, but by the true blood of Christ, which issued out of his body nailed on the cross, and wounded with a spear. Your absurdity therefore needeth not to be further discovered: it is so openly blasphemous against the blood of jesus Christ, which was shed once, not in the cup, but on the cross, for our redemption.  
If you urge S. Luke's words, as they stand in grammatical construction, I answer that as the cup is called Christ's blood, & Christ's testament, that is by a figure, the sacrament of his blood and testament, so is it also said to be shed for us, by a figure, sacramentally. But all men of skill and judgement may soon see, that in these words there is some change of grammatical disposition, usual in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists. Your discourse about Tautologies in the scriptures, is altogether vain and frivolous.  
To S. Basils' testimony you answer much in words, and nothing in matter. 
pag. 244.  For what cause have you thus to reproach Beza for his translation of these words, seeing you cannot deny but S. Basil hath reported that text of S. Luke, even as Beza hath translated the same: and you confess that Saint Basil hath truly delivered the sense thereof? so all that you have said or can say spitefully against Beza, must appertain to Saint Basil no less, 
Basil in Ethic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  whom yet you will not seem to touch. But the thing truly and indifferently considered, Beza is no more to be accused, then S. Basil. you tell us of heretics a long tale, which is no better then waste paper. Use it yourself, or bestow it at your pleasure. Of such bad stuff base account is to be made.  
Whereas I spoke a few words concerning figurative speeches, 
pag. 251.  which the adversaries cannot abide to hear of in the sacrament, I have (as it were) opened at unawares a floodgate to M. Rainolds flowing utterance, Quâ data porta ruit. The stream is so strong, and runneth so violently, carrying all manner of baggage with it, that vain it were to resist it. Let it therefore pass down, and do what mischief it can: great harm, I trust, it shall not do. Thus much you must confess that in the sacrament figures are found: and yet when we oppose against your monster of real presence a most true and evident answer that the words were figuratively spoken, and must figuratively be expounded, you rage above all measure. But quiet yourself Master Rainolds, and somewhat stay your intemperate affection; never shall you prove while papistry hath a man living to speak in defence of it, either by scripture or ancient writer, that these words must figuratively be understood, This is my blood, this cup is the new Testament in my blood, more than these, This cup is shed for you. Leave your babbling: 
Figurative speeches in the very words of the supper by the adversaries confession.  and speak to purpose: prove this if you can. Wherefore finding in the Evangelists words such manifest figures, what reason have you to condemn us for using the same being a most common and familiar kind of speech? Because it standeth not with your real presence. Let your real presence hardly shift for itself, we are not bound for cause and respect thereof to wrest the scriptures, to forge monstrous interpretations, to change the sacrament into a real sacrifice of Christ: which heathenish kind of doctrine never any but Antichrist and his ministers maintained. The scriptures, the old fathers, the ancient Church of Christ taught and believed otherwise, as hath been showed and proved invincibly to your faces. Your pages following filled with roving testimonies I pretermitt: your contumelies being no lawful arguments require no answer.   

CHAP. 11.  
Concerning the translation of the English Bibles.  
MAster Martin's book of Discovery is answered long since from head to foot in every part: 
pag. 262.  you have the answer amongst you, say to it what you can with truth and learning. To brag of your fellows book, which being throughly and soundly disproved, you cannot with all your skill maintain, is a childish vanity: to acknowledge no Reply, which you cannot but know, or to make light account of it, whereunto you cannot truly rejoine, is wilfulness and partiality. Our translations and translators have been sufficiently cleared, for the most part, of such faults as were objected: and though it is not denied, but in every on't of them some fault or other may be found, worthy reproof and correction, yet may it most truly be affirmed, that of all our translations none can be noted so full of imperfections and errors, as your latin vulgar translation is, which you not only follow but commend for the best of all, yea prefer before the original text itself, against knowledge, reason, and conscience. This whole chapter you might have spared, handling such things as have been so well handled in your judgement by Master Martin: but the occasion serving you to utter some part of your humour, which so boileth in your stomach, that it would burst the vessel, if it breathed not forth, you could not pretermit. Briefly let us peruse this little, or nothing rather, that you bring.  
You shall do me mischief enough M. R. and be sufficiently avenged on me, 
pag. 264. etc.  if you can prove all that you have here propounded against me. Big words, bold brags, terrible threats: a man would think my case were very miserable, that have to deal with so cruel and mighty an adversary. I may indeed be sorry for my chance, to be thus cumbered with an unlearned and ridiculous trifler, that seeketh only by show and multitude of words to dazzle the eyes of simple men, and somewhat disgrace the truth of god. A man that hath but a drop of learning cannot be deceived by such painted & pelting stuff: the unlearned that cannot judge, may think M. R. hath said some what to purpose.  
First you say no wit nor learning will allow me to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Image, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a carcase. And what came in your head to charge me with translating psuche a carcase? where have I so translated it? or where is it so found in any of our translations? For my part I never so translated it, I never saw it so translated, I never thought it lawful so to translate it. Beza I grant translated it so in his latin translation once, but afterwards upon better consideration, he changed his translation, as you may see in the latter editions. As for eidolon, it is truly & properly translated an Image, as any man will confess, that knoweth the nature of the word, & as it hath been largely proved in sundry discourses. It was then far from wit or learning in you Master Rainolds, to say that as well might minister be translated a slave, or homo a dog, as eidolon an Image. For among the words, wherewith the learned Grecians commonly express the same thing that we call an Image, is eidolon, as fit and natural as any other. Your sacred Images are eidola: & if eidolon signify an Idol, then are they Idols, as in truth they are. By use and custom of speech, an Idol and Image somewhat differ, as every man knoweth. All Idols are Images, not all Images Idols. But the Lord hath forbidden all graven Images no less than graven Idols to be made for worship sake Wherefore your Images, 
All images made for worship sake are very Idols.  which you make, which you garnish, which you erect, which you worship in your unholy Synagogues, are Idols. The picture maketh not an Idol, but the worship. The pictures of jupiter or Mars, were no Idols, according to the received sense of this word, unless they were worshipped: so likewise the Images of Saints, if they be abused to sacred worship, in which respect you call them sacred Images, are no better then profane, wicked, abominable Idols. Then your argument to prove us Idolaters for honouring the Queen in her Image, etc. is childish. This honour to the Prince is civil, not religious or divine, such as the honour is, wherewith you worship your Images of all sorts: so this honour is far from Idolatry, your honour is mere Idolatry, and you are Idolatrous worshippers of Idol Images. That Ecclesia signifieth an assembly, or congregation, who can deny? & so may it rightly be translated: although we in our translations do willingly use the common word Church, as you cannot be ignorant. So Episcopus we translate most commonly a Bishop, & evangelium the gospel, and to conclude, we refuse not the usual phrase & manner of speech, but only when the superstitious abuse of words was to be avoided. Therefore that form of preaching which you have here devised of yourself is fittest for such a preacher, as yourself: we use not so to preach, or so to speak, or so to write: it was no doubt a wise conceit to occupy yourself withal.  
Thus appeareth secondly what shame or modesty was in you, 
pag. 270.  to object want of both to me. For show us M. R. if you can, any word in our Bible's absurdly or falsely translated, by me maintained. The same word may well be translated in diverse places diversly: & so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Io. 3.8. is rightly translated the wind, which in other places is not so to be translated. And are not you a modest man, that because in this one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so translated, as the word well beareth and the sense requireth, would make men believe that it is every where else so translated, and that the holy ghost, we call the holy wind? you have good cause to be ashamed of this so shameless and impudent dealing. Eucharistia you will not have translated thanksgiving, but Eucharist: & by Eucharist you mean the sacrament of Christ's supper. Now where is Eucharistia taken thus for the sacrament in the scriptures? why have yourselves translated Eucharistia, thanks giving? 1. Tim. 4.4. Nothing to be rejected, that is received with thanks giving. Will you mend your translation thus, Nothing to be rejected, that is received with the Eucharist? As Eucharistia is used by Godly writers, both Greek and Latin for the sacrament, so we also use the word Eucharist in the same manner, as you might hear in our sermons, & may read in our writings. And so we call, it the sacrament of Baptism, not of washing, as you charge us: notwithstanding that Baptismus in the general signification of the word, is nothing else but washing, and so is used in scripture often times, and so have yourselves translated it. Marc. 7.4. Whether I have truly said of your translation, that it is of all others most corrupt, I am content to refer it to the judgement of all the wise and Godly readers. 
pag. 271. etc.   
Where have I said or allowed any thing tending to such Atheism, as you charge us withal? Atheist I will not call you, Master Rainolds, but I may truly say of you, as you have continually given undoubted proof, that you have no fear of God before your eyes. Speak or write of us your pleasure falsely, foolishly, boldly: your judgement shall be as deep as any Atheist, unless you leave your lying and railing against God's truth. Other confutation or condemnation shall not need, than your own conscience, which can tell you these reproaches are untrue, proceeding only from wilfulness and malice. Our translations favour no such Atheism, as you without wit or learning imagine. For doth it follow, if we translate, Thou wilt not leave my soul in grave, that the blessed soul of our saviour was mortal, and died in the grave, and that the immortality of the soul is destroyed? doth not the scripture oftentimes use this kind of speech? 
Psa. 44.25.  Our soul, saith David, is humbled in the dust. Again, The waters have entered even unto my soul. 
Psa. 69.2. Psa. 119.25.  Again, My soul cleaneth to the ground. Again he saith, 
psal. 22.21.  deliver my soul from the sword. And in an other Psalm he saith, O Lord thou hast brought up my soul out of the grave. 
Psa. 30.3.  And such phrases in the scriptures are usual, of which I trust you will not gather that men's souls can be covered with dust, drowned with water, killed with sword, buried in the grave, and to conclude, that they are mortal. If you were not possessed with a spirit of wrangling, there needed no words in this behalf.  
What Castalion or Illyricus have written against Beza or Master Carlisle, with some others, against some places translated in our Bibles, maketh nothing to purpose. I have not said otherwise, but that some things may be amended: whether yet so as these men have avouched, I leave to be considered of the learned. Howbeit you may not reason thus, because some men have found a fault with the translations in some one place or other, whether with judgement and reason, or fancy, that therefore the whole translation is false, corrupt, wicked, no better than Mahomet's Alcoran, as you have here written, after your accustomed manner, blasphemously.  
The rest you leave to Master Martin, 
pag. 275. etc.  whose reasons stand as yet, you say, unanswered. Belike the answer you have not seen, or not perused in differently. But M. Martin. and all his reasons have been answered largely and pithily long ago, and nothing hath been replied on your part. What conscience and Religion is to be used in translating the scriptures, I know, and am far of from allowing such liberty, as a man may take in translating profane authors: neither did I ever like the daintiness and curiousness of some, that refuse the usual words of scripture, because they are not Ciceronian. As for the names of priest, Altar, penance, I would it were as you say, that not only the words were changed, but the things utterly removed from the hearts of all Christians. For your priests are no lawful priests, your altar is erected to an Idol, your penance is contrary to true repentance. The words Church, Christ, Apostle, are as common in our translations, sermons, and all treatises, as any other. That which followeth of Atheist, Saducee, Libertines, Academikes, Sacramentaries, containing only matter of reproach, I am content to let it pass.   

CHAP. 12.  
Concerning the Latin Bible, which the adversaries maintain to be more sincere, than the Hebrew now extant.  
A Man would think that common reason, 
pag. 281. etc.  and some regard of learned judgements might more prevail which our adversaries, then that they should openly defend so foul an assertion, as in this Chapter Master Rainolds taketh upon him to maintain by warrant of the Tridentine assembly, that the vulgar latin translation is more sincere than the Hebrew and Greek text of scripture. For though he add this exception, in sundry places, yet their meaning is, that not only in certain places, but generally their latin Bibles are more pure and incorrupt than the Hebrew and Greek text, because universally in their translation they pretend to follow the latin, & not the Hebrew of the old Testament, nor Greek of the new: and so was it in their assembly of trent decreed. Admit this were true, that you intend here to prove, doth it follow therefore that the Latin Bible is wholly to be preferred before the Hebrew & Greek? 
Though the hebrew ●ext were in some places not so pure as the latin: translation yet might not this be a good reason to prefer the translation before the text generally.  to be only followed in translations? to be used only in all divinity exercises? If the latin were in some places purer than the Hebrew, might not yet the Hebrew be in many more purer and sincerer than the Latin? Then this is but a slender shift, to pretend more pureness in the Latin in diverse places, then in the original text, and hereupon to thrust the text behind the translation: which is more foolish & unreasonable, then to make the Lady walk one foot like a servant, and set her handmaid one horseback, because perhaps the servant is thought in some things to be more excellent than her mistress.  
Lucas Brugensis, 
Freneis. Lucas in Epist. ad Serletum.  a man of your own household, and one that hath taken much pains. to correct your Latin translation, confesseth, that many faults have crept into the same by divers occasions: which, he saith, is no marvel, seeing the like hath fallen out in the very fountain it self, as it is plain in the new Testament in Greek. For (saith he) of the old in Hebrew, I will speak nothing: not daring to affirm, that such faults have taken place in the hebrew text of the old Testament. But you are bold blindelie and bluntly to avouch that both these fountains are not only corrupted, but more corrupted also then your translation, which Lucas was afraid and ashamed once to insinuate. Your reasons, if you bring any, shall in their several places following be examined but good reason for your defence in this behalf, am I assured can none be brought.  
Three things the Reader must carry in mind at your request. First, that we pretending to translate after the Greek and Hebrew, in sundry places serve from the Greek and Hebrew, as you prove by divers examples out of Master Martin. secondly, that our departing from the Greek, is always in matter of controversy. thirdly, that you decline not from the Greek, or Hebrew, because it more harmeth your cause then the Latin, but for other causes. Whatsoever Gregory Martin, to whom you refer yourself, hath written of these points, it hath been already confuted, and yet standeth confuted; and therefore no more needeth to be answered. What causes moved you to prefer the latin before the Hebrew or Greek, it shall appear in place: reasons I know are rendered in the preface of your translation by your Remish translators, but such as any man of skill and knowledge may easily espy to be simple shifts and pretences only to rid yourselves from the original text of scripture, 
The papists condemn the Original text and defend the vulgar translation, because that serveth their turn nothing so well in show as this.  which is far more express and pregnant against your doctrines then the latin translation. Which though M. Rainolds here closely denieth, yet in examples every where may be seen, and some I will set down, partly for M. Rainolds sake, and partly to show I have no need of his excuse from a lie.  
In the 14. Chapter of S. john's gospel ver. 26. where our saviour Christ telleth his Apostles, The holy ghost shall bring into your remembrance, whatsoever I have said to you, the Remish translators have made him thus to speak, shall suggest unto you all things, whatsoever I shall say to you, according to the latin vulgar, that it might be more easily supposed, whatsoever the Church should afterwards determine, is from inspiration of the holy ghost.  
Ephesians Chapter. 2. vers. 10. the Apostle in the Greek writeth that we are created in Christ unto good works: you translate after your latin, in good works. This corruption is advantage to your doctrine of good works.  
In the same epistle Chapter. 5. vers. 32. you translate this is a great sacrament, to make men think that the scriptures affirm marriage to be a sacrament of the Church: whereas if you had truly translated it according to the Greek, This is a great mystery, the occasion of that surmise had been removed. In the epist. to the Pihl. Chap. 1. v. 27. the greek word, which signifieth a sign, or token, or proof, is in your latin vulgar translated a cause: and this translation do you keep, the rather thereby to induce your readers to believe, that as the malicious dealing of wicked adversaries against the godly may truly be said to be the cause of their perdition, so likewise the patience of the godly is a cause of their salvation: whereas the Apostle only saith in this place, that the raging of the enemies against the Church is a manifest argument of their condemnation, and the constant suffering of the godly is a certain sign and testimony of their salvation, who seethe not herein what cause you had to like better of the latin translation, then of the original text?  
Luke Chap. 10. v. 35. the words are in the Greek, whatsoever thou spendest more: which you translate, whatsoever thou shalt supererogate. This corruption maketh some show for your works of supererogation.  
Luke Chap. 1. v. 48. the blessed virgin saith, God hath looked on the low estate of his handmaid: you translate, the humility of his handmaid. This corruption helpeth your doctrine of merits. So an other corruption in the same Chapter, v. 28. tending to the same purpose, where you have translated, Hail full of grace: the Greek and original text hath only, Hail thou freely beloved. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 13. v. 16. you translate, with such hosts god is promerited: which is both a fond and false translation, the Greek words being, with such sacrifices God is delighted, meaning alms and distribution.  
In the second Ep. of S. Peter Chap. 1. v. 15. you have strangely translated the Apostles words, I will do my diligence, you to have often after my decease also, that you may keep a memory of these things, and upon this disordered translation you have made a long note of Peter's care and protection of the Church after his death: whereas the Apostle in his own words saith no more, but that he would endeavour daily, that they also might have remembrance of those things after his departure. A pretty sleight in translating for advantage, where the Apostle saith, he would endeavour that they might remember those things after his decease, to make him say, that he would have them in remembrance after his decease; and then of this false translation to note what a pastoral care S. Peter hath for the Church after he was deceased. In the epistle of S. Paul to the Romans chap. 11. v. 6. the common translator hath left out this whole sentence together, But if it be of works, it is no more grace: or else were work no more work: and these words have you also in your English translation clean omitted, as though they were no part of scripture, being the Apostles undoubted words no less, than the other that went before. What cause was there of this dealing, but only to smother that clear opposition between merit and grace, which the Apostle hath in his own words declared, if he might be suffered to speak all.  
A number such places could I allege, where the vulgar translation, differing and swerving from the undoubted original text, is by you followed, because it carrieth some sound and show of your opinions and errors. Many excuses may you make for yourselves, & your translators have in their preface handsomely laid out their excuses, (which I doubt not shall be weighed and examined throughly) but soon may any man perceive, what cause indeed moved you to be so friendly to the translation, and so hard to the text: because the text doth plainly discover your nakedness, the translation bringeth some small rags to hide it.  
Before you answer my arguments alleged for defence of the Hebrew and Greek text, 
pag. 285.  you set down certain words of mine, wherein I seem (you say) to avouch, that only to be the word of God, which is written in the language, wherein first the holy ghost by the Prophets and Apostles uttered it. 
No cavil so simple which M.R. will not use.  My words are plain, Master Rainolds, my meaning cannot seem ambiguous: you seek not for truth, but for a cavil. The word of God I know may be uttered in other languages, then wherein first it was by writing delivered to the Church: and translations agreeing with the original text are the word of God. For God's word is not the language, but the doctrine. Howbeit translations set forth by sundry persons are so far forth only the word of God, as they faithfully express the meaning of the Authentical text, the which being written by the Prophets and Apostles, chosen instruments for that purpose, is wholly and undoubtedly the word of God. Then it may worthily be wondered at in you, who taking upon you to translate the new testament into english, have not translated the text of the Apostles and Evangelists, but the translation of S. Jerome or some other, you know not whom: which translation in very many places is corrupt, and therefore in those places cannot be the word of God. Religion and reason would have required that in translating the scriptures you should have followed the original fountains, 
Absurd to translate a translation of Scriptures rather than the fountains.  yea although the latin translation had been much perfecter and purer than it is: how much more ought you to have so done, seeing it be wrayeth so manifest and manifold corruptions as it doth?  
But your reasons, 
pag. 287.  whereby you labour to justify your doing in this behalf, must be examined. 
M.R. reasons, why they might translate according to a translation, answered.  Our Saviour, the Euangilists, & Apostles (you say) cited places of the old testament, not according to the Hebrew, but according to the Septuagints. First, Master Rainolds, your comparison is not equal. What are ye to Christ, to his Evangelists, and Apostles? will you be bold to take as much upon you, as they might? herein doubtless you have not so wisely be thought yourself. Then, show if you can a place alleged by our saviour Christ, or any Evangelist, or Apostle, swerving in sense from the Hebrew. They cite not always the words, but they keep most truly the sense and meaning ever more. lastly it is one thing to translate the scripture, and an other to cite a place of scripture. In citing a place, it is sufficient to observe the true meaning, in translating it is necessary to keep the words, as near as may be. Our saviour, his Evangelists and Apostles were no translators of scripture: but they truly delivered the sense of such places, as they alleged out of scripture.  
The Apostle (you say) alleging a place out of the psalm, 
Psa. 19.5.  Their sound is gone into all the earth, followed not the Hebrew. First I answer, the sense is all one, 
Rom. 10.18.  whether you translate, their sound or their line is gone forth: secondly john Isaac can tell you, 
Contra Lindan. lib. 3. p. 148.  that the hebrew word Kau must signify not only a line, but also as much as Kol, a sound: which if it be so, 
Act. 13.41.  then hath the Apostle kept the very word. The place in the Acts which S. Paul citeth out of the Prophet Habacuc, hath no difference in substance. The Prophet saith, Behold among the Gentiles, etc. The Apostle citeth the place thus, 
Habac. 1.5.  Behold ye scorners. Howsoever some diversity may appear in the words, the purpose of the Prophet and Apostle is all one: and this was the thing which the Apostles regarded in alleging authorities out of the old Testament.  
Your third example in Saint james showeth, 
jam. 4.6.  that the Apostle cited the words of the Greek, & not of the hebrew: which is granted to be oftentimes in the new Testament used. But to allege the sense of a place, & therein to follow some translation, is another thing, then to translate the text itself. The Hebrew text is to this sense, He mocketh the mockers, and giveth grace to the meek: 
Pron. 3.34.  Saint James rehearseth the words thus, God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. The sense is not altered, seeing these mockers are the proud men of this world, and God mocketh them, when he resisteth them.  
But tell me now, whether you think the Hebrew in these places to be corrupt, or no. I think you dare not so affirm, seeing your latin vulgar, which you account authentical, agreeth with the Hebrew, for the two last places. Then what is your argument out of these examples? gladly would I understand, if you could tell. That Christ and the Apostles cited places out of the old testament according to the Greek, 
Have an eye to M.R. conclusion, and it shall appear he speaketh beside the purpose.  was it because the Hebrew was contaminated, as you speak? If it were, then must you confess your latin translation, which you so much esteem to be full of corruption. Would you translate these places according to the Greek, because you find them cited by the Apostles according to the Greek? Expound your dream, Master Rainolds your, self, and tell us what you saw. Caluine you charge for cutting the place of james clean away. Lay not the Printers fault upon Caluine. If he had meant, as you surmise, he would have cut the same sentence out in Saint Peter also. But there you have it set down in the text, and expounded in the commentary.  
Your spposes have small weight to ground an argument upon: 
pag. 290.  you may devise and imagine any thing what you list. Every canonical book of the old testament is extant in the same language wherein it was written. As for your books of Toby, judith, Maccabees, it is no matter in what tongue, or by whom they were set forth. That S. Matthew writ his Gospel in Hebrew, is affirmed, I grant, by ancient fathers, but affirmed only, not proved: and arguments there be many to the contrary. But admit that so it were: the Greek was set forth in the Apostles days, as the same authors confess, and by them commended to the Church, as the true and authentical history written by S. Matthew, and of us is so to be accounted. As for the Hebrew of that Gospel now extant, yourself believe not, I think, it is the same, that, Saint Matthew writ, if he writ any at all in Hebrew. Look now to the force of this supposition a little better yourself, & if you have grace to consider it aright, which you say is wanting in me, you will confess it proveth nothing.  
My words by you translated I acknowledge: 
pag. 291. etc.  out of which three things you note. First that I confess you refuse not the fountains, but because you think them to be corrupt: which yet is not by me any where confessed. The fountains indeed you refuse, and of this refusal the reason you pretend to be, that they are corrupt. Yet think I not, that so you are in truth persuaded, it being contrary to all reason, that the translation generally should be more pure and incorrupt, than the fountain itself, from whence it is derived.  
secondly, that I affirm you thus to say because the fountains be not so commodious for you, as the translation. This to be the true cause in deed any man may soon perceive, that throughly & indifferently considereth your dealing: & this in some examples I have already showed, and can more at large declare, when occasion shall require. thirdly that I tell you the fountains are more pure and wholesome, than the latin edition. Verily this I believe, and this can I prove, and this shall in the discourse following appear, whatsoever you have alleged, or can allege to the contrary.  
In your entry to the question you think to gain credit to your vulgar translation by S. Ieromes authority, 
pag. 294.  who was requested by Damasus Bishop of Rome to correct the latin translation of the new Testament. 
Hier. in prefat, in nonum Test.  S. Jerome I reverence, Damasus I commend, the work I confess to be godly & profitable to the Church. But if Jerome or Damasus may bring any weight of commendation to your latin translation, how much more ought we to have in high and holy reverence the Hebrew and Greek text, which was written, not by Jerome, or any such father of mean credit, but by the Prophets, by the Apostles and Evangelists, not at the request of Damasus, or other like Bishop, but by commandment from God, and direction of the holy Ghost? S. Jerome took pains at Damasus request in the four Evangelists: of his own accord in many books of the old Testament: but this maketh nothing for your assertion, but much rather against it. For of this it plainly appeareth at the first to every one, that in S. Ieromes days, the vulgar translations were greatly corrupted, and that S. Jerome reform the same by the Hebrew and Greek text, 
In S. Ieromes days the Hebrew and Greek text acknowledged more sincere than all translations.  which argueth that the text was in those days generally without contradiction acknowledged to be purer than all translations whatsoever. Then if such corruption crept into the Hebrew and Greek text, as you affirm, it was after S. Ieromes days: but when & in what manner, you cannot tell. Again that you say this edition of S. Jerome was by Damasus supreme authority commended to the Church, may easily be disproved: or if he laboured to have it in the Latin Churches received, yet could he not bring it to pass. 
Ieromes translation not especially used in the Roman Church for two hundred years after Jerome. Greg. in. epist. ad Leand.  For both other Churches used it not, and in the Church of Rome it was not in any singular estimation for the space of two hundred years after S. Jerome, and Damasus, as we may understand by S. Gregory, who writeth, that in his days the Roman Church used two translations, an old and a new. This new is the same, which now is called the old. The name of High Priest, if you think it maketh any thing for the Pope's supreme authority, you are abused through your own ignorance. It was a name belonging as well to every Bishop, especially of the chief Churches, as to Damasus. But of such speeches you can be content to take advantage to the abusing of the simple.  
Four things do you propound to yourself to prove, concerning your vulgar translation: First, that I have said nothing to purpose against it. Second, that it is purer than the fountains. Third, that although it hath some small faults, yet absolutely it hath no error touching either doctrine or manners. Last, that to refuse it, and appeal to the Greek and Hebrew, is the high way to denial of all faith, to Apostasy and Atheism. These things Master Rainolds hath thus divided not amiss: now let us examine his proofs of these points for performance of his promise.  
First you say that in commending the fountains so much, 
pag. 297.  I have spoken nothing against you, but rather much and all against myself. If you can make your saying good herein, we shall have cause much to commend your wit and learning. The reason that you have brought, is by you uttered in these words following. For if the fountains were so pure in the times of S. Jerome and S. Ambrose, and the Church then troubled with great diversity of their Latin Bibles, 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? And what cause have you thus to conclude? where have you learned to make such conclusions? think you that this conclusion is aught worth? Let us way it a little together, Master Rainolds, and then shall we better esteem the value of it. First you grant the fountains were pure in S. Jerome and S. Ambrose days: the translations corrupt. Doubtless it grieveth you to confess thus much, but the necessity of confessing the same enforced you. Then four hundred years after Christ by M. Rainolds confession the fountains of the Hebrew and Greek text were pure, 
The fountains of the Hebrew and Greek text pure for the space of four hundred years after Christ by the adversaries confession.  and all translations were reform by them. Now let us know some certainty of the great alteration that followed. What cause was there that the fountains and originals remained pure so long, and then after began to be so shamefully and universally corrupted? Again, what was the cause that the latin translations were so greatly corrupted for so long a space, and never since could be corrupted? Tell us some truth, show some reason, allege your authorities, speak to purpose, and leave these untoward presumptions. The same means that kept the text pure all that while, why might it not continue in times following? if you lay the fault of corrupting the fountains upon the jews, as you do, were there no jews in the world, for the space of four hundred years after Christ, or were they either unwilling or unable to attempt such a matter? it cannot be denied, but that within the compass of those years the jews had as great opportunities and greater, to have performed so wicked an enterprise, then since that time can be devised. Their malice against Christian religion was no less then, the number of their learned Rabbins was as great then, the troubles of the Church of Christ by reason of the great and general persecutions, gave better occasion to them then: therefore if this corruption hath thus mightily prevailed in the text, may it please you to inform us how and when it began: which request ought not in any wise seem unreasonable unto you. For if you may demand of us the time wherein corruption began to enter into the Church, and otherwise will not believe us that there is any in the Church, may not we likewise require of you by as good reason, what time this foul corruption, whereof you speak, first began to seize upon the text of scripture? and if you cannot tell, how may you look to be herein believed? The jews must be charged for all, and the hatred which the jews bear to our religion, must be an argument that now all is corrupted in the Hebrew.  
Saint Jerome said he was ashamed to see the Christians thus unworthily and untruely charge the Hebrew verity with corruption: 
H●eron in. c. 17. jerem.  And so may we also truly say, that it is a shame for these men to slander the Hebrew text, and to accuse the jews of that fault, whereof they are not guilty, for aught that can be proved in this behalf against them. 
August. de civet, Dei. lib. 15. cap. 13.  And S. Augustine entreating at large of a place, read otherwise in the Greek and Latin translations, then in the Hebrew text, not only dischargeth the jews from all suspicion of corrupting their books, but giveth this rule, that whensoever there is found any variety or difference in the texts, we should give greatest credit to that tongue, out of which the interpreters have made their translation. Upon which place jews vives writeth thus, 
Ludou, vives ibid.  This same doth Jerome avouch, and this reason itself teacheth: there is none of sound judgement that thinketh otherwise. But in vain doth the consent of good wits thus think. For stout senselessness, as it were an hill, is opposed against it: not because these men are ignorant of those tongues, (for Augustine knew not the Hebrew & the Greek, but meanly) but there is not in these men that modesty of mind, that was in Augustine. He was ready to be taught of all: they will never learn but always teach that they know not. Thus hath vives wtitten of you Master R. and such absurd and senseless fellows as you, that against reason and truth will defend your translations, although differing never so much from the original tongues, because you are too stout, and want modesty.  
And for the jews thus much may be answered, that howsoever they mislike and hate our religion, yet the text of holy scripture they have evermore, and yet still do keep most religiously and carefully. Which may appear, for that there be, 
joan. Isaac. Contra Lindan. lib. 2. pa. 77.  as joannes Isaac, a learned jew, writeth, above two hundred arguments against the jewish opinions more evident and express in the Hebrew text of the old testament, than they be in the latin translation. And so likewise saith Andradius, 
Andrad. lib. 4. Defence. Trident.  that they, which holy and religiously handle the Hebrew text, find therein far more not able testimonies of Christ, then in the Latin and Greek copies. which also Saint Jerome long since hath witnessed, 
Hier. epist. 74. ad. marcel.  saying, that when he of purpose compared the Hebrew text with a Greek translation, to see whether the jews had not changed some thing in the Hebrew books through envy that they bore to Christ, he found therein much more for confirmation of Christian faith: which could not have been so, if the jews had of malice to Christ corrupted their Bibles, as now is by our adversaries untruly surmised.  
What madness then should drive them to corrupt the text, to no hindrance of our religion, to no furtherance of theirs? who doubteth, but if they had meant such a thing, they would have practised their skill in those places especially, that do most directly concern the Gospel of Christ, which being otherwise, your conjecture of the jews dealing about the Hebrew text is foolish, and false.  
You declaim against the ignorance and reprobate mind of the jews: you set forth the promises made to the Church, of having always the truth. And think you that this maketh any thing for you? Do these promises of gods spirit and truth made to the Church belong only to the latin Church? are they included only in the latin translation? What shall become then in your judgement of so many Churches in Greece, in Armenia, in Arabia, in all places of the world, that have no skill of your latin Bibles? Have they no spirit, no scripture, no truth? doth your Tridentine decree appertain unto them also of using only the latin text in sermons, in lectures, in expositions, in disputations? what mean you to talk in this manner?  
You say, God hath promised the Church, that she shall be a faithful and perpetual observer of his word and testament, that is, according to your new commentary, that the Church shall lose the pure fountains of the Hebrew text, but shall keep a pure translation for ever. And see you not the vanity of this devise? Confessed you not even now, that in Damasus days all the latin translations were corrupt, whereupon S. Jerome was entreated to take upon him a labour of correcting them all? Was not the promise, whereof you speak, made to the Church, 
M.R. dreams hang not handsomely together.  before S. Jerome set forth his correction? and yet the Churches latin translations were, as yourself confess, in his time full of diversities and corruptions. Then if the Bibles in latin were so much corrupted, before S. Jerome, by your own confession, notwithstanding the promise that God made the Church of keeping his word and testament, can you by this argument prove, that by force of this promise the latin Bibles have not been corrupted since Saint Ieromes time, and the Hebrew have? 
August. epist. 58. ad quaest. 2.  S. Augustine saith it came to pass by God's special providence that the jews being so continually tossed to and fro, and still continuing their hatred against our saviour Christ, yet kept the holy scriptures, that the truth of Christ's Gospel might so much the more be approved amongst all men, because it received so sure & weighty testimonies of the most malicious enemies. And to this purpose he apply the verse of the Psalm, Lord kill them not, lest they forget thy law, but scatter them.  
Furthermore, all that you can say against the malice, falsehood, and ignorance of the jews, nothing toucheth the new testament: for corruption whereof in the original Greek, I marvel what you can devise, seeing it was kept not in the custody of jews, or pagans, but of most Godly and learned Christians. Yet do you reprove it also, as well as the Hebrew, of the old testament. what reason have you M. Rainolds so to do? was it also corrupted since S. Ieromes time, as you said of the other? The commentaries and writings of the Greek fathers will easily convince you if so you say. For the text that we have, is the same which they followed, expounded, and set down in their writings, except there be in some few places some small difference of reading. If the latin Church had any promise to keep God's truth and testament in a latin translation, will you deny that the Greek Church had not the same promise to keep it in the original text? while you seem to avouch the truth of god's promise toward the latin Church, as though you cared nothing how the Lord dealt with others, so he kept touch and covenant with yourselves, you make him by your argument to be unfaithful toward the Church of Greece, and all other Churches else in the world. Thus are you driven into absurdities and contradictions, as needs you must, when you maintain willfully such false assertions, as these.  
That Caluine affirmeth the Roman Church to have been more constant, 
Pag. 300.  and less given to novelties then the East Churches, whereby she obtained greater fame and credit, than the rest, nothing concerneth this matter. For though it be granted the Grecians were more factious for the most part and wavering, than the Romans, yet might they retain the original text of scripture, as faithfully as they. No people so froward, so malicious, so presumptuous, so contentious, so hard to be brought under the obedience of gods laws, as the jews, and yet for all this perverse disposition in them, it is most certain, that they had evermore, and have still the books of scripture in highest reverence, 
The jews always most dilingent in keeping their Bibles from corruption.  and keep them with greatest diligence, so as they would not alter one letter in them for all the world. And notwithstanding the Romans greater constancy and staidness than the Grecians, yet were the latin Bibles in S. Hieromes time, more corrupt for the new testament, than the Greek fountains were. Which may be understood undoubtedly thereof, for that in any controversy about the latin translation, they always had recourse to the Greek copies, and have prescribed the same rule to be followed continually: and Saint Jerome himself reform the latin translations according to the Greek then extant, & read in the Greek Churches. Thus than you may perceive, that to be constant in the profession of God's truth, and to be careful to keep the text of scripture from corruption, are two diverse things: which you might have soon considered, if you had but looked back to that yourself have written before. For these are even the same Grecians, whose exemplars Saint Jerome followed in correcting the Evangelists, and which he calleth waters of the most pure fountain, and sundry wise commendeth. 
Hieron. Marcellae.   
For proof that the Hebrew fountains are by the jews corrupted, 
pag. 303. etc.  you bring us forth a place out of the prophet isaiah, Chap. 9 First in that I say the jews have not corrupted the hebrew text, I say no other thing, then that which the most learned Papists of all times have affirmed: 
M.R. in this controversy hath his master papists adversaries to him, namely. Isaac, Clarius, Valla, Andradius, Montanus, Lucas, Bellarmine, and many more.  and that by the same argument, which myself used, that then this corruption most certainly would have appeared in those places that directly concern our Saviour Christ: amongst the which this that you mention here is notable: And although I will not deny but that the jews might have some purpose to wrest it from the sense, that it might be applied to any rather, then to Christ, yet the corruption is not so great as you would have it seem, consisting not in change of any letter, but only of the points. The letters remaining without alteration, whatsoever is amiss in the points, may easily be corrected. Furthermore if we read the word with the same points, which now it commonly hath in the Hebrew Bibles, whereby the verbópassive is turned into an active, yet the place notwithstanding proveth invincibly the Divinity of our Saviour Christ. For as well doth it confirm this doctrine, if we read, 
Vajikrae.  & vocabit, that is, God the father shall call his name wonderful, etc., as if we read, 
Vajikkare.  vocabitur, his name shall be called wonderful. Although, you that take upon you such profound knowledge and cunning in the Hebrew language, should not have been ignorant that this is the phrase of that tongue. That the jews refer the last name only, which is the Prince of peace, 
Sar-shaelom.  to the Child borne, all the rest going before to God himself, this I grant to be a malicious construction of the words, but no corruption of the text. One thing is it to expound the words in a wrong sense, an other to falsify the words. You hoped no doubt to have gained much more by this place, then will any ways be yielded unto you: for that you add of the Church's authority, which you call the supreme ground and stay, is nothing worth, being an old worn and wasted sentence, brought in rashly without credit or countenance. The words are plain of themselves and have in them authority and stay sufficient to prove the truth of Christ's divinity, and to confute the enemies thereof.  
another such place you object out of the Prophet jeremy, 
pag. 306.  Chap. 23. v. 6. wherein that some corruption hath been committed either in letter or point, may be imagined, but cannot by evident demonstration be proved. 
ijcro.  What moved S. Jerome to translate thus, vocabunt eum, They shall call him, I will not dispute. The reason might be in the variety, and incertainty of points, or in the ambiguous acception of the word. But because M. Rainolds chargeth the jews with so foul a corruption of this place, only to discredit the divinity of our Saviour Christ, he must remember, that the seventy interpreters translated it in the singular number, according to the Hebrew now extant, 
In comment. ad Hier. ca 23.  as S. jerom also maketh mention, yet were they never challenged for partial interpretation of the scriptures, being (as many writ) wonderfully assisted & governed in that work, and not smallly had of ancient time in regard. And this was long before our saviour Christ was come in the flesh, and therefore undoubtedly the place was not corrupted by the jews for such a cause as you imagine, unless you will say the jews in hatred of Christ corrupted the Bible diverse hundred years before Christ was borne, and before they had cause to conceive any malice or displeasure against our saviour Christ. And so your Lyranes' surmise is plainly disproved, in which you rest yourself, as in a certain verity, and upon his word are bold to pronounce sentence against the poor jews for committing a crime, which by clear evidence of greater authority they are not guilty of. Neither maketh it less for Christ's divinity, to read it, vocabit, He shall call him, that is, God the father, or, every faithful man shall call him, The Lord our righteousness: then if we read, vocabunt, They shall call him the Lord our righteousness. And Saint Jerome (as you might have seen, had you looked on the place yourself) translateth the text after this manner, Et hoc est nomen, quo vocabunt eum (sine vocabit eum) Dominus justus noster, wherein he showeth plainly there is no substance of matter more in the one, than the other. If this be so shameful & so notable a corruption, as you in countenance and show pretend, S. Jerome was greatly overseen, that not only gave no warning thereof in his Commentary, but used the same also in the text itself. But what will you say to those learned men, who having more skill in the Hebrew tongue than you, Master Rainolds, or else your Lyra, though a jew borne, have translated the word as it is now read in the hebrew Bibles, no otherwise then yourselves would have it to be translated. I mean Arias Montanus and Vatablus, as in their translations you may find: who if they have rightelie and well translated the word, then may you see, that no such wickedness hath been practised in this place, as you have fathered upon the jews. And furthermore compare an other like place in the same Prophet, Chap. 33. v. 15. Where this word is used in the singular number without controversy, the Prophet speaking again of the same matter, and almost wholly in the same words. Thus you may understand that the integrity of this place may be avouched, and the jews delivered from your unjust accusation many ways.  
One example more you give mean an other kind, 
Pag. 310.  wherein no kind of corruption appeareth at all. In the Prophet Esay chap. 53. vers. 8. the old latin translation standeth thus, propter scelus populi mei percussi eum, For the sin of my people have I smitten him. The Hebrew text is something otherwise, 
Miphshahh 〈◊〉 mi negahh lamo.  propter defectionem populi mei plaga ipsi, that is, For the transgression of my people was he plagued. Yourself confess there is agreement in the sense, as indeed every one may see: yet by and by, as a man without memory or reason, you say the sense is inverted, & greatly altered. Something would you gladly say, but nothing to purpose can you say. The sense in the Hebrew now extant, agreeing so fully with the translation of S. Jerome, which you hold as authentical, and consonant to the verity of the ancient Hebrew Bibles, how can you probably charge the jews with corruption of this place, there being no difference, and therefore no corruption in the sense, by your own confession? If they corrupted the text, it was because they would corrupt the sense: but here the sense runneth as pure and clear in the Hebrew, as in the Latin: therefore this text is not corrupted by the jews.  
What Luther hath written of the jews and Rabbins endeavour in this behalf, maketh nothing for your advantage. Yet as though it had been by plain demonstration declared, that the bibles are corrupted by them, M.R. taketh upon him now to show the sorts and manners of their corruption.  
And two he noteth: 
Pag. 314.  the first is, by plain alteration of points, letters, and syllables: the second, by dividing words, which by the Prophets were joined together. And that you may know he hath plentiful store and variety of examples, Sernetus is alleged, neither jew nor rabbin, who by dividing a text of the Apostle in the Greek, corrupted the sense. Thus trimly can M. R. prove the matter he goeth about, although he speak never a word to the question. The controversy is whether the jews have thus corrupted the Hebrew Bibles: M.R. allegeth an example, wherein servetus of late thus corrupteth the Greek Testament. No man now can say, but he hath well performed his part, & proved invincibly both manifest corruption in the Bibles, and showed also the manners thereof. More perhaps anon will come to his hands: for as yet nothing hath he found. 
pag. 316.   
* M.R. saith he could note sundry other particular errors in the Hebrew, but that he wanteth a piece of that insolent vain, which many of his adversaries have. If he wanted nothing else, he need not greatly to complain: but doubtless much greater want hath he of truth and learning, than insolency. One thing here he confesseth which the Reader may remember, 
M. Rain, hath made a notable confession against himself.  that howsoever some gross errors have crept into the fountains and originals, yet commonly, and for the most part the text is true and sincere. Thus M.R. hath voluntarily protested for the Hebrew and Greek text. And are there no gross errors in your latin translation, or not so many as in the fountains? it shall be proved there are not only grosser faults in yo●● translation, but also more manifest corruptions, than you can imagine in the text.  
In that you demand, 
pag 317.  what reason I have to think the Hebrew text so pure, I answer, the care which God hath for the truth of his word, and the diligence of them, to whose custody the same was committed. Against this reason you argue, but without a good argument. That diverse books of scripture have perished, is not denied. But the Canon of scripture being after the captivity gathered by Ezra, and other Prophets, and delivered to the Church, that since that time any parcel hath been lost, you cannot prove. And those that are lost of which you reckon some, in some you are deceived, they are wanting without any loss or decay of necessary doctrine for the Church in those times, wherein they were not extant. And that the jews have been more diligent to keep their Bibles from corruption, than Christians have been to keep their translations sincere, who can doubt, considering that in S. Ieromes days the common translations were most faulty, as himself is a witness, but the Hebrew text remained true, sincere, incorrupt, and was a rule to follow in reforming the translations used in the Church? And yourself even now confessed of your own good accord, that the Hebrew text was for the most part and commonly void of all corruption: which being true, showeth a wonderful providence of the Lord watching over the books of his heavenly word, to defend them from such infections, as otherwise through negligence and malice of men they were subject unto.  
Now if the jews were either so negligent, or so malicious, as you imagine, and the Christians so careful for preservation of the Bible, how then came it to pass, that in the Hebrew copies was found so great truth & sincerity, in the common translations such notorious errors & corruptions, 
Andrad. Defence. Concil. Trident. lib. 4.  and that for so many hundred years after Christ? Andradius a doctor of your own schools, & a great master in your Roman synagogue, hath told you already, that you have herein unadvisedly & foolishly deemed, that therefore more credit is to be given to the latin edition, then to the Hebrew books, for that these were corrupted through the treachery of the jews: & saith, you cannot either note the time, or describe the authors of that heinous fact, or assign the place, or show such other circumstances, which might convict the jews of this sacrilege, & that therefore the whole matter hangeth upon bare suspicion, for which we ought not to charge in this manner the holy books of the hebrews, so ancient, so commended by our elders, so renowned by testimonies of all ages. 
pag. 320.   
The likeness of some Hebrew letters between themselves hath been a cause, I grant, of some corruption in the Bible, but that not great, and such as hath happened of negligence, rather than purpose, and may easily both be espied, and amended, and nothing so gross or common, as in your latin Bibles may be seen. Is it reason, think you, that for as much as some letters have been mistaken in the Hebrew, therefore the whole text should be condemned? Is there not such mistaking of letter for letter, & word for word in the latin vulgar translation? who knoweth not there is? shall we then use your argument against the translation, which you have devised against the fountain? There is no reason to the contrary. For if diligence hath been bestowed in purging and reforming such errors of the translation, 
More reason had it been for the Council of Trent to have taken order that the fountains might be cleansed, if there be in them any fault, than the latin translation.  why may not the same be done in restoring the original text to the natural truth and sincerity? The errors rising upon the similitude of letters and words, may in the Hebrew, as well as any other language be corrected. That in these examples by you alleged out of the Psalms. 100 v. 3. & 59 v. 10. any such error of mistaking hath been committed in the text, would have been by you more substantially proved. For my part I think not, and so do the best Hebricians that I have read both protestants & papists. The text in the hebrew is easy enough, and yieldeth a true and godly sense. Your last example Gen. 3. v. 15. proveth no error in the Hebrew, but only in your latin translation. The Hebrew in all the copies old and new (unless one wilfully corrupted by Guido Fabricius) hath one reading, whereby a comfortable promiss is set forth, that the woman's seed shall bruise the serpent's head: your translation containeth gross impiety & blasphemy, referring that most excellent work to the woman, which only appertaineth to the seed of the woman. About this, you say, the Protestants keep a stir. And cause, I think, 
M.R. is angry with us for making stir about the chief promises of our redemption: Such regard have the papists either of their own, or of our salvation.  wherefore some stir should be kept: unless it be no matter, if whatsoever belongeth unto our saviour Christ, were applied to the blessed virgin his mother, as in this place most horribly, and in the Psalms already hath been notoriously performed by you, in token of your great love to our Lady, but small regard of our Lord.  
That we have charged the Apostle with any error, is a bold & manifest untruth. 
Pag. 324.  Between the Apostles citation. 1. Cor. 2. v. 9 & the Prophet Esayes authority Chap. 64. v. 4. there is some diversity in one word. The Prophet hath, expectanti ipsum, to him that waiteth for him; the Apostle, diligentib. ipsum, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to them that love him. Which diversity came not through oversight or error in the Apostle, but either that the Apostle, followed the common reading of the Greek, or, as his manner for the most part is, did take the sense, not tying himself to the words. For they that love God, are such & only such as wait for him: and this waiting for god ariseth of the love of God. You think the Apostle & Prophet in these words declared the unspeakable joys of heaven, which are prepared for the children of God, and therefore you frame an argument against justification by faith, 
Proud blasphemies uttered by M.R. against God's word.  which you in your accustomed spirit of blasphemy call our mathematical solifidian fancy, because the Apostle writeth, that God hath prepared so great things for those that love him. By the things which the eye hath not seen, the ear not heard, the heart not conceived, is meant the doctrine and mysteries of the gospel, which the Lord hath revealed to such as wait for him, or love him. And to let you expound the words according to your own sense, doth this make any thing against the doctrine of justification by faith only, that God prepareth everlasting & inexplicable joys for those that love him? For whom should they be prepared, but for such as indeed love him? But is our love worthy that reward? Is it given to such as love him, in respect, and for the merit of their love? This must you prove, if you will refel our doctrine in this behalf. But this was no matter to be handled in this place. It was a poor glance, and did no harm.  
Here M.R. bringeth in a troop of authorities together, 
pag. 326. etc.  to prove that false which I have said, and all true that he saith; long sentences are translated out of Castalion, D. Humfraie, Pelicane, and Munster, whereby howsoever it fareth with his cause, the volume of his book is well increased. For whereto serve these testimonies alleged? That through negligence or ignorance of the writers & printers some faults may be found in the Hebrew Bibles, I think there be none that will deny: but what makeh all this to purpose, seeing there be a thousand times more such faults in your translations then can be found in the fountains? your long speeches and discourses either in other men's words, or in your own, when they come to scanning, are short enough, and therefore may in a short answer be discharged. Your comparison of jews and Protestants in railing at the Pope and Roman Church, I pass over.  
Two examples Master Rainolds willeth me to consider: 
pag. 332.  One, the great diversity of reading. That in the text is such diversity, I deny. The jews may perhaps in their Commentaries be of diverse opinions, touching the reading, but in the text little or no diversity shall you find: in so much that joannes Isaac affirmeth, 
Lib. 2 pag. 69.  there is so great consent and agreement in the Bibles, that no book of the bible can be showed written with the hand of a jew, which either hath any thing that others want, or wanteth any thing that others have. This may plainly argue an exceeding care to keep their Bibles from all manner of corruption: although this that he writeth may almost seem incredible.  
another experiment is, that the Hebrew prints want something now, which certainly was in the first originals. Example hereof you bring the psalm. 144. Which being made according to the Hebrew alphabet, as diverse other are, one verse is wanting wholly therein, the 14. in number, which should begin with Nun. What cause there was of omitting this Acrostiche I will not take upon me to understand. It is not of later times corrupted, seeing the Chaldee hath not that verse. And as it is now in the Hebrew, so was it in Saint Ieromes time, and before, when the Hebrew Bibles were accounted most pure: and yet then in the Latin psalter a verse was supplied. So that howsoever the matter stand, this proveth not the translation to be of greater purity and credit, than the fountain. 'Cause there was doubtless, why the Prophet left out the order of the letter, but whether such as the Rabbins and Talmud●sts have devised, I cannot affirm. The like example have you in the. 36. Psalm of your edition, which being made after the same manner of the Hebrew Alphabet, you have not in it the letter Am. Reason's thereof are alleged both by jews, and learned Papists; but the place for all that they think not to be corrupted, as you peradventure will rashly pronounce. As for that in the Greek and Latin of this Psalm there is a verse answerable, the first word whereof in Hebrew beginneth with Nun, 
Nasman.  Fidelis, Dominus, etc. this proveth not the fountain to be corrupt or unperfect: but the Septuagintes finding no verse for the letter Nun, and thinking perhaps there was some want, repeated the. 17. verse following, the first only being changed. For this verse supplied by them, and the other following, is all one, excepting only the first word. It seemeth not that the Prophet was altogether so curious to keep the order of letters, that if any be wanting in a Psalm of that kind, we ought therefore to suspect corruption in the Hebrew. In the Psalm. 25. no verse beginneth with Vau: and two begin with Resh: and two with Pe. Wherefore you see how little proof of corruption this reason maketh, whatsoever you in your ignorance esteem of it.  
That which Master Rainolds hitherto hath said, as though it were greatly to purpose, 
Pag. 333.  and worthy to be remembered, he gathereth now into certain conclusions, and as the smith, he beateth still upon the same anvil. I have already answered enough to the whole: If any thing further be offered in this repetition, it shall be hand led. First it is neither judaical, nor injurious to the Church, to think more reverently of the Hebrew fountains, than the latin translation, as hath been showed. Yea absurd and unlearned is it to prefer the translation before the text, upon certain (I know not what) blind surmises. secondly, if the heresy of the Arrians corrupted the Latin Bibles, as you imagine, whereupon they needed such correction and reformation by Saint Jerome, how came it to pass, that the Greek translation of the seventy, and the Greek of the new testament, was not by that means much more corrupted, for so much as that heresy prevailed much more in the Greek then in the latin Churches? why notwithstanding this heresy, do the father's appeal to the Greek fountains of the new testament, & by them amend their translations? The Arrians would have corrupted the spring rather, than a stream: and Saint Jerome had more cause in respect of them to suspect the Greek, than the latin. Whereby it is plain that your geasse of the latin translations, being troubled and corrupted by the Arrians, is vain, and nothing but a geasse at all adventure. That you say the Canon of the scripture in those days, was not by general authority confirmed and received, though it be great untruth, yet for as much as it pertaineth not directly to the matter, I will not stand upon it.  
Two authorities M. R. allegeth out of the commentaries of S. Jerome upon the epistle to the Galathians. The Apostle in the 3. Chap. citeth two testimonies out of Deuteronomie, not altogether according to every word in the Hebrew text. Saint Jerome among other reasons hereof useth that for one, that the jews perhaps have changed something in their originals. If the Apostle had always bound himself to the words, in rehearsing authorities out of the old testament, this reason had been of weight: but seeing the Apostle Saint Paul and other Apostles use not precisely to recite the words of the text, but the sense, Saint Jerome had no cause to suspect such a matter in these places. For compare the 〈…〉 Prophet's and Apostles words together, and no difference in, sense shall ye find. Deuteronomie Chap. 27. v. 26. the words stand thus in the Hebrew; Accursed is whosoever performeth not the words of this law to do them. The Apostle to the Galat. chap. 3. v. 10. allegeth them thus, Accursed is every one that abideth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. Here you have more words, I grant, but what diversity is there in the sense? again Deuter. Chap. 21. v. 23. the words are these, Accursed of God is he that is hanged. Saint Paul Galat. Chap. 3. v. 13. allegeth the words thus, Accursed is every one that is hanged on a tree: in words a little alteration, in matter & meaning none at all.  
That the Hebrew was corrupted either before S. Jerome, or since, 
Pag. 336.  in such manner as you pretend, when will you prove unto us M. R? hitherto nothing have you done, as plainly appeareth, & now are you spent almost, so that little more may be looked for at your hands. Concerning points, pricks, distinctions, resemblance of letters, malice of the Rabbins, and such like conjectures, I have before answered. And lastly touching the confession of some Protestants, hath been declared it maketh little to your purpose.  
Here M.R. answereth a question, which reasonably is demanded, 
Pag. 339.  namely, when these corruptions came into the Hebrew Bibles? that is, whether before Christ's time, or between that and S. Ieromes time, or since? He answereth as one nothing afraid, that the Hebrew was corrupted before Christ, more after Christ until S. Ieromes age, and most from S. Jerome since. These parts are handled by Master R. severally.  
First that the Bible was corrupted before the time of our saviour Christ, what cause have we to think, especially seeing our saviour Christ never once chargeth the jews with any such corruption? M. Rainolds saith, it might be that Christ objected the same unto them, although not recorded in the Testament. Remember then that this be put among the traditions unwritten of your Church: and so you need not to seek for other answer, as you do. Yet our saviour Christ when he saith, ye have heard it said, thou shalt love thy neighbour, 
Mat. 5.43.  and hate thine enemy, accuseth not the Scribes and pharisees, for corrupting the letter of the text, by adding thereunto the second member, but for gathering out of the text wicked doctrine, that for so much as we are commanded to love our neighbour, (that is, as they expounded it, our friend) therefore we are licenced to hate our enemy. This false exposition of the scripture, not corruption of the text, doth Christ correct. For that in wicked Manasses days diverse books were lost, I have before answered: If Christ reprove not the jews therefore, no marvel, seeing that loss was not through their negligence, but many hundred years before: yet maintenance of open corruption in the text had deserved in them sharp reproof, although themselves had not been the first authores of that corruption.  
S. Augustine in many places by occasion, speaketh of difference between the Hebrew text, and the translation of the 70. interpreters, which he much esteemed, even as you do now your latin translation. Yet in this diversity doth he not at anytime accuse the Hebrew of corruption, but rather imagineth some mystery in the Septuagints translation. Which plainly proveth, that the Church believed not the Hebrew to be corrupted then. Yea, S. Augustine maketh it a matter, not only of great absurdity, 
August. de civit. lib. 15. c. 13.  but also notable impiety to say, that the jews could conspire together in such sort, as that they might, though never so peevishly and maliciously bend, corrupt the books of Scripture, being so many, and so generally spread abroad.  
That more corruption crept into the Bibles after Christ, 
Pag. 340,  you prove by testimony of justinus Martyr, in his disputation with Tryphon, wherein he allegeth three examples of notable corruption committed by the jews. 
A place of justinus Martyr answered.  A short answer may serve. justinus spoke of suspicion, more than knowledge, as being not very skilful in the Hebrew brew tongue: & if we diligently examine the places, it will soon appear, that no such matter can be proved. The first is out of Esdras Ch. 6: The words are these: Esdras spoke unto the people, this pascha is our saviour and refuge, etc. Now in the hebrew no such words are found: no truly, nor never were, which I prove, because they are not in your latin translation. And this against you is an argument strong enough, that maintain your latin text to be the authentical word of God. If any thing want, it wanteth as much in your latin Bibles, as in the Hebrew: and so no more corruption here in the Hebrew text, then in the latin. Again, the Greek now extant hath them not: & whatsoever can be said, no more shallbe proved against the verity, and sincerity of the hebrew fountains, then of the latin translation in this behalf, & so no advantage shall redound to your opinion and defence.  
The second place out of jeremy the 11. Chap. v. 19 is by your own confession void of corruption in the hebrew bibles now extant. Your argument for real presence out of this place is singular. The Prophet you say calleth Christ's natural body upon the Cross by the name of bread. That is untrue: he speaketh not of Christ's body, nor of the Cross, nor of real presence in the sacrament. And was Christ's natural body hanging on the Cross nothing but bread? was bread crucified for you? Else how maketh this for your real presence? A strange presence, a goodly religion, a wonderful argument.  
The last place in the 95. psalm. v. 10. is no otherwise in the hebrew now, than not only in the Greek, but in the vulgar latin, and Saint Ieromes translation also, The words a ligno, From the wood, your own fellows have confessed not to be of the hebrew verity, but of Christian devotion. Then is it plain enough, that whatsoever justinus supposed, the hebrew text was not corrupted: And so your argument from justinus authority is sufficiently cleared; and it is showed that these three examples prove nothing against the Hebrew original text now extant.  
That from S. Ieromes age errors & corruptions have still increased & multiplied, 
Pag. 345.  you affirm to be very probable. This was something faintly and doubtfully spoken. That it may seem unto you probable, is not sufficient to cause you cast away the Hebrew text, and take in stead thereof a latin translation, which to be since S. Ieromes time shamefully corrupted, is not only probable, but very certain and evident, as shall appear. So although it could be proved not only by probable conjectures, but by clear and substantial demonstrations, that the Hebrew Bibles were somewhere corrupted; yet for all that, no reason have our adversaries to make greater account of their latin translation, then of the Hebrew fountain, seeing it may and shall effectually be declared, that the same vulgar latin translation, which by them is preferred to the room of the authentical written word of God, before the Hebrew and Greek originals, is full of gross faults, errors, & corruptions. Where I demand how the Church can say she hath kept faithfully the word of god, if she have lost the original text thereof, Master Rainolds answereth she hath conserved the scriptures faithfully, although not in this, or that language. But why in the Latin language more, then in the Hebrew, Greek, or any other, hath she conserved the scriptures? what think you of the Greek Church? Did she lose the word of God in her own tongue, and kept it in the latin? And must she now, & all other Churces in the world, fetch their text of scripture out of the latin translation? must only latin among them be used in sermons, lectures, disputations, and all other such exercises, as your fathers of Trent in their late meeting have appointed? Or grant you them rather no use of the scriptures at all, nor judge them Christians, because they will not be obedient to your Pope? whatsoever you say, no reason can you show, why the Church should keep the word of God and Testament of Christ her spouse in an other tongue rather, then that wherein it was written and delivered unto her: why in the latin more, then in some other language, and specially the Greek, seeing that Church ever was larger in number and circuit than the latin, and now not any latin Church at all in the world remaining? That which followeth in certain pages, is nothing else but roving talk, not worthy the reading: where no argument is framed, nor reason used, no answer can be required.  
Gregory Martin hath his answer long ago: 
pag. 355.  his Discovery is disproved, and his objections refelled thoroughly orderly, and learnedly. It will be too great and troublesome a work for you to maintain that quarrel: better it is to leave it to some other, that can do more therein then yourself, if any such be amongst you. As for that notable corruption of great moment and importance by him objected out of the 22. Psal. v. 17. read the answer. Very like a letter was mistaken in the writing and printing, as may fall out in books set forth with greatest diligence and conscience so Genebrard your Hebrew professor at Paris imputeth not the corruption of this place to wilful malice in the jews, but to chance, 
Genebrard in Psalm. 21.  by reason the two letters were so like: and proveth by testimony of learned jews, that the best and truest copies had Caaru, 
Caaru.  they digged, not Caari as a Lion, 
Caari.  and that when Caari is written, it must be red Caaru. Who ever denied but some fault by this means might come into the Bibles, 
Fortuiò & casis.  such as in your translation are plentifully found? is this a reason then of moment & importance to prove the Hebrew Bibles so full of corruption & errors, that they must be cast away, & the latin translation Canonised for authentical scripture, and received in their place? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and much worse.  
Consider now & peruse the sum of your whole discourse. 
Very few places can the adversaries find in the hebrew text, that may probably be once suspected of corruption.  Let us grant that these by you hitherto rehearsed are indeed corruptions, which yet is plainly false, and not anyways to be granted: but let us for your cause suppose such a thing. Tell us I pray you, how many corruptions have you found? score them up, and let us know the number. with all your skill, labour & conference, yet were you not able to object ten places out of the Hebrew Bibles, which you might probably charge with corruption. A manifest proof and certain argument of rare and notable purity in them, far above not only the diverse translations of old time, but also your vulgar latin edition, which you notwithstanding boldly, but most untruely, maintain to be sounder and purer than the Greek text in the new testament, and the Hebrew in the old. Let us therefore somewhat examine your latin Bibles, whether in them such corruptions may not be found, as you have charged the original text withal: whereby it shall appear, that there are in your Bibles of the vulgar translation corruptions of all sorts great plenty, yea almost innumerable, & therefore that your argument against the fountains is absurd, 
Infinite notorious corruptions in the vulgar latin translation authorized by the Tridentine assem blie.  and most unreasonable, to condemn them, because of some faults imagined, whereas you approve a latin edition ten times worse than you can once with show of truth suspect them to be.  
In the first Chapter of Genesis, v. 30. certain words are wanting in your vulgar Edition, 
Gen. 1. v. 30.  which are not only in all Hebrew books, but in the Greek translation also, which is by many hundred years far more ancient than the latin: and therefore if your latin willbe tried by the verdict of these two witnesses, it shallbe convicted of manifest corruption. For where the Prophet Moses plainly writeth, that as the Lord had given to man for his meat every herb and tree that yieldeth fruit, so he had also provided ●uer●e green herb to be meat for the beasts & birds, 
Col jerck ●●eseb.  & creeping things, these words so material and necessary are in your latin books no where to be found. How can you think to excuse this from corruption.  
In the second Chap. v. 8. 
Gen. 2.8.  the scripture saith both in the hebrew and greek text, that God had planted a garden in the East, 
Mikkedent.  and so is it understood of the learned writers, that the garden, wherein Adam for a time remained, was sited in the east: but your translator maketh the Prophet to speak otherwise, 
A Principio.  that the Lord God had planted a garden of pleasure from the beginning. Is this kind of translating to be allowed in the word of God? I think none of sound judgement & good conscience will so esteem.  
In the third of Genes. v. 15. a Capital and intolerable corruption hath been committed and still is continued and maintained by you in the words, 
Gen. 3.15.  wherein the Lord made unto man the first promise of that redemption, which should be wrought by our Saviour Christ, and in which the sum of the Gospel, and all hope of our salvation is contained, that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the Serpent. For thus speaketh the Lord to the Serpent. 
H●●.  I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Thus hath the Prophet Moses reported the words of almighty God and so have the seventy interpreters translated them according to the Hebrew original verity. Which notwithstanding, in steed of He shall bruise thine head, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  your latin translation hath, She shall bruise thine head, 
Ipsae.  and this, She, is meant the blessed virgin. A foul, a dangerous, a damnable corruption, thus defended and expounded. Yea the very enemies themselves, that have never so little conscience and fear of God, do confess that it ought to be red otherwise, than it is in your latin translation, seeing it disagreeth from the Hebrew, and some ancient copies also of the vulgar latin edition have ipse, 
Andrad. lib. 4. Defence. Trid.  and not ipsa. Yet howsoever not only the Hebrew and Greek texts lead us to the true meaning of Gods promise made to mankind in jesus Christ, yea and further some copies of the vulgar translation agree therewith, nevertheless the Church of Rome (that you may the better perceive whose Church it is) not regarding all this, embraceth, alloweth, maintaineth the evident corruption, as as you may find not only in the Latin books of the vulgar edition reform according to the Tridentine Counsels appointment, but also in the Catechism set forth by authority of the same Council: 
Catechis. Trident. in artic. Et in jesum Christum.  and in the books of sundry Papists, that have willingly sold themselves to love and defend all Antichristes doctrine. In the margin of your Bibles is printed for a fashion the true reading: howbeit this not only excuseth nothing your wilful maintenance of detestable corruption, but may rather make the same appear more odious to all the faithful. For if you can set the true word in the margin, why might you not receive it also into the text, but only for that you are determined already to be ashamed of nothing that may any ways bring advantage to your corruptions, though it be to the certain & everlasting damnation of your souls. And what godly man shall patiently endure this blasphemy in your English transalation of the old testament, when it cometh forth? where our comfort and hope hath been, that he (who is the woman's seed, our blessed Lord and saviour Christ) should bruise the serpent's head, now we must turn it another way, and say thus, she shall bruise the serpent's head. If still you will speak in defence of this corruption, you shall but bark against heaven: it is too manifest, too heinous, too impudent.  
In the fourth of Genes. v. 8. 
Genes. 4.8.  your latin translation hath these words, Let us go forth, 
●●●odiamur 〈…〉 in Hebr. question.  which are not in the Hebrew text, nor yet in the Chaldee paraphrast: & S. Jerome hath given a note upon them, that they are superfluous, and aught to be removed. And in the 15. verse of this Chapter one Hebrew word, 
●aken.  that signifieth wherefore, or doubtless, is untruely rendered by your translator thus, 
Nequaqu●●●ra fie●●  it shall not be so. For the Lord said not, that none should kill Kain, but that whosoever killed him, he should be punished seven fold. It may not be granted to any translator of scripture thus to thrust in words at his pleasure, whereby the sense is manifestly changed.  
In the sixth Chapter and 5. verse, 
Gen. 6.5.  where the Lord complaineth of man's corrupt nature, and saith, that the very frame of the thoughts of his heart is only evil always, your translator hath left out two words of great moment, frame, and only: 
jetsee. rak.  and so like wise in the eight Chapter following, verse 21. 
Gen. 8.21.  where again the Lord setteth forth the wickedness of man's corrupt nature and saith that the imagination of man's heart is evil, 
ra●●.  your translator of his own head hath put into the text a pretty word, and so maketh God to speak otherwise then he spoke, 
In mala● proua.  that it is prone to evil. Who seethe not that by this word is diminished that corruption and sinfulness whereof almighty God accuseth mankind, and wherewith he declareth man's heart to be replenished from his infancy? This translation liketh you well, because it doth not so fully bewray the infection of original sin, as the true text of scripture doth, & therefore not so plainly confuteth your heresy of free-will in man to please God before he be regenerate. In the 9 
Gen. 9.6.  Chap. 6. verse where God ordaineth an everlasting law against murderers, that he who sheddeth the blood of man, his blood shallbe shed by man, these last words by man, establishing the Magistrates authority, 
Baadam.  are not expressed in your traslation. This to be a fault of great importance any man may easily understand.  
To proceed a little further in this first book of holy scripture, and to discover some more gross corruptions of your latin translation therein committed, (for I may not stand to note every petty fault) in the 36. 
Gen. 36.24.  Chap. v. 24. the Prophet writeth that Ana the son of Zibeon found mules in the wilderness: but your translator telleth us he found warm waters, 
Haijemim. aquas calidas.  and so by his great cunning hath turned mules into water. It may be said there is great likeness between the words in Hebrew: which I grant to be so. But this dischargeth not the translation from a fault. And howsoever those words are like, yet from whence did your translator fetch his other word, Warm. For though we suppose the word may signify water, yet to call it warm water, is more than can be warranted. In the 41. Chap. v. 54. there passed in the former editions of your translation a notablefault, 
Gen. 41.54.  which yet of late for very shame hath been amended by Hentenius of Louvain. For where the Prophet speaking of the general famine that was over all countries, saith that in all the land of Egypt was bread, your books clean contrary to the text and story read, that the famine also was in all Egypt. And thus hath it gone main hundred years in your Latin Bibles. Now at length you have been content to acknowledge a fault in this place: and why not as well also in others, wherein as evident faults may be found as this? And seeing you can be brought to acknowledgement of some corruptions in your latin Bibles, by like reason you may be induced also to confess more faults where more faults may be found, as there may full many throughout your whole translation.  
In the 49. of Genes. v. 22. 
Gen. 49.22.  jacob compareth joseph his son to a fruitful bough by the well side: which words in your latin translation are otherwise set down thus, and he is comely to behold. If you say that in the sense is no difference, yet you make no sufficient answer: 
bhalei. bhaijn. Et decorous aspectu.  forasmuch as translating the text of scripture we must retain the very words as well as we may, and not take liberty of leaving the words, because we think we serve not from the sense. For the words may have some other, or farther meaning, than we suppose, even in such places as seem to be most easy. And if you impute this as a fault to us in translating, why may not we likewise blame your translator for the same, who hath so much offended therein? But let us go on. In the 24. verse of this Chap. jacob saith of joseph that his arms were strengthened: & in your translation it is as contrary, as may be, that they were weakened or loosed. Again in the end of this Chapter a whole verse together is omitted by your tranflators. The purchase of the field, and the cave that is therein of the children of Heth: of which words not one is found in your translation, and so where the Chapter contained 33. verses, your translation hath 32. Tell us by what reason it was lawful for the author of your translation to put so much our of the text, or for you to allow him in so doing.  
It were a work of great labour and length to go through every book of scripture in this order: and therefore it shallbe for our purpose sufficient, of infinite faults that might be noted book by book, Chapter by Chapter, verse by verse, to discover only certain, as they come to my hand, such as by reading and conference every one may observe.  
In Exodus the. 15 Chapter. 19 verse your translator hath committed a double fault, first in translating a word, second in pointing amiss. The Prophet saith that Pharaoh's Horse went with his Chariot and Horsemen into the Sea: 
Sus Parbho.  And so is it in the Septuagintes translation truly according to the Hebrew verity. But thus it standeth in your translation, The Horseman went in, 
In●ressus est eques, etc.  Pharoe with his Charets and Horsemen, agreeing neither with Greek, nor Hebrew, nor the right sense.  
In the 21. of Exodus 3. verse, 
Exod. 21.3.  a law is set down for hebrew servants, that they should be released of their service at the end of six years, and then is further added in what sort they should be sent away, namely that if the servant bring with him nothing but his own body, 
Begappo.  that is, if he come alone, as the 70. have interpreted the text, having no wife, than he should go out himself alone, and not his wife with him, as is in the verse following expressed. Your translator hath misconstrued the law, and marred the sense, in turning the hebrew thus, 
Cum quali vest intraverit, cum taliexeat.  with what manner of garment he entered, with such let him go out. And so also in the 10. verse following, where God commandeth that if one hath betrothed his maid to his son, and after take him another wife, he shall not diminish the food of the former; your translator hath made aother law for this, that he shall provide a marriage for the maidservant, 
Providebit puellae nuptias.  which is utterly from the meaning of the law.  
And in the seventh verse of this Chapter before, he hath also mistaken a plain law concerning maid servants, wherein God forbiddeth to send them away, after their years were out, 
haehhabadim.  as the manservants are sent away: but your translator saith she shall not go out, as the maid servants are accustomed to go out, 
Sicut ancillae exere consueverunt.  than which nothing almost can be devised more contrary to the Law. in the. 24. Chapter. 11. verse. the Prophet speaking of the chosen men of Israel that went up into the mount, and saw the Lord, saith that God laid not his hand upon them: which thing he noteth for a special remembrance, that although they saw God, yet because they presumed not, but obeyed the commandment of God, therefore ●o harm befell unto them. This in your translation is otherwise reported in these words; Neither laid he his hand upon them of the children of Isaell that had gone back a far of. 
Qui procul recesserant.  Who seeth not a manifest difference between the true text, and this translation?  
In Leviticus Chap. 4. v. 8. 
levit. 4.8.  Where is commanded that the Priest shall take away all the fat of the bullock that is offered for sin, your translator hath thus mistranslated the words, and the fat of the calf he shall offer for sin: 
Et adipem vituli offeret pro peccato.  and so partly by untrue translation, and partly by misplasing of the words, hath wholly corrupted the text. In the 7. Chapter. v. 19 
levit. 7.19.  the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing is forbidden to be eaten, and must be burnt with fire. Then immediately it followeth thus in your translation, the unclean shall eat thereof: 
Iramundus. Mundus.  & of late for the unclean in your reformed editions is put clean: So your translations affirm that either the unclean or clean shall eat of the flesh, which god commanded to be burnt, and none to eat thereof: an evident corruption, by reason of a word omitted in all your vulgar translations both old and new.  
In the book of Number's Chapter. 4. verse 46. 
Num. 4.46.  your translation hath, whom Moses and Aaron made by name, 
Fecit. Paekad.  in stead of this, whom Moses and Aaron numbered. In the margin indeed of your latter corrected editions there standeth the word to be reckoned, 
Recenseri.  for no other purpose I think, but to be a witness of corruption against your translations. For if that word must be supplied, and if you see and confess yourselves so much, as apprereth, in that you print it in the margin, why might you not well receive it into the text itself? If it have any right to stand in the margin, more right hath it to be admitted into the text.  
In Deuteronomie Chapter 4. verse 33. is a like fault to this, 
Deut. 4.33.  but something worse in your latin translations. Moses saith, did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the mids of a fire, as thou hast heard, and lived? 
Vajechi. Et vidisti. Et vixisti.  your translations all have thus, As thou hast heard and seen. In some copies you have given us a marginal correction, but that is not much truer than the corruption of the text, save that this speaketh of living, and the other of seeing. So in the. 15. Chap. 10. v. in stead of these words, God shall bless thee in all thy works, 
Mahbaseca.  your translation hath, God shall bless thee at all times: first taking time 
In omni tempore  for works, & then leving out the affix, thine. In the. 33. Chap. 10. v. a word of weighty and necessary force is omitted by your translator in declaring the office of the Levites, which especially consisted in teaching the people the law of God: and so saith the true text. 
joru.  They shall teach jacob thy judgements, & Israel thy Law. But in your latin books, the word that signifieth to teach, which was most to be respected, and whereupon dependeth that which followeth, is both in the text and margin of your translations wanting, and thus stand the words; They have kept thy word, and observed thy covenant, thy judgements O jacob, and thy law O Israel. Now I appeal to the conscience of all the learned, whether this be not a notorious depraving of God's word, where it is prescribed that the Levites should teach jacob and Israel the judgements and law of God, to leave out the word whereby they were charged to teach: and whereas the duty of teaching jacob God's judgements, and Israel his law was laid upon them, to make thereof an other sense so much repugnant, that they have observed the judgements of jacob, and the law of Israel. 
judicia tua o jacob, & legem tuam o Israel. Ios. 11.19.  Hard it were for any man in translating so few words to make so many faults.  
In the book of joshua. Chap. 11. v. 19 the holy ghost hath noted, that not one City of all the land of Canaan made peace with the children of Israel, 
hishlimah.  excepting those Hivites that dwelled in Gibeon. But your translation telleth an other tale; as contrary to this as can be told, that there was not a City, 
Quae se non t●ae deret.  which did not yield itself to the children of Israel. An other reading in your margin of late hath been devised, and that neither agreeing in truth with the text, as by comparing the same together any man may perceive.  
In the book of judges Chap. 15. v. 14. When the Philistines met Samson being bound, 
jud. 15.14.  the scripture recordeth, that the spirit of the Lord coming upon him, the cords that were upon his arms became as flax that is burnt with fire. Your translator in stead of flax hath put wood, 
Ligna. Odorem.  and for the heat of the fire, or some such like word he putteth the smell of the fire. And yet that wood is so easily consumed with the only smell of fire, I think you will not say for maintenance of your translation against the original text. What then remaineth but to confess as needs you must, that here hath been, and is a foul corruption?  
In the 1. of Samuel Chap. 9 v. 25. these words are added to the text, 
1. Sam. 9.25. Stravitque Saul in solario, & dormivit.  And Saul spread upon the top of the house, and slept, there being nothing in the text either of spreading or sleeping, or any such matter. If therefore you wl be tried by either hebrew, or Chaldee, or sundry exemplares of your latin translation, you shall confess a corruption in this place, & so in deed you do, but will not yet amend it. How be it better were it not to acknowledge a fault, then acknowledging one, still to retain the same. And in the 19 Chap. 24. v. the scripture telleth that saul put of his clothes, & prophesied before Samuel, and fell down naked all that day and night. So hath the Hebrew, so the Greek, and so your own Masters confess it should be. Which notwithstanding as it were in open and presumptuous maintenance of your corruptions against the sincerity of the text, in your books you read thus, 
Cocivit.  and he song naked. This came to pass by negligence in the writer, mistaking one letter for another. But why will ye not be brought in this clear light of knowledge, whereby such gross faults are easily espied, to amend your books, to remove the fault, to restore the right word to his place? you see belike what danger might ensue of mending any thing: if once you should begin, you witted not how to make an end, and therefore you are determined to stir nothing, for fear you bring down all upon your heads.  
In the second of Samuel Chap. 6. v. 12. a number of words are added together in your translation, 
2. Sam. 6.12.  more than can be found in the true text, that David hearing how Obed edom had been wonderfully blessed by keeping the ark in his house, 
Dixitque David, ibo & reducam arcam cum bene dictione in domum meam.  said, I will go and bring back the ark with a blessing into my house. These words may seem to be fit for the place, & it may be supposed that so David either spoke or thought. But what of that? may we therefore convey thus cunningly into the text of scripture whatsoever we imagine fitly to agree therewith? The Hebrew hath no such saying, nor the Chaldee, nor yet the Greek: it is therefore a manifest corruption of your translator.  
In the first of Kings, 
1. Reg. 2.28.  the 2. Chap. & 28. vers. your translator hath notably falsified the text, in putting Solomon once for joab, and again by and by for Absolom, & telling the story thus: And a messenger came to Solomon, that joab had declined after Adonia, and had not declined after Solomon. Which is an absurd translation, having no coherence with the story, and plainly striving against the text. For thus the words should have been translated, There came tidings to joab, (for joab had declined after Adonia, but had not declined after Absolom.) He that looketh on the place, shall straight espy a foul fault in your translation. In the 22. Chap. 26. verse, of this book, 
Filium Amelech.  joas is called by your translator, the son of Amelech, for the King's son, by taking the word that signifieth in Hebrew a King, 
Hammelech.  for the proper name of a man.  
The book of job is a precious part of holy scripture, as it hath been always esteemed in the Church of God: and therefore great pity is it to see the same so miserably mangled by your translator, as any of skill may perceive it to be, if he list to take a little pains in conferring the true fountain & your translation together. In the 1. Chap. v. 21. these words are added to the text, 
job. 1.21.  As it pleased the Lord, so is it come to pass. A godly saying, who can deny? but that may not excuse your books from corruption, unless it can be showed to be a part of the text, which, I am sure, it cannot. In the 3. Chapter and last verse, the holy man saith, 
job. 3.26.  I had no peace, I had no quietness, I had no rest, yet trouble is come, meaning that he lived in continual awe of God & looked narroulie to all his ways, fearing lest at any time he should provoke the Lord to bring upon him some grievous judgement, and that now notwithstanding this endeavour & care, trouble & misery was fallen upon him. But your translator hath made him speak otherwise, Have I not dissembled? have I not kept silence? 
Nun dissimulau●? etc.  have I not been quiet? This translation accordeth not with the words, and much less with the sense.  
In the fift Chap. 5. verse Eliphaz saith, 
job. 5.  that the hungry shall eat up the harvest of the ungodly, and take it from among the thorns: but in your translation he saith, 
& ipsum rapi●t armatus.  the armed man shall take him away: which is an other thing, though it be a true thing.  
And in the verse that followeth, v. 6 whereas Eliphaz saith, that affliction and misery cometh not out of the dust, your translator hath put an other speech in his mouth, 
Nihil in ter●● sine causa fit.  Nothing is done upon the earth without a cause. Again in the. 7. verse he saith, v. 7 Man is borne to travail, even as the sparks fly upward: your translator saith, Man is borne to labour, and the bird to fly, 
& anis ad volatum.  turning the sparks (which the Hebrew termeth the sons of the coals) into a bird. In the. 6. Chap. 1. v. job wisheth, that his grief were perfectly weighed: 
job. 6.1.  your translator hath added hereto words of his own applying a speech to job, which whether he would acknowledge may well be doubted, I would my sins were weighed, whereby I have deserved wrath. v. 16 In the. 16. verse of this Chapter. job compareth his friends who had forsaken him, to brooks that pass swiftly away, which brooks he saith, are blackish with ice, and wherein the snow is hid. Of these words your translator hath framed a proper sentence or proverb, They that fear the ice, the snow shall fall upon them. 
Qui timent pruinan, ●rruet super eos nix. job. 9.12.   
In the 9 Chapter he showing at large the wonderful and omnipotent power of God, saith in the 12. verse, If he take any thing by violence away, who shall make him restore it again? The author of your translation, not marking well the words, hath turned them thus, 
Si repent ininterroget. quis respondebit?  If he ask suddenly, who shall answer him? And in the. 13. Chap. 4. verse, where job calleth his friends Physicians of no value, your translator nameth them, 
Cultores perversorum dogmatum. job. 14.4.  embracers of perverse doctrines. In the 4. verse of the. 14. Chap. job saith, who can bring a clean thing out of filthiness? not one: your translation hath these words, who can make a clean thing that is conceived of unclean seed? is it not thou, who art alone?  
In the 31. Chap. of this book. 19 v. he saith, 
job. 31.19. Si despexi pretereuntem eô quôd non habuerit indumentum.  If I have seen any perish for want of clothing, etc. which to be the true reading, is confessed by your own Masters, and proved by the Hebrew text. But your translation maketh job thus to speak, If I have despised him that passed by for because he had no garment. Which, words carry with them an other sense, than the former will admit. And though in your last editions some of your reformers have in stead of him that passed by, placed in the text, him that perished, yet this salve hath not made the wound whole. For first you keep still the word despising in stead of seeing, and further that your vulgar translation ought not to be corrected in that other word, as of late it hath been, by whose authority and judgement soever, may be known by Aquinas and Saint Gregory, and many more, who in their commentaries upon this book have set down the words in such sort, as I have rehearsed out of your translation. If this be a fault, as you have granted, in correcting it in some part, then have your latin Bibles been faulty this thousand years together: and if you may now by comparing your vulgar latin with the Hebrew reform this corruption though it be of so long continuance, why may you not as well in all other places, where your translation doth plainly disagree from the Hebrew, as it doth in a thousand, file it and make it as even as you can with the Authentical text?  
In the 33. v. 6. Elihu saith to job, 
job. 33.6.  for that he had wished to have God answer him, behold I willbe according to thy word for God. This to be the true meaning, the words do show themselves: and therefore it was a marvel that your translator would turn them thus, 
Ecce & mesicut & te fecit Deus.  Behold, even me hath God made as thee. And in the 25. v. where Elihu declaring how God dealeth with his children in punishing them for a season, and afterwards restoring them to health, saith thus, his flesh is made fresh, as in his childhood, your translator hath altered the words and the sense in this sort, his flesh is consumed with punishments. 
Consumpta est earo eiusà supplicits.  Such faults as these, which are indeed gross and great faults in translating the scriptures, is your translation of this book replenished withal. I have not laboured to note every particular fault: for that had been a business too tedious. But of many I have picked out certain, whereby the reader may conceive what to judge aright of your whole translation.  
Now let us come to the book of Psalms, which of all books of scripture is in your translation most corrupted, so as I may truly affirm that in some one short Psalm in latin more may be found, than you shall ever find in the Hebrew text of all the books of the Bible. Which came to pass by this means, for that in S. Ieromes days the other books in the latin translation were corrected according to the Hebrew, but this book only although it needde as much correction as any other, 
The book of Psalms in the latin vulgar translation most corrupt.  yet because it was in the corruptions thereof so generally used, as it could not be changed without much trouble and offence in the Church, was not dealt withal by S. Jerome, but suffered to remain as it was, and to carry still about with it those manifold & grievous sores, which should with diligence in time have been cured. This being by the best of your own side confessed, it is a wonder, that Genebrard your Hebrew Doctor of Paris would labour so much with all his wit and cunning to make some agreement between your translation & the text: wherein as he hath taken very great pains, so hath he showed himself in many places altogether ridiculous in devising such seely shifts, as he is enforced for some show of consent in the meaning, howsoever the words sound most diversly. And when he hath searched all the corners of his head for reasonable expositions, yet is he feign oftentimes to give over, and let the words quietly pass without his construction. If I should gather and set down in particular discovery the corruptions of this book, this only work would be a volume of greater quantity, then is the Psalter itself. Therefore as hitherto I have done, so will I proceed, to take a little of much, and in certain evident examples of sundry places, set before the reader's eyes how unworthy your translation of this book is to be called by the name of so worthy a scripture.  
In the second Psalm a text that concerneth our saviour Christ as notably as any almost in the old Testament, 
psal. 2.12.  is shamefully perverted in your translation. For where the Prophet David exhorteth all to kiss the son, 
Na●heku-bar.  that is, to submit themselves to jesus Christ, and his gospel, setting forth in these words a plain testimony of his Godhead and distinct person, your translation saith no more in this place but only thus, 
Apprehendite disciplinam.  Apprehend discipline: which though it be a good admonition, yet is it far short of the true sense, and excellent doctrine therein contained. And this may be an argument of great weight to prove, that the jews are not honestly dealt withal by you, in that you accuse them to have corrupted the Hebrew text for malice against our Saviour Christ. For if they had been moved indeed with such a devilish intention, would they have suffered this text to have stood in such sincerity, especially having so great opportunity to change the words, as was offered unto them by the Greek and latin translations?  
In the 3. Psalm, the Prophet saith, 
psal. 3.8.  Thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek bone● your translation hath thus, 
Lechi.  thou haste smitten all those that are mine enemies without a cause. 
Sine cansa.  Howbeit Genebrarde stoutly defendeth your translation in this place, and objecteth ignorance to those that reprove it. Let all your Hebricians be judges, and let john Isaac a jew, and a learned jew in that tongue, answer Genebrarde. If this had been so clear a case as Genebrarde maketh it, could Isaac with a number more, as Vatablus, Pagnine, Tremellius, all as good Hebricians as Genebrarde (no disgrace to him) have been ignorant thereof?  
In the fourth Psalm, 
psalm. 4.3.  being but a very short one, your translation hath three evident faults, which cannot by any shift be excused reasonably. First there is, how long will ye be of a heavy heart, 
Vsque quo gravi ●orde.  in stead of these words, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? for this to be the true reading, even your Genebrard was compelled to acknowledge: and therefore he deviseth and imagineth what the Septuagints perhaps followed. And about this place Lind●●e hath kept a stir, if he might by any means save the credit of your translation. But Isaac his master in the hebrew tongue hath sufficiently taken him up for his dealing herein. v. 8 Again there is a word in your translation added to the text in the 8. verse, 
Olei.  as Genebrard confesseth, saying it was done by the 70. interpreters prophetically: which yet he cannot prove, and we will not grant. 
Com●ungimini for silete.  And before in the 5. verse is one word put for an other to some change of the sense.  
In the 12. Psalm, 
Psal. 12.6.  being according to your editions the 11. (which difference in numbering continueth to the end almost, and this may fuffice to have been once remembered) where the Prophet bringeth in the Lord speaking, I will up, and set him at liberty, though he lay a snare for him, these words are thus translated in your latin Psalter, I will deal boldly in him: 
Fiducialiter again in ●o.  of which words Genebrard himself cannot devise a convenient interpretation, and therefore he wandereth up and down, and vanisheth away in the mist of his own conceit.  
In the fourteenth Psalm your latin translation hath three whole verses together more, 
psal. 14.  then are to be found either in the Hebrew or Greek: and are taken out of Saint Paul in the third to the Romans, being gathered by him out of several places of the scriptures, 
Hier. in promoe 10. Es●i.  as Saint Jerome hath noted. But some in former times more hasty than well advised, seeing the Apostle allege so long a sentence together, thought the same was written in some place of the old Testament, as it was by the Apostle recited: and finding it no where, supplied it in this place because of some words, which the Apostle there hath rehearsed out of this Psalm. And thus much do your own men confess, even Genebrard himself, testifying that in the Hebrew now extant nothing is wanting. If than nothing wanteth, as he confesseth, is it not a plain case that these three verses ought not to have any room in that Psalm, and therefore that your Psalter hath in this place more than it should have? which I think we may truly and properly call a corruption.  
In the 34. Psalm the Prophet saith, 
psal. 34.8.  that the Angel of the Lord doth pitch his tents about them that fear him: 
Choneh.  in your translation thus we read, The Angel of the Lord shall send round about those that fear him, 
Immittet in circuitu.  that is, saith Genebrard, his help and defence. Well helped doubtless. Where the text is so plain, to make such a simple translation as this, which without supplying some necessary word, can have no show of good sense, I know not how it may be excused from a fault. So in the 37. Psalm where the Prophet teacheth that we ought not to be unmeasurably grieved or disquieted at the prosperity of the wicked, and exhorteth us to trust in the Lord, 
Psal. 37.3. Pascere side. pasceris in divitiis eius.  and to feed, that is, to live by faith, your translation saith thus, Trust in the Lord, etc. and thou shalt be fed with his riches.  
In the 51. Psalm thus speaketh the prophet in his own tongue, 
psalm. 51.8.  behold thou lovesl truth in the rains, (that is inwardly in the affections) and hast made me to understand wisdom in secret: but your translator hath given us an other sense, Behold, thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and secret things of thy wisdom hast thou made manifest unto me. If the first be a true sense, as it is: the second must be reputed, as it deserveth. In the 62. 
psal. 62.5.  Psalm the Prophet speaking of his enemies devising to overthrow him if they might, saith, They take counsel only how to cast him down from his dignity, their delight is in lies. This construction agreeth well, this sense is plain. Now compare here with your translation, and you shall see that it is most fond and disorderly. thus it standeth, 
Veruntamen pretium me●●● cogitaverunt repellere●●●curri in sit.  Notwithstanding they have thought to put back my price, I have run in thirst. Is not this a proper kind of translation? yet something of late hath it been corrected in one word, but nothing at all amended in the sense. I have runned, they say, should be changed into they have runned: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  wherein they grant their latin translator was greatly deceived in translating the greek word I have runned for they have runned: and yet the hebrew word signifieth neither of both. But as they acknowledge a fault in this word, so when it is thus mended by them, how much nearer are they to the right sense? verily no thing, or but little: and Genebrard though he make a poor sense of the words, yet how his sense agreeth with the hebrew text he cannot declare. Again in the 9 verse of this Psalm the Prophet saith, Trust in him evermore, 
●ecol hheth hham.  O people: your translation hath an other reading thus, Trust in him all the congregation of the people: 
Omnis congregatio popul.  wherein is a manifest diversity. The hebrew no man dare say to be corrupt: than it followeth that the greek translator deceived the latin, and was deceived himself.  
In the 65. Psalm, 
Psal. 65.14.  the last verse, in stead of these words, The pastures are clad with sheep, 
Induti sunt ar●●tes ovium.  The vulgar translation hath thus, The Rams of the sheep are clad. And because this is something obscure and unperfect, therefore Genebrarde expoundeth the matter, and telleth wherewith these Rams are called, forsooth with store of fine and white wool. Yet in the text is no mention either of Rams, or wool.  
In the 68 Psalm, the 7. verse, the Prophet reckoneth this among the praises of the Lord, that he maketh such as are alone and solitary to have a family, wherein to dwell. Your translation speaketh after an other sort, that he maketh those that be of one behaviour to dwell together in a house. 
unius ●oris.  This verily was not the Prophet's meaning. And then it followeth in the Prophets own words, But the rebels (he causeth to dwell) in a dry or thirsty place: which words in your vulgar Psalters are unto wardlie translated thus, 
Similiter eos q●iexasperant. qui habitant in sepulchris.  Likewise those which exasperated, which dwell in graves. And yet hath Genebrade taken some pains here to frame a sense in some reasonable construction in this wise: Those that exasperated and provoke God by their sins, and dwell in the graves of death, God bringeth them forth by his merciful and mighty hand. Here we have a sense indeed, such as it is, but a sense contrary to the true & manifest words of the Prophet. For David declareth how god will punish his rebels, by setting them in a dry place: Genebrarde by his exposition hath made the Prophet to promise deliverance unto them from destruction. Again in this Psalm, v. 14. David saith, though ye have lain among the pots, etc. Your translation hath, 
Pater ●●di●s ●●res.  in the midst of the clergy, or of the lots. And what should this mean? forsooth Genebrarde saith, by Lots is understood extreme distress and danger, as when the lots are cast upon a man's life. He hath deserved doubtless great thanks for his pains, especially seeing himself confesseth that this place hath tormented all interpreters, and that upon the same, as upon a gibbet have the wits of all hanged. Now hath Genebrarde taken away the gibbet, and released his friends from cruel vexation, and that by changing without any great trouble, pots into lots.  
In the 73. Psalm David declaring the great prosperity of the wicked, 
Psal. 73.4.  saith in the 4. v. that there are no bands in their death, or until their death: and that their strength is lusty. Look now upon this translation of yours, 
Non est respectus morti eorum & firmamentum in plaga ●●rum.  There is no respect to their death: and there is strength in their sore, and tell us how it accordeth with the text. The words are diverse, the sense is changed, and therefore the corruption cannot be excused.  
In the 74. 
psal. 74. ●.  Psalm the Prophet complaining of the wicked, saith, they have burnt all the synagogues of God: which text in your translation is strangely altered and corrupted in this manner, Let us make all the festival days of God to cease. 
Quiescere faciamus omnes dies festos Dei.  Themselves confess the place is not faithfully translated, by reason that the Greek word was utterly mistaken of their translator. For where in the Greek it was translated thus, Let us burn, the latin translator not looking so narrowly to his copy as he ought, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  took one letter for an other, & so hath given us another word & an other sense. And notwithstanding they acknowledge both the corruption & the cause thereof, yet keep they still the same so certain & clear a corruption in their Bibles, & use it in their Offices, & breviaries even those that were corrected and printed last by the Pope's commandment.  
In like manner and by like occasion hath been committed a fault in the 84. Psalm, 
psal. 84.12.  wherein your translation hath these words in all your books old and new without any correction: 
Quia misericord. & veritatem diligit Deut.  Because God loveth mercy and truth: And are not these good words? who can say otherwise? the words in deed are good and godly: but the translation is nought. For this should the translation of that text have been, The Lord God is our sun and shield, as Genebrarde and your own men cannot deny. In the 88 Psalm David saith, shall the dead arise and praise thee? But your translation is ridiculous, shall the Physicians raise up? turning dead into Physicians, 
Aut m●dici suscitabunt.  and rising into raising. Here Genebrarde to mend all that is amiss, hath invented a new sense thus, shall the Phisicianes raise up, that is, the dead, that they may praise thee. physicians are appointed to save alive, if they can, not to raise the dead: for if one be dead, it is to late to call the Physician. I marvel he was not ashamed to make so lewd a gloss.  
In the 92. Psalm your translation hath plentiful mercy, 
psal. 92.11. Misericord. vber●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for fresh oil: which error did grow by mistaking a Greek word that signifieth mercy, for an other that signifieth oil, because they are something like in certain cases.  
In the 132. Psalm the Lord saith, 
psal. 132.15.  I will plentfullie bless her victuals: in your translation, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  victuals is turned into widow. and thus is it read, I will bless her widow. This Genebrarde cannot deny to be a fault, and showeth how it came, by mistaking a word, and not looking to the original verity. Yet for all this your books are not corrected, but still you keep and use such witless, and palpable faults in your Bibles: you read, you sing, you preach these and many more the like corruptions for the true word of God, and text of scrpiture: you see these things, and will not for all that be brought to reform them.  
What can we say or think of you, but that you are set and resolute to do amiss?  
It is a weariness to wade any further: & therefore I will for this book content myself with these examples and proofs of notable corruption therein committed by your translator, whosoever he was.  
And because I have been already something long, I will be shorter in that which followeth, and as it were but glaine one by one, where I might take up whole handfuls together.  
The book of proverbs hath not escaped the foul hands of such corrupters rather than translators, as by many places of the same may too plainly be perceived. 
Prou. C. 4. in fine.  In the latter end of the fourth Chap. a great many of words together are added to the text, as is acknowledged by the adversaries themselves. In the sixth Chapter the vulgar translation hath, Thou hast fixed down thy soul with the stranger: Whereas it should be thus, 
c. 6.1.  thou hast shaken hands with the stranger. And after the 11. vers. a whole sentence is thrust into the text, which ought to have no place therein. Again in the 26. verse of his Chapter, where Solomon saith that by reason of a harlot a man is brought to a morsel of bread, the words of your translation are these, the price of an harlot is scarcely the worth of one loaf: 
Pretium scorti est vix unius panis. c. 7.1.  no doubt wisely and cunningly translated. In the 7. Chapter after the end of the first verse is an other addition of a whole sentence: and so also is there in the end of the 9 Chap. 
C. 9 in fine.  And in other places sundry more, not only of words, but of whole verses and sentences: which cannot any ways be otherwise accounted then a thing unlawful in God's word, and by no means to be defended.  
In the 12. Chap. your translation hath, 
Prou. 12.29.  he that neglecteth a loss for a friend, is a just man. A wise saying perhaps. But salomon's sentence in this place is far otherwise, The just man is more excellent than his neighbour. In the 16. Chap. a true weight and balance (saith the wise man) are of the Lord: 
prou. 16.11.  and then immediately it followeth, And all the stones or weights of the bag are his works. 
sacculi.  these last words are thus translated in your books, And all the stones of the world are his works, 
seculi.  by a small change of the bag into the world. This you will say was the writer's fault, and not the translators. verily so I think: for no translator of any skill could be so much deceived in the Hebrew word. But why then keep you this corruption still in the text of scripture? why will you not amend a fault so foul, and so sensible, that it may be felt with the finger? And thus hath it gone in your books of many hundred years, as may appear by Beda & other latin writers in their commentaries. v. 3 And in the same Chapter before, where Solomon exhorteth us to cast or commit our works unto the Lord, 
Deuolue. Revela.  in your translation we are bid to reveal our works unto the Lord. In the 20. Chapter your vulgar translations have corrupted and falsified a text diversely. 
Prou. 20.25.  Some copies read thus, It is ruin to a man to call down the saints: others, to note the saints: others, 
devocare. denotare. devotare. devorare  to vow the saints: others to devour the saints. And this last cometh nearest to the truth, for Solomon saith, indeed, It is a man's ruin, to devour a holy or sanctified thing. 
Kodesh. prou. 30.33.  In the latter end of the 30. Chapter, whereas Solomon saith, (he that presseth or churneth milk, bringeth forth butter, so to press and force wrath, causeth strife,) your translator hath told us a pretty tale in this sort, He that presseth strongly the paps to draw forth milk, he bringeth forth butter, which thing yet I believe was never seen. But such absurdities in your translation must be borne withal. In the last Chap. among the other praises of a worthy and excellent woman that is one, 
prou. 31.19.  that she putteth her hand to the whirl: for which your translation saith, 
Ad fortia.  she putteth her hand to valiant things. Such as these, be there many faults in your translation of this book, which might in all translations deserve reproof, and require correction, but most of all in the holy scriptures of almighty God.  
In the book of the Preacher Solomon saith in the very conclusion, 
Eccle. 12.14.  God will bring every work into judgement, with every hidden thing, whether it be good or evil: your translation goeth something wide from this true sense, and telleth us that God will bring into judgement all things that are done, for every error, 
Pro omni errato. Cant. 1.2. & 4.10. Cant. 2.17.  be it good or evil. In the book of Canticles by mistaking an hebrew word, your translator hath put thy paps for thy Love diverse times. In the 2. Chapter for Bether is put Bethel, and so still is it standing in your text, and of long hath stood, as appeareth by Gregory & S. Bernard: & yet is it a plain corruption in the judgement of all, that can judge any thing, insomuch as Genebrard hath not feared to make a change of the words even in the text itself, which he hath printed with his annotations. In the 4. Chapter in steed of these words between thy looks, 
Cant. 4.1.  your translation hath far otherwise, 
absque eo quod intrinsecus latet. torque. crine.  besides that which lieth hid inwardly: and afterward for one chain of thy neck, it hath one hear of thy neck. All this perhaps in your judgement seemeth little, who have learned more highly to esteem the word of your Pope, then of God, and therefore so your Pope may gain something, or lose nothing, you care not how corruptly or sincerely God's word be red and set forth amongst you. But they that consider how holy and precious a thing the word of God is, and what charge the Lord hath given to keep it faithfully, must needs confess that these are indeed gross corruptions, and aught with all diligence to be searched, and removed out of the Scriptures.  
The books of the holy Prophets although they are not so generally and foully defaced, as some other Scriptures, by this corrupt kind of translating, and by such faults as have since the translation grown by sundry means, yet are they not in your vulgar edition so incorrupt and sincere, as they ought to be, seeing they may by the authentical text easily be amended. I might set down sundry proofs and testimonies of such imperfections, as I have now done in other books. And it were a thing greatly to be wished, that some man of learning and judgement would throughly and perfectly discover the corruptions of this whole translation: whereby it would fully appear what shame or truth there is in the Church of Rome to prefer it before the faithful original books of holy scripture, as it doth now in part appear by this that hath been before alleged. I verily am afraid lest I have already wearied the reader with multitude of examples: and the thing, which I took in hand to prove, I have not only in this treatise sufficiently, but also most plentifully performed.  
The translation of the new testament is something more tolerable in respect, then of the old. Yet he that will look narrowly into the same, shall find cause and matter enough of complaint against either the ignorance, or negligence, or malice of some, by whose fault it hath been no better preserved in that holy pureness and integrity, which the word of God doth require, and especially this so singular a part of his word. Wherein already both Valla, and Faber, and Erasmus, and Beza, and Camerarius, and many more have laboured to show the errors of that translation, for which their pains as they have deserved great thanks of all the godly, so have they received much hatred and discourtesy at the adversaries hands.  
For avoiding tedious length, more than were in this answer convenient, I refer the readers for the new testament to those learned writers, by perusing of whom, and of that which I have gathered here together, and thus particularly noted, he shall manifestly perceive that in the Romish vulgar translation are manifold and almost infinite faults of all sorts, by adding, by omitting, by mistaking of letters, points, syllables, and words, by wrong interpreting the original text. Which faults they shall never be able to approve or justify, though they weary themselves never so much with traveling and toiling, and seeking some defence. When they have said, what they can say for maintenance of these corruptions, it shall for all that still appear by all learning and true evidence of reason that they have neither the old nor new Testament in the entire and original truth thereof.   

CHAp. 13.  
Of the new Testament in latin: and a comparison of the vulgar translator with all other of this age.  
NOw M. R. beginneth to declaim against. 
pag. 361.  the new Testament in Greek, as he hath in the former Chapter done against the old Testament in Hebrew. Wherein how unfeignedly and unworthily he hath behaved himself, the wise reader may perceive by that which hath been answered to his particular reprehensions. And as no cause can be alleged to prefer the latin translation of the old Testament before the Hebrew fountain, so no less absurd and unreasonable is it to leave the Greek, and follow the vulgar translation in the new testament.  
Their chiefest reason of greatest show and likelihood against the Hebrew text is the malice and impiety of the jews, who being enemies of Christian religion may therefore be thought to have in many places corrupted their bibles of purpose to disgrace and discredit the Gospel of Christ. But as this is proved most untrue, so being granted for true, it can be no reason against the Greek testament, which ever since the writing and first publishing thereof remained in the custody and handling of most godly fathers, Churches and Countries, who had as great skill and care to preserve it from corruption, as had the latins to keep their translations pure and sincere. Then what reason can you bring, or what colour of reason can you pretend in the new testament to cleave only to the latin, and to reject the Greek? The latin, you say, is purer, than the Greek. So have your fellows of Rheims indeed told us, and this they make their principal ground, whereupon they have been bold to follow the latin, and not the Greek, in translating the new testament. But what advantage soever you think to make of this, or any other such reason, true it is, and by trial so shall be found, and hath heretofore by diverse sufficiently been proved, that the latin translation of the new testament is more generally & notoriously corrupted, than you shall ever be able to avouch of the Greek original text. That Beza writeth against Erasmus in commendation & defence of the latin translation, it is evident, he meaneth not wholly to excuse it from corruption in all places, but only in certain, which Erasmus found fault withal. For otherwise Beza showeth the vulgar translation to be full of corruptions, as if you read his annotations, you may perceive. Wherefore this testimony of Beza served your Remists to little purpose, but that they have a sleight to make such things as are spoken, in some respect, seem to be uttered without exception, as in this place and many others may be seen.  
Your assertions are now to be examined by which you labour to strengthen the Remish slander of corruption against the Greek testament. 
Pag. 363.  Three in number have you brought, of no importance, as shall appear, so that we may easily think they are indeed your own. The first is, the difference of our Greek copies now, 
M. Rai. arguments against the new testament in Greek confuted.  from the old. It may perhaps (I grant) be proved, that in the Greek copies of the new testament some diversity may be found. So was there much greater difference in the latin translations, as yourself cannot deny. Then what maketh this for the latin translation, against the Greek fountain? if you say the latin was corrected, I answer, it was indeed corrected, but according to the Greek, and the Greek now remaineth still, which may be proved to be not only as pure, as the latin, but purer by many degrees. For what reason have you to say, that the latin translation ever since the correction hath been preserved faithfully without corruption: but the Greek text itself, after which it was corrected, became forthwith distained and replenished with gross corruptions? Our Greek testament for the most part, and in a manner every where, agreeth fully with that copy, which the ancient Greek Church used, and which therefore undoubtedly was the true original Greek text of the new testament. And as the old latin Church reform her translations according to the copies used in the Greek Churches, so shall it never be proved, but that the same Greek copies have continued still as free from corruption, as the latin translations have: wherefore the difference of our Greek copies now from some old, maketh nothing against the purity and authority of our Greek Testament, unless you can show by evident proof, that the Greek Testament now extant differeth from that, which the Greek Churches in times passed generally used. Some difference there might be (I deny not) in such infinite multitude of copies. But what then? is no copy now therefore to be allowed? May we not also show the like difference between these latter editions of your latin translation, and some other of elder time? you know we can, and it is by your own writers confessed, & acknowledged. Is this then a learned observation? is this a good conclusion? is this a sound reason against the greek testament? such arguments run for currant at Rheims, where popish blindness reigneth: but being a little opened and laid forth in the light, are by and by espied to be nought. Of this difference two examples you allege: the former, is the story of the adulterous woman in the eight of S. john: which although some Greek copies have wanted, as apeereth by the Syriake interpreter, by Chrysostom, by Nonnus, by Jerome, yet others of as great authority had it. So this difference is not through later corruption, nor proveth no more that the Greek testament now is to be rejected, than it was in S. Chrysostom's days. And furthermore this story being in your vulgar translation, what can you devise against the Greek, more than the latin? The Greek and latin agreeing, how is the Greek more corrupt than the Latin? The other is in the Epistle to the Ephesians, Chap. 3. verse 14. Wherein Saint Jerome saith certain words were added in the latin, Domini nostri jesu Christi, not being in the Greek. But that herein Saint Jerome was deceived, appeareth by S. Chrystome, who readeth the words in the Greek as you may see in his Greek commentaries. And by this one example we may further note, what diligence Saint Jerome used some time in correcting the latin according to the Greek, that denieth words to be in the Greek, which yet are found in Saint Chrysostom's copies, and many more.  
Your second observation is of rash additions, which have been made in the Greek text. 
Pag. 365.  If this be an argument of any force against the testament in Greek, it must have much more weight against your common translation, which is so full of additions both in the old testament, as I have showed, and also in the new, as hath been faithfully declared by others. Your examples are but two: the one in Saint john's Gospel Chap. 8. vers. 59 It may indeed appear that those last words of the verse, passing through the midst of them, and so departed, have been added. But this corruption may be espied, and corrected by ancient copies, and so in this respect no cause to reject or disallow the whole text in Greek. The other is the conclusion of the lords prayer, For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever and ever. Amen. This piece, as you call it, your latin hath not, our Greek copies have. That some had it not in times past, I confess: that others had it, is plain by the Syriake translator: if you suspect our copy of corruption, why may not weas probably suspect the same of yours? and we have as just cause to be offended with you for omitting this, as you with us for so glorious singing and saying of it.  
The third observation is, 
pa 3. 67.  that the Greek testaments oftentimes omit that, which they should not. Examples in Luc. Chap. 1. v. 35. and Chapter. 17. v. 36. For the first, you might have found, that in many greek copies now extant and used, the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of thee, are not omitted, and that hath Beza noted, and therefore supplied those words in the greek of the last Genevian edition. Your reproach of Anabaptisme is ridiculous. The same may be answered of the second. For that 3 6. verse of Luc. 17. is extant in sundry greek editions, as well as in your latin translation. But what maketh all this to purpose? Conclude hereof an argument, if you can, that therefore the greek testament is more corrupted, than the latin. What a pitiful syllogism will this be, that must severally of these places be concluded, that therefore the greek testament is more corrupt, than the latin vulgar edition, because the latin is in some places not so faulty, as some Greek copies either are, or have been supposed to be.  
Your last and principal reason, 
pag. 371. etc.  why your Latin translator ought to be preferred before all other, toucheth not the cause in hand, as your own words do witness. The controversy is not, which translation is best, and most to be preferred, but whether this latin edition of your translator, whosoever he were, be worthily of your Church preferred before the original fountain. Admit he was endued with such qualities as are most requisite in faithful translators of scripture, & in respect thereof deserveth greater credit, than the rest: doth it therefore follow, Master Rainolds, that we must prefer him before the writers of holy scripture themselves? was he of sounder religion towards God, endued with greater grace and spirit, more void of partiality and affection, than they? Otherwise if you compare him with other translators, although I know herein your judgement is altogether partial, yet as this reason may advance him to higher estimation than other translators: so must it cast him down as much and more beneath the writers themselves, in that they being chosen instruments of God for that purpose, were most plentifully endued and assisted with all graces of the holy Ghost, which can not be avouched of that translator, how excellent otherwise soever he were. Other surmises and geasses of corruptions in the original text more than in the translation, as they are by you oft repeated, & by sundry impertinent testimonies of our writers idly enlarged, so shall they never be truly and substantially proved, whereby it might appear that the latin translation is more to be allowed and esteemed generally then the Greek text.  
To oppose some of our new translators against your old, 
pag. 375. etc.  were verily an easy matter: but thus should we slip away from the question, and fall to other discourses, wherein the controversy lieth not. If we should attribute as much learning and diligence to your translator, as such a man could have and use, yet would you confess (I trust) he were still far inferior to the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, whose writings remain, and are the holy canonical scriptures of God. These writings do we oppose against your translation, and these do you wickedly and shamefully dishonour, in preferring the translation of such a man before them. This you are not able either reasonably to defend, or colourably to excuse, and therefore you run another way, as though you chased your enemy, whereas fear causeth your self to fly. All this talk of Erasmus, Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Castalion, Caluine, Beza, and their translations, is from the purpose. We make no such account of any of them, as you do of yours, to allow and receive whatsoever they have translated, without examining their translations by the text. we prefer whom we know to have dealt in that work most faithfully, and if we find by skill and trial some oversight in the translation (as in the best some may be found) we cleave to the original text of scripture, and not after your preposterous manner, to the corrupt translation. Now of all translations set forth by Protestants of all countries, sure I am you cannot show any so repugnant to the verity of the Hebrew and Greek fountains, as I can show, and as it hath been showed that yours is. That Luther's and Bezaes', and the other several translations have been by some in certain places reproved, is true. But what kind of argument call you this, because some errors have been noted in this or that translation, therefore to conclude the whole translation is nought, or worse than yours? Emserus a papist (you say) hath gathered out of Luther's translation fourteen hundred foul lies. If I said, that this in him were a foul lie, I should say truly: Luther's translation hath been sufficiently commended and maintained by men of greater wisdom and learning than Emserus. That Zuinglius also misliked Luther's translation in some parts, and Beza the basil translation, and that of Castalion, and Molinaeus Calaines, and Bezaes' translations, which matters are by you at large rehearsed, as thouge they made somewhat to purpose, I grant and give you leave to make thereof what you can. But if this seem in your judgement a thing so odious and slanderous to our translatious, that thus they have been severally charged by some, what may we think and say of you, that not content to accuse our translations (though far better than any you have) of such impiety, dare affirm the original books themselves now extant to be so full of gross and notorious corruptions (which you shall never prove) that your vulgar translation known to be most corrupt, is purer than they? what soever hath been said by any against our translations, is in no respect of like heinousness to this, seeing that not only the books of scripture were written and set forth at the first most purely, but the means also have evermore been as great to keep and continue them in the same purity, as any translation whatsoever.  
Your judgement of our English Bibles is answerable to that spirit, where with you are poffessed, and of the abundance whereof you writ. Nothing else they are (you say) but corrupt gutters flowing from corrupt and stinking lakes, 
M. R. contumelies against the English translations of the scriptures  the best containing wicked, horrible, and ethnical errors, A slander most wicked, horrible, ethnical, of all men to be detested: never shall you prove any word hereof true. Gregory Martin hath laboured herein, and performed nothing: your skill is only in open railing: other deed of moment can you do none against us. If you find fault with us for correcting our Bibles, show us, if you can, that either it is unlawful to translate the Bible into our own tongue, or else after is hath been translated, to reform the translation in such places wherein some errors have escaped, or to translate it over again. No translation of the scripture can at the first be so perfect and sincere, but it may be afterwards amended, as God shall reveal to his Church the faults thereof. Otherwise if it were any fault to amend a fault, why hath your Council of Trident taken order for the correction of your latin translation, and for a better edition thereof to be published, then heretofore hath been? yea why hath Pope Pius reform your Psalters, breviaries, Offices, and such other books, as are with you in greatest use and estimation? If this seemed requisite, why may not we look to our translations like wise, amend the imperfefections, set forth better? But your grief is, that we have translated the scriptures at all: although (I trust) you will not now condemn the thing plainly, seeing yourselves at length have given us an English translation of the new testament, which if you think to be so absolute, as it shall never need any reformation, your judgement is to be pitied rather, then confuted.  
Twoe reasons are alleged, 
pag. 387.  why you may not translate the new testament after the Greek: 
The reasons why the Rhemists have not translated the new testament according to the greek.  first, because you think your latin Testament to be truer, than the common Greek copies now extant. Thus you tell us what you think, but reason or proof of this so absurd a thought have you none. Let me answer you, as Saint Jerome answereth helvidius the heretic in this point, 
H●eron adver. Heluid.  tibi stultissimè persuasisti Graecos codices esse falsatos: Thou hast persuaded thyself most foolishly that the Greek books (of the new testament) are falsified: and why may you not as well think, that the latin testament is corrupt, as the Greek? what argument have you more for the one, than the other? But your second reason is more absurd, wherein you profess that although you had the true originals, yet could you not make in these days a better translation. Wherefore could you not? the thing is not hard if you had simple and willing minds. But now may we see by this your protestation, that whatsoever you speak against the corruption of the original books, in respect where of you will seem to prefer your common translation before them, yet although you had as true originals as ever were or could be wished, notwithstanding you would still make more account of your translation, then of them.  
That wherefoever we find fault with your translation, some one of our own brethren standeth with you in defence of your translation, is untrue. I have showed examples enough of gross and manifest corruptions in the translation of the old testament, which none our brethren as you call them, ever went about to excuse. Valla, Erasmus, Beza, have noted many in your translation of the new, although I grant that both Erasmus doth instlie reprove Valla, and Beza hath worthily reproved Erasmus in some places of their reprehensions. And so may it fall out to those that take pains in correcting a book full of corruptions, as your latin translation is, sometime to find a fault, where none is & the latter corrector to dissent from the former. Your Tridentine decree which you commend, being set forth by so many excellent godly learned men, as you say were impiety to compare all the scattered synagogues of Lutherans with them, hath been tried and examined by more godly and learned men, than ever were in that synagogue assembled, wherein neither godliness nor learning, but Antichristian tyranny prevailed.  
One example I alleged of corruption in your latin Testament: 
pag. 391. etc.  and that I might have gathered many more, is evident by that which hath been declared before. In the 1. Cor. 15. v. 54. these words are wanting in your translation, when this corruptible hath put on incorruption, which yet are found in all greek copies now extant, and were not only in the old greek testaments, as appeareth by S. Chrysostom, but also even in the ancient latin translations thereof, and that by your own co●●ession. Hereunto you make long and frivolous answers by distinctions of points.  
First you say, there is no loss of any part of doctrine: for the same thing is set down in the next lines before. A proper reason, which giveth liberty to scrape out of the scriptures, whatsoever is in other places repeated. secondly you add, that some reason you have to think that parcel repeated not to be of the text. As good have you to think that these words when this mortal shall put on immortality, are not of the text, seeing they are set down in the lines immediately going before. thirdly, that it was in some greek copies, as you read. Perhaps so: but what then, seeing doubtless the most and best read it other wise? fourthly, you think more reason to correct Chrysostom by Jerome, than Jerome by Chrysostom. Yet may it seem otherwise to indifferent men, that Chrysostom and the Church of Constantinople had as true copies, and as great varictie of books, as Jerome could have any. For where should Jerome seek for true and faithful copies of the new Testament, but in the Greek Church? and in which more than in that? and who liker to have the truest, then Chrysostom? I think therefore no man of discretion can otherwise judge, but that it is much more likely S. Chrysostom's reading to be true, then S. Ieromes, if they diffent, especially other latin translations agreeing uviht that text, which S. Chrysostom followed. And Saint Jerome many times in his Epistles and treatisies reprehendeth the common latin reading, 
The vulgar translation of the new testament reproved indiverse places by S. Jerome.  even the same that is now currant in your latin testaments. Whereby may appear that the same was not in his judgment every where so entire, as you affirm. That Saint Chrysostom maketh against us, and approveth your reading, I wonder with what face you could avouch. Let any man read S. Chrysostom in Greek, and if he find not the text in him set down as our Greek testaments read it, both in the first and second place, I am content to yield the whole to Master Rainolds. And so likewise readeth Oecumenius this place. I grant S. Ambrose hath it only in the first place, yet other latin fathers read it according to the verity of the Greek, as yourself confess, which as much as I maintain. fiftly, you think it enough for defence of your translation, that the same words are added in the margin, which is but a poor shift, when you have thrust the text of scripture out of his due and proper seat, to give it some room in a corner. And yet your English translation hath discharged it of that place also, and wiped it clean away both out of text and margin.  
That not here only, 
pag. 399. etc.  but in other manifold places also you keep the errors of the latin translation contrary to the truth of the Greek copies, is a thing that hath been plentifully proved by many, and therefore to say so, was no brag. Aria Montanus how good a priest soever he be, doubtless is not of your judgement concerning the Hebrew and greek originals of scripture, and therefore cannot allow that wicked decree of the Tridentine Council, wherein the corrupt translation is confirmed and established for the Canonical word of God, by general consent & commandment, the true & original Canon of scriptures being there rejected and disgraced. Now than whether in this and such other respects I had not just cause to call you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, injurious to the Bible, I refer to the judgement of all godly and wise readers. For what greater injury or contumely can be offered to the holy Bible, than not only to approve a translation, that is full of corruptions in all parts thereof, for the authentical Bible and word of god; but also to cast away the original Bible itself, as corrupt, and to give no further credit unto it, than it agreeth with your translation? And therefore that you maliciously avouch of us, that we have no Bibles, may most truly be said of you, that you have willingly refused the fountains of Gods most pure and blessed word, and have not amongst you in public regard and authority the true Bibles indeed, which you have wickedly both contemned and condemned. Your repetitions to the end of this Chapter, full of outrageous untruths and slanders, require no answer in this place: you have been fully answered before, and the whole world can testify to God's glory, and your confusion, that not one tittle of God's word and scriptures is by us denied.   

CHAP. 14.  
Wherein Master R. laboureth to prove, that it is the very way to Atheism, and infidelity to leave the ordinary translation of the Bible, and to appeal to the Hebrew, Greek, and such new diverse translations, as the Protestans have made.  
THis absurd Chapter M. R. 
pag. 406. etc.  beginneth with Castalion, translating long sentences out of the preface of his Bible to King Edward the sixth: wherein how untruely it is objected unto him, that he thinketh the Messiah promised in the law, not to be come as yet, and that he would have every man left to his own private judgement, I will not lose time to declare. Let Castalion say and write what he list, and let M. R. allege at his pleasure store of testimonies out of such authors, who can deny him liberty so to do, or who can think him worthy answer therein, when he hath so done? As Saint Jerome being urged with Tertullians' opinion, answered, De Tertulliano nihilamplius dico, quàm Ecclesia hominem non fuisse: That he was not a man of the Church, so will answer no more about Castalion, but that he was a man not sound in some points of the Catholic faith and religion of Christ, as by his dealings and writings hath appeared: and therefore we make no great account of him, nor have regard what assertions he held, what counsel he gave, what can be rehearsed out of his works. All this was vainly brought in and no less vain is it, that you talk of neglecting all antiquity, & suspending our religion upon the only testament translated after the new guise, where (you say) is found more variety, than there are conlours in the rainbow. Do we neglect antiquity, or you rather? For which is more ancient (Master Rainolds) the Hebrew and Greek, or the Latin? and do not you suspend your religion upon the testament translated, that have no scripture in your Church, but only a translation, of which I may truly say, that greater imperfections, and more corruptions are found therein, then in all our English translations together can be espied? we depend not upon any translation, English, or Latin, or of other language, no otherwise then the same agreeth with the original text: but your whole Church indeed is hanged upon the latin translation only, which how bad it is, hath partly been showed already, and if need require, shall much more be discovered. That you ask which Hebrew, which Greeke I mean, are you so ignorant not to know the Hebrew Bible, and greek testament? How many Hebrews, how many greeks have you, unless you mean certain editions of the greek testament, wherein is found small variety of any moment. 
pag. 411.   
To prove that the departing from the latin translation is the very introduction to Apostasy, you propound one example of the heretics in Germany, called Antinomi, who hold, 
M. Rai. chargeth us with the heresy of the Antinomies most untruely.  as Sleidan writeth, that how wickedly soever a man liveth, yet if he believe the gospel, he shall be justified: and this you say is the very conclusion of the Protestants common doctrine of justification by faith. What need you, M. Rainolds, in this place thus falsely, and maliciously to slander us? Do we teach any such doctrine as this in our Church? do we give liberty of licentious life to the professors of the gospel? doth justification by faith infer this wicked and detestable conclusion: your conscience can tell you, that you speak untruely. If hope of repentance be left for such slanderers and blaspehmers, God give you repentance: otherwise I doubt not the Lord will avenge in time such reproaches against his holy religion. Let us now consider your proceeding against these men.  
First 
pag 411.  fathers and councils are by them (you say) not regarded: which I grant may well be, that such wicked men will regard neither fathers nor councils: but this can not be understood of us, who have the fathers and the councils in such reverence and regard, as meet is we should. Then Saint james is also by them rejected, as contrary to Saint Paul. They that reject Saint james, be they Antinomi, or whosoever, let them answer for it themselves, this appertaineth not unto us: but hereof hath been said enough before. thirdly, the epistle to the Hebrews is denied by Beza and Caluine to be Saint Paul. What then? is it denied therefore to be holy scripture? And for Illyricus, he is so far from denying this Epistle to be Canonical scripture, that he thinketh the same to be written by Saint Paul himself, and to be amongst excellent and necessary part of the Scripture, as you may read in his preface upon that epistle. fourthly, Saint Peter's place is brought in, which helpeth little, 
2. pet. 1.20.  whether we read the words (by good works) according to the latin translation, or leave them out, according to the greek verity. That our calling & election is confirmed by good works, maketh nothing against justification by faith. Will you say we are elected and called by our works? that is gross heresy, worse than Pelagianisme. But Saint Peter biddeth us to make our vocation and election sure by good works, and yet you know yourselves and grant, that our vocation and election is wrought without any means of good works, because we are elected before the world, and before our vocation our works were only wicked, what maketh all this then for merit of good works, that they are testimonies and arguments of our election and effectual vocation? 
1 Pet. 1. 2●  fiftly, an other pregnant place is brought out of the first of Saint Peter, against which no exception can be made, whereby you say is proved first, that we have free will: which I grant we have, after we are regenerate, secondly, that we purify ourselves from sin, as though we denied that after grace received we ought, and in some measure might labour against the sins and corruptions of our soul. thirdly, that good works are necessarily required of Christian men: this indeed confuteth those heretics of whom you speak, but maketh nothing against us, who think, teach, and continually preach, that good works are necessary for all Christians, otherwise they shall never see the kingdom of god: so that we are as far from that damnable heresy of the Anabaptists and Antinomies, as heaven is from earth. Further you proceed to a place of Saint Paul. Phil. 1. v. 28 where any man of knowledge may soon perceive that your translator was deceived foully, when he translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cause, the word signifying not a cause, but a plain declaration, or proof. And this is the manifest meaning of Saint Paul in that place, that as the malice and rage of the wicked enemies of the Church is an argument of their condemnation, so the patience of the godly in suffering such afflictions is an evident proof that they are the children of god, and therefore shall inherit eternal life. Not Beza therefore, but you, and your translator have altered the text, and perverted the sense of this scripture. As for your other argument our of Luke. 7. v. 47. of the woman to whom many sins were remitted, it hath been answered so fully and truly by sundry learned writers, that I might wholly pass it over. 
A chie●● place of the papists for merit of works answer and expounded  Only this in brief I say to stop your railing mouth, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because, is often times used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore: & that so in this place it must be of necessity expounded, may appear by an invincible reason, which yourselves cannot deny. For that woman being so deeply drowned in deadly sin, how could her love deserve the grace of God, and remission of her sins? doth your scholastical Theology maintain, that a sinful creature, lying in state of condemnation can by love merit pardon of his sins? Tell us plainly, if this be your doctrine, your religion, your divinity. If then this be most false and impossible, confess that the love of that sinful and miserable woman, was not be cause of forgiveness of her sins, but the effect following, and not going before the same. This doctrine is true and Catholic, the contrary wicked and heretical, and therefore no cause had you to rail so mightily at Beza and us for translating & expounding this word as we do, & as the proportion of faith, & circumstance of the place most undoubtedly and necessarily requireth. For our saviour Christ showeth the cause of her so great love to be the forgiveness of the great and many sins. They to whom little is forgiven, love a little: they to whom much is forgiven, love much. She had much forgiven, therefore she loved much. And this the Fathers also acknowledge to be the true and natural seuse of the place, although you abuse their names to the contrary. S. Gregory as he is also by Thomas alleged, 
Gr●g. 〈◊〉 83. ●● Luangell.  writeth thus, The debt being forgiven to both, the Pharisie is demanded who should more love him that forgave the debt. You see that Gregory expoundeth this of the love that followed the forgiveness of the debt. And so likewise Saint Ambrose upon this place, 
Ambros. is Luc. 7.  Because (saith he) there is nothing which we can worthily render unto God, woe be unto me, if I love not. I dare say Peter rendered not, and therefore he loved more, etc. Let us therefore render love for debt, charity for reward, thanks for the prize of his blood. Thus Saint Ambrose planlie showeth, that this love in that woman did spring from remission of her sins, 
C●nus. l. 12. c. 12.  as it must in us also proceed from the same fountain. I could also put you in mind what Canus a schoolman of yours hath written of this place clean overthrowing your opinion, as if he had of purpose devised a shift for you. Notwithstanding that the fathers sometime write, our sins are washed a way by tears of repentance, I grant: whereby they mean no other thing, but that by our earnest sorrow and repentance we receive a sure testimony to our souls of the remission of our sins. Your discourse about Musculus exposition I pretermit, with all your monstrous reproaches, & blasphemies of Lucianical only faith, etc. except the devil himself stood by them, and suggested to them such construction, etc. fit for you to utter, then me to rehearse or answer. 
pag. 428.   
This whole matter again M.R. layeth out in particular distinctions, whereunto hath been answered enough alreadle, and more than nedd, but only in respect of that intolerable and outrageous Importunity, which this caviller hath used. If this be an unlawful shift in expounding of scripture, to try and correct the translation according to the Hebrew and Greek fountains, then have all the ancient fathers of the Church exercised continually wicked shifts, who both appeal themselves to the authentical fountains, and counsel all others to do the same: far otherwise then your fathers of Tre● have done, or will suffer others to do. whotie their faith wholly to a bare translation, and give no credit to the Canonical fountains: wherein they have not only use the damnable and miserable shift, but at once have razed out the whole scriptures from beginning toending. 
Grat. dist. 9 ut veter.  S. Augustine saith, the books of the old Testament must be examined by the Hebrew, and the new by the Greek verity. Saint Ambrose saith, 
Ambrosade incarn. cap. 8.  The authority of the Greek books of the new Testament is greater. S. Jerome is every where of the same mind: In the new Testament (saith he) if there arise any question among the Latins, 
Hier. ad son & Fret.  and there be difference in the copies, we repair to the fountains of the Greek tongue, wherein the new Testament was written: and so likewise in the old. In his preface upon the five books of Moses: he esteemeth it an absurd and impossible thing, that the latin copies should be purer than the Greek, and the Greek then the Hebrew. Again in a nother place he saith, if truth is to be sought, 
in a evang. ad Damas'.  why reiurne we not to the Greek original? speaking of the new Testament. And such sayings hath he many, always preferring the Hebrew & Greek before all translations in the world. But all this by M.R. simple verdict was but a shift in him, and all the ancient learned godly fathers. For it is the high way to Atheism in his opinion to do as they did, and as they have also taught us to do.  
Zuinglius exposition of love for faith, 
pag. 429.  I will not maintain. It may seem more curious, then necessary. In the text is no difficulty, if the simplicity of truth may be received. As for Tertullians' complaint of certain heretics, that either refused, or mangled, or corrupted the scriptures, it toucheth us no whit at all, who acknowledge the whole body of scriptures, and are so far of from wilful corruption thereof, that of purpose we would not alter one letter in the Bible, to win the whole world. Therefore we little regard your furious and senseless railing against us, where with you have stuffed all parts of your book, that never was scorpion fuller of poison, than it is of venomous and stinging reproaches.  
Leaving the Greek, you return again to the Hebrew, 
Pag. 431.  against which you have devised pretty reasons, to prove there is no hold in it against contentious heretics. The blasphemy of which assertion, 
M. Rain. saith that in the Hebrew text of scripture there is no hold.  I doubt not every reasonable man at the first will espy and abhor. For seeing it pleased the Lord, of all tongues of men under heaven to choose that tongue, wherein to write his word & oracles, that his Church might have a most perfect and certain rule of religion, shall this Papist come and control the wisdom of God for so doing, and say that of the Hebrew little hold can be taken to bind a contentious heretic? Thus it appeareth, that although we had the very same Autographall and authentical copies, which Moses and the other Prophets did write with their own hands, yet would this Seminary papist and his fellows make less account of them then of their translation, as being less able to bind heretics than it.  
The reason is, first the diverse significations of every word almost, which may seem perhaps to some simple body to make for their translation against the Hebrew. Whereunto I answer, first that although the Hebrew were so uncertain in respect of the manifold and diverse significations of words, as they would have it, yet were there no cause why the latin translation should more be allowed for the undoubted word of God, than the Greek or any other in the world. They are all no better than translations; and what warrant is there for one more than an other, but only in commendation of greater sincerity, and that in respect of faithfully expressing the Hebrew? secondly this variety of significations is not lately begun, but was always from the beginning: which notwithstanding the Hebrews could speak, and write their minds as plainly and certainly, as any other people: and the scriptures were read and expounded in that language many hundred years before any part of them was translated into Latin. So that this reason maketh them now no less able to bind heretics, than they have evermore been from the beginning. And what tongue (I pray you) were the scriptures written in, which the Apostle exhorteth Timothy to read, that he might stop the mouths of heretics, and which he saith are profitable to convince the Adversaries, but in the Hebrew and Greek? your latin translator was then unborn, when yet the scriptures in their original tongues were able to bind and confute all heretics. Your example out of the Psalm 55. ver. 21. showeth a plain corruption in your translation. For that Hebrew word with these letters and pricks cannot signify to reward, as your translation hath, but upon those that have peace with him, as our translations for the most have according to the Hebrew.  
The second reason is, 
pag. 433.  that many substantives may have diverse derivations from diverse verbs: and one example is brought out of the 60. Psalm, v. 6. To this may be answered as to the former, that if this diversity of derivation cause a diversity of expositions, it maketh no more against the Hebrew text now, then ever since the hebrew was first written.  
thirdly, 
pag. 434.  touching the literal sense of the hebrew words, you demand what masters we shall follow. If a controversy be about the signification of a word, whom should we follow rather than the most learned masters of that tongue? they can best resolve us that know the tongue best: and as this for words in all other languages is the only way, so likewise if we doubt of some word in hebrewe, what means may we use to be instructed and satisfied, but to learn of those that are most skilful in the tongue, and best know the natural force of the words. Who can deny that this is much better, then as your translator oftentimes doth, to call black white, and to give a signification of a word, which all Hebricians can tell, is clean amiss. Examples hereof are in your translation plentiful, as if before you knew not, now by that which I have already alleged, you may understand. That which followeth of Caluine, Beza, and the rest, hath nothing, but a poor brag not worth the mentioning.  
To your question, 
pag. 437.  whether I think it flat Atheism and Turkery, to deny that Christ was borne of a virgin, I answer, no Christian can think otherwise but that it is indeed plain Atheism, to deny this so principal an article of our faith. Then you require what scripture I have to prove this verity. I answer, I prove this verity by a plain text of scripture, in Matt. 1. v. 23. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Behold a virgin shall conceive. etc. But this, you say, proveth nothing by mine own rule, by Bezaes' common kind of scanning such citations, and by the protestants interpretation of this place. What rule, what scanning, what interpretation of ours can you allege against this most sufficient and evident proof? Did ever Beza, or I, or any other protestant speak any thing against this truth? If you can charge any of us, we desire no favour at your hands. But what cause or reason have you thus to say? Because this text is not according to the Hebrew, but the seventy as you affirm. Which to be a foul untruth and tending to Atheism and turcism, who seethe not? For if the Angel's words rehearsed in Saint Matthew be not agreeable to the verity of the Prophet's words, then may Turks, jews, Atheists, and wicked heretics indeed at their pleasure not only dispute against this article of our faith, but also condemn it, and we shall not be able to convince them. This advantage giveth M. Rainolds unto them, when he saith, Saint Matthewes text is not framed according to the hebrew, but the Greek translation. 
M. R. denieth the text of S. Matthew touching Christ borne of a virgin, to be according to the Hebrew.  Thus while you labour to prove that we in cleaving to the Hebrew text, do open a gap to Atheism, yourself in denying S. Matthewes text to be fully agreeable to the Hebrew, have opened a broad gate to all Atheists and Turks in the world. God forbid that we should ever utter word so much serving for defence of Atheism as you have here done: or else set down in word or writing that S. Matthewes place is not according to the Hebrew. If you take part with the jews, and openly maintain, that the Hebrew word signifieth not a virgin, but a young wench, then will I answer you as the godly fathers have answered those wicked enemies of Christ, that 〈◊〉 signifieth a young wench indeed, but one that is a virgin, being derived of the root that signifieth to 〈◊〉. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  So Saint Ie●●●● writeth, that this word not only signifieth a young maid or virgin, but more also, a virgin kept hid● and secret, by great diligence of he parents: and further also, a young virginus of tender age, not an old virgin, as some be. And although the word in Hebrew had signified only a wench, yet the Angel and Evangelists expounding it of such a wench as was a virgin also, this may suffice all Christians to believe and hold, that our saviour Christ was borne of a true virgin, let jews, Turks, Atheists, and heretics, say what they can to the contrary.  
Master R. is afraid lest men should think he studied to disgrace the Greek & Hebrew tongues, 
pag. 435. etc.  which he confesseth to be great helps to the attaining of the true sense in sundry places of scripture, and showeth what pains the Catholics have taken in setting forth the Bible in Hebrew and other languages. I grant you have not disgraced the tongues, but the scriptures written in those tongues you have endeavoured as much as in you lay to disgrace, although do what you can, you shall never be able to disgrace them truly. And herein may you firlie be compared to the jews; for as they keep the Hebrew text most carefully, but yet have lost the true meaning thereof: so you have indeed printed the old and new testament in Hebrew and Greek with diligence and great cost, but in the mean time you deny them to be the authentical word of God.  
This treatise you conclude full discreetly, that first we must be sure of our faith. That is a very good thing, but how this should be wrought, you tell us not. The latin translation is for this purpose no fit, than the Hebrew and Greek fountains, but rather many ways more unfit, being only a translation, and that an unperfect, a corrupt, an obscure translation: & though it were as excellent as ever any translation could be, which God knoweth is far otherwise, yet might it not attain to the divine perfection of the original text that was written, and published by the wisdom of God's holy spirit, and ministry of the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists. But (say you) let us hold the Church, than our Greek and Hebrew may do us some good: let us depart from her, our Greek and Hebrew will turn to our perdition. And I grant M. R. that to talk of the Greek and Hebrew, unless we hold the right faith in the true Church, helpeth us nothing, but rather increaseth our condemnation. But this is true no less, I am sure, of your latin, then of the Greek and Hebrew, unless there be some secret virtue in that, which is not in the other, that to talk of it, though a man hold not either faith or Church, may be a profitable thing. If this be not your meaning, then have your words no sense nor force of reason in them: a meet conclusion for such a discourse.   

CHAP. 15.  
Of the new testament set forth in the College of Rheims.  
AS Master Rainolds hath hitherto defended with great endeavour, 
pag. 443. etc.  and small success their latin vulgar translation so now is he come to maintain in like manner their Rhemish late English translation of the new Testament, whereof himself may seem to have been a principal author, or at least some special dealer in the work. First he rehearseth my words at large written in my preface concerning that translation, and setteth upon them six marks, whereof he intendeth in order and severally to speak. But before he come to the particular scannig of my words, he breaketh out into immoderate and immodest railing, wherein is nothing worthy answer: and therefore suffering him to play his part with ajax or Hercules, of whom he speaketh, let us proceed to the several points, and so shall it appear whether I have uttered any thing but a certain truth, or whether he had cause thus strangely to behave himself.  
First I said, that since the world was made, never was there set forth such a translation: 
pag. 445.  whereupon this man taketh occasion to talk of new Testaments and translations hereof set forth 5000. years ago. And have we not just cause to admire his wisdom and granitie, that could devise and handle in this sort such a simple fantasy of his own brain? since the world was created, never was found such a translation as the Rhemish is; therefore (saith Master Rainolds) there have been translations of the new Testament ever from the creation of the world. If any man else can so understand it, I am content to let it be so taken. To me it seemeth strange, that any man of reason should think and write thus absurdly, thus peevishly, thus falsely, unless it were to make himself ridiculous, and odious to all the world. But of this so foolish a conceit of his, we need not to speak more words. Now will Master Rainolds prove indeed that worse translations of the new Testament have been by us set forth of late, then theirs is, and therefore that I have said untruely, that theirs is worst of all.  
His argument is thus framed: 
pag. 450. etc.  a translation that transformeth God into a devil, must needs be worse than theirs: But seven of our translations, (whereof some have been set forth within these five years, transform God into a devil. Therefore these are worse than theirs. His assumption he proveth by a place translated in the first of S. Peter, Chap. 2. ver. 8. And here is made a great stir with long sentences out of Illyricus, Beza, Castalion. The indifferent reader willbe content with a short reply, when a longer is not requisite. Now than what is this heinous fault of our translations? Because they have translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto the which thing they were ordained. A grievous accusation, but a faint prose: the translation is right, and no more transformeth God into a devil, then do S. Peter's words themselves, which were written by direction of Gods most holy spirit. Here is no place to make discourse of this question, whether God be author of sin: which as it is a most impious assertion, so have you most falsely objected it unto us sundry times, and never could prove it once. This place of S. Peter we cannot otherwise translate, unless we would willingly translate amiss: & S. Peter's own text being sound, our translation agreeing fully therewith, cannot lead men into any such damnable opinion, as that is, whereof you speak. Yet saith M. R. very confidently, find you any so wilful and horrible an Atheism in ours, and hardly set a fire on them all. Take heed what you speak. Is this wilful and horrible Atheism? are all your books worthy to be burnt, if any such can be found in them? will you stand to this? How then have you translated the place yourselves? Let us look now on your translation: thus it is, wherein also they are put. This cannot be true, following your latin, which hath quo, for quod: and therefore in your margin you mend it thus, whereto also they are orderned. And how differeth this from ours? what Atheism is in ours more than in this? or why deserveth ours to be burnt rather than this? Burn your own if you list, Master Rainolds: and if you speak as you think, you have pronounced them in your judgement worthy to be cast into a fire: and so perhaps you could be content, so that ours might burn withal for company.  
The three points following, 
pag. 455. etc. 2.3.4.  are huddled up, and answered together, concerning unaccustomed and monstrous novelties of words, whereof their translation hath such examples, as the like in no other can be found, so as a man may justly call it a new fangled and ridiculous translation, devised rather to amaze the readers, and make the word of God a laughing stock, then to edify the Church of Christ. 
The Rhemish English translation most foolish and new fangled.  For who hath ever heard or read such words and phrases, as they have used and affected in their translation, whereas they might have retained as well the common and known manner of speaking, that their translation set forth in English might have been understood of English men? But they of purpose have so framed the same that the English is in many places as obscure in words, as the latin: which thing is in all translations a foul fault, but in translating of scripture most intolerable? And what reason should be hereof, but that men either should contemn, or not understand the scripture, which yet they will seem to translate for the benefit of the Church? 
Unaccustomed novelties of words and phrases in the Rhemish translation.  if you require examples, take but the book, and read a little, and soon shall you see strange affectation of novelties in words and speeches throughout their whole translation. There shall you find. The 
a Matt. 1.17.  transmigration of Babylon: 
b Mat. 13.28.  The enemy man: 
c Luc. 13.3.  unless you have penance: 
d Mat. 6.11.  Give us to day our supersubstantial bread: 
e Luc. 10.35.  whatsoever thou shalt supererogat: 
f Rom 13.13.  Not in chamberings, and impudicities: 
g Gal. 1.14.24  an emulator of the traditions of my fathers: I expugned the faith: 
h Gal. 4. ●7.  They emulate you not well, that you might emulate them: 
i 1. Pet. 2.5.  Be ye also yourselves superedified: 
k phil. 4.10.  Once at length you have reflorished to care for me: 
l jud 4.  Denying the only dominator and our Lord: 
m Ephe. 1 14.  to the redemption of acquisition: 
n Ephes. 6.12.  against the spirituals of wickedness in the celestials: 
o Marc. 5.22.  the Archisynagogue: 
p Gal. 5.21.  Ebrieties, commessations: 
q Apoc. 1.10.  the dominical day: 
r 1. Cor. 10.11.  But they are written to our correption: 
s phil. 2.20.  That in the name of jesus everr kneebowe of the celestials, terrestrials, and infernals: 
t Phil. 2.7.  But he exinanited himself: 
u Hebr. 13.16  For with such hosts God is promerited: 
x Heb. 13.1.  Let the charity of the fraternity abide in you: 
y 1. Tim. 6.20.  O Timothy keep the depositum: 
z Hebr. 2.17.  that he might repropitiate the sins of the people: 
a Matt. 27.59.  wrapped it in sindon, and laid it in a monument: 
b joan. 6.45.  All shall be docible of God: 
c joan. 5.2.  Upon probatica a pond: 
d joan. 8 46.  which of you shall argue me of sin? 
e joan. 15.25.  they hated me gratis: 
f joan. 18.1.  beyond the Torrent Cedron: 
g joan. 19.14.  It was the  of pasche. These and such like are the goodly flowers of their translation, besides the obscurity and ambiguity of sentences, by reason of leving out the verbs and other words in the English translation, which may in latin more easily be understood. Yet have they dealt something reasonably in adding a Dictionary to their translation, if it had been somewhat larger. Hereby the reader may judge, but better by reading the translation itself, whether I have not truly said of it, that it is a strange translation indeed, and such a one, as hard it were to find the like. But Master Rainolds answereth, that we rather delight in such novelty, than they, seeing they retain the ancient words, Mass, Priest, etc. and we refuse them: hereof hath been spoken before. And as for certain names of persons and places which some of our interpreters do reduce to the Hebrew sound, they cannot much trouble the reader, and they are rather used in books, than speech. Your accusation Master Rainolds of greater novelty in articles of faith amongst us, is false: and concerning the books of judith, Maccabees, and the rest of that sort, we have spoken sufficient before: your other railing I omit.  
What cause have we to be afraid of your translation? 
pag. 459. etc.  If you translate the word of God, that is it which we have translated and printed, and published so often. I wish indeed for my part, that your translation might be printed alone, and all men suffered to have and read it, that so by comparing it with ours, and with the original text, and by considering the whole shape of it, they might the more abhor your irreligious and profane handling the Testament of Christ. Your Annotations joined with your translation are devilish indeed and dangerous for all Christians to read, and therefore the godly wisdom of magistrates cannot suffer such books openly to be sold. You speak your pleasure of Master jewels dealing with hardings books, but falsely, all men knowing the contrary: and so further you proceed in blasphemous railing against the truth of Christ's gospel, which now in England is professed, calling it an Atheistical gospel. Such new terms of blasphemy have you devised and used many, so as we may perceive that you have profited well in your school of Apostasy, and are now come to the highest form and chair of scorners. 
Pag. 464. etc.   
Where the Rhemish translators would seem so precisely to translate the latin translation, as making the same account of it that we do of the Greek, I thought to admonish the reader, that this thing is not by them so truly and exactly performed every where, as it is constanlie pretended: but that these translators sometime leave their translation which they translate, and follow the greek rather than it. Two examples hereof I noted, of which Master Rainolds speaketh much, and more then enough, amplifying that in ten pages, which might have been comprised in as many lines, such leisure and pleasure hath he to run at large, as a wanton whelp that can not be kept from ranging abroad, nor brought to follow the mark. I purpose not to run after him, for than should I be as ill occupied as he: but keeping my purpose and manner, I will come to the matter in question. The first example is in the 12. Chapter of Saint Paul's epistle to the Romans, the 19 verse: where the Apostle forbiddeth us to revenge ourselves, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for so much as vengeance belongeth to the lord 
Non vosmet ipsos defende●tes.  The common translator hath expressed it otherwise, as though the Apostle would not have us to defend ourselves, making defence ●f ourselves and revengement all one, which yet are two diverse things in themselves. Our Rhemists in this place follow not their old translator, but the Apostles Greek text; and thus they have translated it, not revenging yourselves, my dearest. Who seethe not that here they have left the latin word, and followed the Greek, which differeth from the latin? Now Master Rainolds to prove himself a notable Grammarian, telleth us the latin agreeth with the Greek, and the English with the latin, and all is right. For he affirmeth, and by some unfit examples would prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to defend, and Defendo signifieth to revenge, alleging also some Dictionaries for his opinion. But, to make a short reply, let M. R. bring us forth any one example out of good author Greek or Latin, wherein the words are so used, as he teacheth, & then shall we easily yield in this case. By implication and consequence I grant the one word may perhaps be used sometime for the other: but I appeal to all learned Grecians and Latinists in the world, whether it be not true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifieth only to revenge, and not to defend: and so likewise Defendo to defend, and not to revenge. Therefore to translate the one for the other, as it is altogether unproper, so is it most dangerous in the scriptures, because thereof may follow errors in judgement, and practise of life. And it appeareth that Thomas of Aquine took the word Defendentes in the proper signification, expounding it by Christ's precept, that if we be stricken on the one cheek, we must be so far of from defending ourselves, that we must be willing rather to turn the other also to him that smote us: and by Christ's example, who being buffeted on the face, defended not himself. Yet after he showeth that some defence is lawful by example of Saint Paul, who procured himself to be defended from the jews that lay in wait for him. Thus we may see that your Saint Thomas used the word simply and properly, and thereby was feign to seek some new exposition, which he nedd not to have done, had he been as good a grammarian, as you Master Rainolds are.  
The other example is in S. Matthew, 
pag. 470. etc.  the 4. Chapter. 16. verse: wherein you have also followed the Greek rather then the latin, translating not according to most of your latin Testaments, which I have seen, the people that walked in darkness, but after the Greek, the people that sat in darkness. A small matter in it self, I grant, yet great enough to show that you have not so precisely followed the latin translation. as you would seem: which also in other places appeareth, by comparing your translation with that. For in the very first Chapter of S. Matthew, the 19 ver. you have omitted these words, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vir cius.  Her husband, which your latin books have truly translated according to the greek. Whereof reason it were, that you should be accountable, for what cause you have removed those words clean out of the text, if they were not rather left out by oversight. For I trust you are not ashamed that joseph should be called the husband of the blessed virgin Marie. Again in the 13. to the Rom. v. 9 instauratur, you translate, is comprised, by no grammar, I am sure, nor dictionary, I think. The sense, I grant, is true, and well agreeth with the Greek, but the latin word is left. If you listed not to translate, is renewed, or repaired, as the word signifieth, you might have kept the word, and according to your new found manner of translating and speaking have translated, instaurated. Such examples are there in your translation many more, if we should peruse the whole, which is not necessary. Neither have I much blamed your translation in this respect, Master Rainolds, for not jumping always with your latin, as you have untruely told your reader: but for leaving the Greek, and following the latin, translating only a bare, (I will not speak as you do, a bald) translation, and for translating it after such a fashion, as never scripture was translated, nor any other book I suppose: and for applying the text most absurdly and violently to some colourable maintenance of your Antichristian Church and religion.   

CHAP. 16.  
Of the faults found in the Annotations of the new testament.  
FRom the translation, which how vain and childish it is hath been declared, now let us proceed with you to the Annotations, which are meet handmaids for such a masters. But before you come to speak of the particular faults, that were found therein, you discourse of many matters according to your common custom idly, and railingly, whereunto it booteth not to make answer: and therefore passing over what you have written of M. jewel, M. Horn, etc. of Tower and Tyburn disputation, of the Church's stability, of M. Fox's monuments, of Luther's judgement concerning the sacramentaries, I will come to examine your defence of those faults, that were noted, and that as briefly as I can, reserning these causes to the large confutation of those Annotations, which in convenient time through God's goodness willbe (I hope) performed to God's glory, defence of the truth, and disproof of popishlies and heresies. Three kinds of faults were observed: the first of errors in matters historical: the second of false conclusions and arguments: the third of certain blasphemies against the holy Apostle.  
In the first order were reckoned certain traditions, 
pag. 484. etc.  which having no ground in God's word, nor much differing from mere fables, are in your Rhemish Annotations notwithstanding gloriously avouched, as behoveful for all Christians to believe. And first of the wisemen that came from the East to visit our saviour Christ, three things are affirmed, first that they were kings, secondly that they were three, 
Popish traditions full of fables and vanities  and lastly that their names were Gaspar, Melchior, and balthasar, as now commonly they are called. For the first, Master R. demandeth a reason, why I should think they were no kings, himself not able to show any, why he should say they were kings. But if reason may rule him, for which he calleth, as though he would yield unto it, if it were given him, three reasons will I propound, whereby I am moved not to believe that these men were kings.  
First, because the Evangelist calleth them by no such names, 
The wise me, that came to worship Christ, said to be kings against reason.  which yet he would not have omitted, if the truth had been according to your tradition, considering how this would have made for the honour of Christ, that so soon as he was borne, kings should have sought him far, and done unto him homage and worship. And when you maintain your opinion by this argument, for that it is honourable to the person of our saviour Christ that so we should think of them, you charge therein the holy Evangelist for omitting somewhat, that might have greatly advanced the honour of Christ, if he had truly and fully reported the same. secondly, it is not credible, that Herod's would have admitted into his kingdom and chief City three Kings with their troops, especially there being enemity betwixt him and the kings of Persia: neither could they have so secretly come to our saviour Christ, and escaped out of the country again, but that being kings, and therefore no doubt accompanied in some princely sort, they must needs have been descried. thirdly if they had been, as you imagine, kings, yea and monarchs, as great as the king of France and Spain, or the great Sophy of Persia, which you suppose might be, then would they not have left our saviour Christ and his Mother in that poor estate, that she was able to offer no more, but a pair of doves, according to the oblation of the poorest amongst the people. If you can remove the ground of these reasons, I will confess your opinion hath in it more probability than I thought, although to believe it, as you do, for a certain truth, I cannot, because thereof I know no sure reason can be alleged. The fathers I grant some of them speak of these wise men as of kings, taking that word in a larger sense, for great and honourable personages, such as may be thought that they were: but the ground of their opinion is a place of scripture misunderstood, in the 72. Psalm, concerning the kings of Tharsis, Arabia, and Sheba, that should bring gifts, which cannot be applied to these, for so much as those countries are not Eastward from judea, and the scripture plainly saith, that these wise men came out of the East. Therefore whatsoever any father hath written to this purpose, is lightly to be regarded, having no better ground than a manifest wresting of scripture and turning South into East.  
Now that they were also three, 
pag. 489.  how may it be proved? forsooth here is a mystery of the blessed Trinity, whereunto Saint Augustine most sweetl●e alludeth. At this most heavenly mystery, Master Rainolds, none will be grieved, save only most wicked and detestable heretics indeed. But how appeareth it, that these wise men did represent and signify that mystery? Saint Augustine and Leo say so: and therefore we must believe it is so. Which argument I will admit if because their oblations were of three things, therefore it follow necessarily, that themselves, who offered, were three. Yet Master Rainolds hath a better reason than this, if it will be accepted. The Evangelist (saith he) speaketh of them in the dual number, and therefore they were more than two: but we need not to believe that they were more than three. Neither need we to believe that they were just three: for the Evangelist speaking of them indefinitely, as he doth, we may as well think they were more than three, as well as three, and so also indeed some fathers have thought. So that this hangeth upon a slender thread of man's conjecture, which cannot be warranted by mystical expositions. And if herein were contained so sweet and excellent mysteries, much may we marvel, why the Evangelists would not plainly write, for better understanding of this mystery, that they were neither fewer, nor more, then just three.  
lastly, touching their names, 
pag 490.  Master R. asketh, seeing they were not nameless, why their names were not Gaspar, Melchior, balthasar, rather than William, john, and Thomas. I grant as well may we think the one as the other: but reason is there none to think either. That their names might have been continued in the Church, I deny not as well as those forcerers names were, of whom S. Paul maketh mention. And so standeth your argument, Their names might be such, therefore they were such: they might be three, therefore they were three: they might be Kings, therefore they were Kings. And thus in Popish traditions the argument holdeth well a posse ad esse, contrary to the rules of all Logic in the world. But enough of these three counterfeit Kings, of Colen.  
That john the Baptist was an Eremite, 
pag. 482.  and patron of Eremitical life, is as likely as the other. First, scripture have you none for this Tradition of yours: for than it were not a right tradition, if you could bring something out of scripture for confirmation thereof. The Evangelists say not, that he lived alone from company of men in the wilderness, as your Eremites did, but that he lived in that country of judea, which in respect of other parts thereof more populous, 
Hier●●. in vis a Pa●li.  was called the desert of judea. Then whatsoever you allege out of fathers, may in a word by another father be disproved, who denieth that Elias and john were monks, and saith that Antonius and Paulus were thought to be the first fathers of Eremites.  
Concerning the stone that hit S. 
Pag. 493.  Stephen on the elbow, and now is kept at Ancona in Italy, Master Rainolds will not stand greatly in maintenance of this fable, but referreth us to Saint Augustine in a counterfeit sermon. Yet that such a thing might be, he proveth by example of Aharons' rod and the Manna, which were by God's special commandment preserved in the Ark. But was there any like commandment, or cause to keep the stone, that rebounded from Saint Stephen's body? show us some, and then we say no more.  
For Elias coming before the last judgement are alleged sundry Doctors. 
pag. 494  So then belike all is safe on their side, if they can approve their opinions and expositions by Testimonies of some Doctors. But this will not serve, unless the Doctors saying be warranted by God's word, as we have a thousand times told them. Now this imagination of Elias coming is by the words of our saviour Christ plainly confuted, who teacheth that Elias, 
Mat. 17.13.  according to the prophecy of Melachie, was come already: and the Apostles understood that he meant of john the Baptist, who was Elias, not in person, but in spirit and power. Then the prophecy of Elias coming being fulfilled in john Baptist, as our saviour himself hath taught, vain is it to dream of an other coming then that, whereof no word can be found in all the scriptures of God. Wherefore as you compare the fathers with us, to make your cause seem the more probable, so will I compare the scriptures with the fathers, whose authority is much more incomparably above theirs, than theirs is above ours, by how much God is more above man, than one man is above another.  
Your faults in framing arguments out of the text of scripture; 
pag. 497.  are most incredible & monstrous, such as I gathered some out of your Annotations upon the new testament, as yourselves had delivered them unto us. You cannot otherwise do, but take upon you some seely defence of your fellows Collections, whether with greater ignorance, or boldness, I can not tell. Christ and Peter walked on the waters, 
Matt. 14.26.  therefore it is evident, that Christ's body may be in compass of a little bread. This to be a most false argument, not only in true Divinity, but also in natural reason, is manifest. For had Christ or Peter a body, that both walked on the water, and walked not on the water at one time? Do the scriptures so teach, or is there no such thing to be found in them? If not, then is not this like to you imagined presence of Christ's body in the sacrament: which being granted according to your doctrine of transubstantiation, inferreth most necessarily, that Christ's body at once is both compassed in a little bread, which is contrary to the nature of a man's true body: and also is not compassed therein, as sitting in heaven, and having the natural properties of a true body, which cannot be brought within so narrow a compass as is your wafer cake. This is repugnant to scripture, to reason, to God's ordinance, and therefore a most absurd and impossible thing is it, that Christ's body should remain a true natural body, and yet at once be contained in so small a compass, as you teach. In that Christ and Peter walked on the water, no such inconvenience nor absurdity can be found, whether the waters were made by miracle firm as the ground, or the bodies were sustained by God's power, that they sunk not. Christ might bear up himself and Peter from sinking down, by his divine power, and change no natural property of his or Peter's body: but Christ's body can not be brought into that slender compass of your mathematical cake, without destruction of all properties incident unto a natural body. So then between these two is no likeness at all, as any man not blinded with Popish folly, and not wilfully shutting his eyes against the clear light may manifestly perceive. Wherefore distrusting this argument, you protest that your note consisteth not so much thereupon, as in the authority of Epiphanius, who hath not any word at all to this purpose. For tell us, Master Rainolds, doth Epiphanius draw an argument from Christ's walking on the water, to prove his body really present in the sacramental bread? No such matter can you find in Epiphanius, or any ancient father of Christ's Church. That which Christ hath said, he that believeth not to be true, is fallen from grace and salvation, as Epiphanius writeth: but Christ hath never said, that his body should be in the compass of a little bread. Howbeit what talk you of a little bread? when you teach no bread at all remaineth, but only signs and shadows of bread. False is your doctrine, and foolish is your argument: but bad reasons are good enough for such a bad religion.  
Of Peter's walking on the water, 
pag. 498  is gathered an other argument of like quality, to prove the Pope's supreme authority: which argument was first invented and devised by Saint bernard in his second book and eight Chapter to Eugenius a Pope. Many waters are many people: Peter walked on the waters, therefore Peter and his successors are rulers over many people, saith good Saint bernard: to whom your Pope is greatly bound for devising such a fine argument, which no ancient Doctor was able to find. But must we now receive Bernard's fantasies, for substantial proofs of the papal supremacy? No Master Rainolds, Saint bernard hath no warrant to make allegories at his pleasure for confirmation of that Antichristian tyranny, which in those days was established. Your comparison of this argument with that of Christ's about the brazen serpent, and of Paul's concerning Isaac and Ishmael, is no better than blasphemous. Might Saint bernard with like authority reason thus, Peter walked on the waters, therefore he and his successors are supreme governors of the universal Church, as Christ did show the manner of his death by the lifting up of the brazen serpent in the desert? or as Saint Paul did prove the haved and persecution of false brethren against the true Christians by example of Ishmael, and Isaac? Had Bernard the fullness of wisdom and truth, that was in Christ? was Bernard always directed with that spirit, wherewith Saint Paul expounded the scriptures of God? Here we may see how basely you think of God's word, to match therewith men's seely expositions and applications, such as Saint Bernard's often times were, and this most notably is.  
An argument is gathered for works of supererogation, 
pag. 499.  out of the Samaritans words, whatsoever thou shalt bestow more, or as it is by them translated, 
Luc. 10.35.  whatsoever thou shalt supererogate. This argument (saith Master Rainolds) followeth well enough, and is Saint Augustins conclusion, to prove that Saint Paul did supererogate, when he might have received all duties for preaching the Gospel, but would not. That men may remit some part of their due, and do more towards men outwardly, than they can of necessity be urged to do, no man will deny: and thus may one man be said to supererogate towards another: but what maketh this for works of supererogation towards God, who requireth both inward and outward obedience of us in most absolute manner?  
For real presence a like argument to the first is gathered of Christ's transfiguration, 
Pag. 499.  whereof yet Master Rainolds being ashamed, saith it is not their argument, 
Matt. 17. ●  but only a deduction, that Christ may give us his body in form of bread and wine. A proper deduction no doubt, of a glorious body to prove no body.  
That Saints can hear and help us every where, 
pag. 500  because they are like to Angels is a very bad argument, 
Mat. 22.30.  considering that neither Angels can so do, for than were they of equal power with God: and though Saints are like to Angels, as in other things, so in this, that they marry not, yet it followeth not that therefore they are equal to Angels. You are glad of such arguments, having no other; but if ye had better, ye would not esteem such.  
joseph wrapped Christ's body in sindon, 
pag. 501.  Therefore Christ's body on the altar must be laid in pure linen. 
Mat. 27.59.  In this argument Master Rainolds cannot tell what I mislike, whether the real presence, or the linen used at the altar, as it was in the sepulchre, or the relation from one to the other. I answer in a word, I mislike all, there being no truth in any of all.  
The women came to behold the sepulchre, 
pag. 502.  Ergo we must go to the holy sepulchre in pilgrimage: 
Matt 28.1.  This argument Master Rainolds confesseth cannot indeed prove that we must, but that we may go in pilgrimage, by example of those godly and zealous women: which yet is a false and fond deduction, seeing there is no such like cause for us to go, as was for them.  
That Christ appeared to the two disciples in another form, 
pag. 504.  cannot prove that he is in the sacrament in form of bread, 
Mark. 16.12.  for somuch as in Christ's body no alteration at this time was wrought, but only the disciples eyes were held, that they know him not, as Saint Luke expressly noteth. 
Luk. 34.16.   
For your exorcism in baptism, argument you say you made none of Christ's saying to the dumb and dease Ephpheta. 
Mat. 7.34.  If no argument, no proof, if no proof, than no cause to use by example of Christ such exorcism in you baptisms. 
pag. 505.  
Luk. 1.3.   
Saint Luke's preface before his gospel cannot by any means excuse the second book of Maccabees from being Apocryphal, wherein the Author craveth pardon for his so slender writing of that history. There is no likeness of comparison at all between the Evangelists endeavour to learn and write the certain truth, and that author's confession of his infirmity and imperfection in writing his book. One thing it is to inquire the truth with all diligence, and so having found the same to set it forth in writing most exactly: an other having written a book, to desire the reader's favour and forgiveness, in respect of the writer's simplicity and unskillfulnes. The first detracteth nothing from the wisdom & majesty of God's spirit, to search the tru●h by all such means, as by which the same may be learned: the other argueth a conscience & acknowledgement of wants in writing, which cannot be applied to the holy Ghost, who whatsoever he taketh in hand, most wisely and excellently performeth the same. Doth Saint Luke any where excuse his want of utterance, his rude, slender, and unlearned manner of writing? Nothing less: nay he protesteth in the same preface that he hath attained to the exact knowledge of every thing, and that he writeth a most certain and undoubted truth: so far of is he from craving pardon of any man, which the simple writer of that book of Maccabees, in regard of his own weakness and unability, thought it expedient for him to do. Your places out of the Apostle are frivolous, bewraying your gross ignorance. S. Paul saith, that in some part he had written boldly to the Romans. 
〈…〉 15.  What then? did he therefore crave pardon for his so bold writing unto them? Doth he not show immediately the cause of this boldness to be, for that he was a minister of jesus Christ among the gentiles? That he faith he was conversant among the Corinthians in weakness, in fear, and trembling, 
1. Cor. 2.3.  what concerneth this the writings that he published to the Church? The greatness of the Lords work in hand made him to tremble, but for his writings he feared not the judgement of man, nor ever submitted them to man's discretion. That he desireth them to bear with his folly, etc. 
2. Co. 11.1.17  he speaketh not to excuse any folly in himself, who had always most wisely and gravely behaved himself towards the Corinthians, but to reprove rather the singular arrogancy and folly of the false Apostles, who being in no respect comparable to the Apostle, yet bragged immoderately and preferred themselves before him. This is another case, Master Rainolds, unlike to that whereof we spoke.  
Men of good will, 
pag. 505.  
Luc. 2.14.  to whom the Angel wisheth well, are by our new divines of Rheims expounded for men endued with free will. And thus saith Master Rainolds was it taught in the old gospel. But what gospel he meaneth, it were a good thing to understand. For S. Luke's gospel teacheth no such thing, which yet sure I am is the old and true gospel of Christ. E ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which word S. Luke in that place hath used, never signifieth free will, but favour and good will, which one beareth towards another: S. Augustine was by ignorance of the Greek tongue deceived: and any man may soon perceive that the Angel speaketh of God's love towards mankind, which then most notably appeared, when the Son of God was borne of a woman. For our papists to gather hereof man's free will, is too childish and absurd abuse of holy scripture.  
Christ preached out of Peter's ship: 
Luc. 5.3.  and therefore our Rhemists make an argument that the whole Church is Peter's ship. If such allegories may go for sound proofs, then will it be easy not only for the Pope to prove his primacy, but for all other heretics that ever were, to justify their detestable opinions whatsoever. That by Peter's ship the fathers have taught the Church of Christ to be resembled, no man denieth: but they conclude not, nor apply their allegory so far as you do, to prove that as Peter was owner of that ship, so he and his successors are governors of the whole Church. Such allegories as this of yours may please fools in their merry conceits, but wise men will esteem them no better than they deserve.  
Barnabas laid down the price of his land at the Apostles feet: 
pag. 510.  
Act 4.37.  where upon our Rhemists make a long annotation of reverence due to sacred persons, either Prophets, Apostles, or Popes. Who can otherwise think but that hereof they meant to make an argument for kissing of the Pope's feet, lest any thing concerning the Pope should want due confirmation? yet Master Rainolds calleth this and the rest merry conclusions, and complaineth of mockers. Indeed such merry conclusions have you devised many in your Annotations, fit a great deal to bring your whole Religion into derision, then to edify in true faith. Thus have you long, and yet still would you mock the world, but your mockeries are well espied, the Lord be praised for it.  
The Queen's Eunuch of Aethiopia came to jerusalem to worship: ergo pilgrimages to holy places are acceptable to God. 
pag. 512.  
Act. 8.27.  This reason why it should not be allowed, Master R. saith he cannot guess, and desireth me if I have any hid imagination, to impart it unto him: which I am very well content to do. The cause that moved this noble man of Aethiopia to travail so far, was for that in judea only was the visible Church of God, and in jerusalem stood the Temple, wherein only sacrifices might be offered to God. Which being so, necessary was it for him to repair thither, for the exercise of his religion in the Church of God, and place particularly thereunto appointed by the Lord. This can you not apply to Rome or jerusalem now, or any other place in the world, and therefore manifest dissimilitude and inequality is there between this eunuchs journeying to jerusalem, for so godly and necessary causes, and popish pilgrimages to places abroad for no cause, but only for idle and wandering superstition.  
Concerning putting of our caps, 
pag. 515.  
Phil. 2.10.  and making courtesy at the name of jesus, Master Rainolds is very earnest, and concludeth in the end that I am an Atheist, and make no account of Christ, for denying that, seeing we yield this honour of cap and courtesy to the letters, name, seal, and seat of the Prince. If this be a true argument, Master Rainolds, as you in your vehemency would have it seem, how cometh it to pass, that God's name amongst you is not honoured with like reverence of cap and knee whensoever it is heard? will you put of your cap when the Prince is named, and will you make courtesy at the Pope's name, at his triple crown, or cross, and will you never once stir your caps, or bow your knees, when God is named? Is this your Religion, is this your fashion? Then let me conclude against you, as you have done against me, that you are by your own argument very Atheists, such as make no account of God himself. For otherwise this conclusion of yours, that I am such a one for not honouring the name of jesus in such sort, is falssie, though most maliciously, devised. That jews and Infidels have abhorred the name of jesus, I grant, but no more the name of jesus, than the name of Christ, seeing jesus is Christ, and Christ hath as much deserved to be hated of them as jesus. Christ's name may a thousand times be heard amongst you, and no man moveth cap or knee: jesus is no sooner sounded, but every man by and by putteth of his cap, and scrapeth on the ground with his foot, and yet not always, and in all places, but in the Church, and specially at reading of the Gospel. This may breed a more dangerous opinion, than it can remove any, that jesus is better than is Christ, and more worthy of reverence, which is wicked to imagine.  
Now Master Rainolds having in particular made some seely defence, 
pag. 516. 〈◊〉  as you have heard, for certain of their annotations upon the new Testament, noted as notorious absurd, and ridiculous conclusions, because he knoweth the matter is not yet sufficiently answered, addeth in the and a further proof and confirmation of the arguments by example of the scripture itself, wherein diverse reasons may be found, and namely touching the resurrection, which if they be examined according to philosophy and human wisdom, will follow no better than theirs have done, but may be thought as improbable & weak, as any that they have made. This discourse doth Master Rainolds in many words prosecute, with great superfluity of speech, and many opprobrious terms after his old manner. But when he hath talked his pleasure at full, an answer in one word shall overthrow all, that he hath builded, and as it were cut in sunder the thread of all that he hath sewed thus loselie together. Whatsoever is affirmed or denied in scripture, although it be most contrary to man's reason, yet is it true and certain, and must without contradiction be believed, because the Lord, whose word is truth hath said it. The resurrection of the flesh cannot (I grant) be proved by philosophical reasons and arguments, but God's word hath set down this for a principle of our faith, that our bodies shall rise again, and whatsoever reason judgeth thereof, faith maketh no doubt but so it shall be. But now Master Rainolds, what maketh this for your former collections? because we must believe Christ and his Apostles in all that they teach, though natural reason will not so easily yield, must we therefore allow whatsoever our novices of Rheims have fondly without authority of God's word concluded in their Annotations for maintenance of Popish heresy? This forsooth is your argument, if you meant to make any argument at all: if you thought not to drive your speech to this conclusion, then have you ranged at random all this while, and spoken never a word to that purpose, to the which you should have directed your talk.   

CHAP. 17.  
Of certain blasphemies contained in the Annotations.  
Hitherto hath appeared with what conscience and spirit you have translated and expounded sundry places of the new Testament wresting & writhing most violently the text of holy scripture to confirmation of your Popish errors and absurdities. 
pag. 52●.  Wherein I doubt not, but whosoever shall consider with himself advisedly your manner of collection, your argument, your application of scripture, and shall examine a little how your conclusion followeth upon your proofs with out all coherence or consequence of reason, must needs greatly mislike your whole Religion, that is builded upon so weak, so tickle, so ruinous a foundation. For unless it be granted that of every thing may be concluded any thing, and that the word of God may be made appliable to all purposes, opinions, and doctrines, it is impossible that these and such like arguments of yours, as you have in your annotations gathered upon the words of scripture, should have in them such strength and truth, as Divinity and religion requireth. But further when your blasphemous audacity in controlling the word of God shall be perceived, it must of necessity breed in all such as fear God, and reverence his word, a far greater alienation of mind from you, and from all your damnable doctrine. Examples of such blasphemies some I alleged, whereof now Master Rainolds in his last Chapter entreateth, and with his accustomed boldness of defending any thing laboureth to justify the same.  
The Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews entreating at large of Christ's priesthood, 
pag. 529. Sec.  compareth Christ with Melchisedech, and by this argument proveth that Christ is a priest for ever, because he is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech: which he confirmeth by testimony of Moses and David. In all which treatise the Apostle although he fully showeth what resemblance was between Melchisedech and Christ, yet he maketh not any mention of the mass, nor of the unbloody sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in bread and wine, nor of any such matter, as by the papists hath been imagined. Which because our Rhemists understood to be greatly prejudicial to their sacrifice of the Mass, they have most shamefully and blasphemously behaved themselves in handling this scripture, as to any that compareth their annotations with the text itself may easily apperee. For they have plainly written in their annotations, that all that the Apostle hath alleged, concerning the eternity of Christ's person, and his perpetual intercession for us, and everlasting effect of his death, proveth not that in proper signification his priesthood is perpetual. 
Hebr. 7.17.  Whereof what other thing can possibly be collected, but that the Apostle hath not by sufficient reasons proved that thing which he took in hand to prove, that jesus Christ is a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech? For these men boldly affirm that all this proveth not that in proper signification Christ's priesthood is perpetual: then the Apostle in proper signification hath proved nothing less, then that which he went about to prove, concerning Christ's everlasting priesthood, wherein all our salvation consisteth, & hath but used a sleight to make men believe a thing, which either he could not prove, or at lest hath not effectually proved. Our papists will have the principal respect of resemblance between Christ and Melchisedech to stand in offering bread and wine, whereof forsooth must arise a perpetual sacrifice to be continued in the Church. Now hereof the Apostle hath not spoken so much as one word, nor given the least signification of such a matter. What other thing is it then but plain blasphemy for maintenance of an idolatrous sacrifice to charge the Apostle that he hath not proved Christ's priesthood to be perpetual, which yet he hath by most necessary and substantial arguments proved? For as the Apostle reasoneth, if Christ's person be perpetual, as it is; and if he make for us perpetual intercession, as he doth; and if by his one sacrifice offered once he hath wrought a full and perfect redemption, as he hath; then is it hereof in proper signification proved, that Christ's priesthood also is perpetual, and then have these malapert papists blasphemed in denying the Apostles arguments to be good in proper signification, which is in effect to take from them all credit and authority. Let Master Rainolds devise what cunning shift he can, yet in truth never shall he be able to wipe out this blot of blasphemy: when the Apostle hath of purpose laboured to prove Christ's eternal priesthood, and proved it indeed most invincibly, for these Collegiates of Rheims to come in with their censure upon the Apostle, and to set down in plain terms that all this proveth not the matter in proper signification, and that the Apostle hath omitted the chief and proper proof thereof. This is a blasphemy against Christ, and against the holy spirit of God, by which the Apostle in writing was directed.  
But what can Master Rainolds say in excuse of this so manifest blasphemy? 
pag. 534.  He asketh first, Where say we that of all those things proposed by the Apostle, it followeth not that Christ's priesthood is eternal? Must you again be put in mind of your own Annotation, which yourself have at large rehearsed? Have you not therein expressly in writing published, All this proveth not that in proper signification his priesthood is perpetual? And what differeth this from that, which I have affirmed of you? Hath the Apostle propounded any thing concerning your pretended sacrifice. If he hath, show us where, in what words, after what sort. If any thing at all can be showed to this purpose, as nothing indeed can, and without this be showed, in your opinion the eternity of Christ's priesthood is no ways sufficiently proved, do you not plainly declare your judgement to be that it followeth not of all those things, which the Apostle hath said that Christ's priesthood is eternal? yea but M.R. saith, that they have avouched the clean contrary in saying, that all the fathers gather of this deep and divine discourse, the eternity of his Priesthood. The fathers indeed have gathered of this discourse most truly the eternity of Christ's Priesthood, and therein they confute your wicked dannotation, that saith, all this proveth not Christ's Priesthood to be perpetual. They understood the Apostle rightly, and they expounded his meaning faithfully. Show me now one ancient father if you can M. R. that ever said as you say, that all this alleged by the Apostle proveth not in proper signification, that Christ's priesthood, is perpetual: or else that he taught, as you teach, that Christ must continually be sacrificed in form of bread and wine. This is the point, this show us, if you can. For in your Annotation no such thing is showed, and all the fathers confess with one consent, that the Apostle hath proved sound the eternity of Christ's Priesthood, and that no other sacrifice remaineth to be offered, but only a remembrance and sacrament of that one everlasting sacrifice to be continued in the Church to the end of the world.  
secondly it is confessed by Master Rainolds that the Apostle maketh not any express mention of that oblation of bread and wine. 
pag. 536.  But what reason was there, why the Apostle entreating of Christ's eternal priesthood, omitted the principal part thereof? Consider good reader, into what miserable straits these men are driven, and what absurd devices they are enforced to forge. For their best excuse is that because the jews believed not the first, singular, and sovereign sacrifice of the cross, therefore he would not urge them with this secondary and dependente sacrifice of the Church. Which in truth is nothing else, but a seely shift to salve a desperate sore. For first it is evident the Apostle writ to those that were not ignorant of Christian religion, seeing they had learned already the principles thereof, and are exhorted by the Apostle to proceed to perfection therein. 
Hebr. 6.1.  secondly whereas the Apostle hath discoursed so plentifully of the principal and sovereign sacrifice, what reason was there to keep silence of the secondary sacrifice, as you call it? Might they hear of the greater, and not of the less? Might the Apostle urge so earnestly unto them the sacrifice of the cross, and might he not in a word mention the sacrifice of the Altar? Could the one be more offensive unto them then the other? Let all men judge what truth there is in this devise.  
Of that which followeth concerning this matter, nothing deserveth answer, 
pag. 540.  save only that Master Rainolds asketh of me, whether Melchisedech did not sacrifice? I say, no doubt Melchisedech did sacrifice: for otherwise he had not been a priest. But Saint Paul (saith he) maketh no express mention thereof. What then, I pray you? Forsooth by Master Whittakers' judgement Saint Paul omitteth some principal part of Melchisedechs' priesthood. Who ever heard a more foolish collection? it was sufficient for the Apostle that Melchisedech was a priest, which is confirmed by plain testimony of scripture: to rehearse any special kind of sacrifice by him offered was nothing necessary to the purpose in hand. And therefore the Apostle hath not omitted any principal part of Melchisedechs' priesthood, unless you will say it cannot be proved necessarily, that one hath been a priest, except every particular sacrifice that ever was offered by him, be recorded and avouched. This being most absurd, see how vain a conceit of yours this was, that the Apostle hath omitted some principal part of Melchisedechs' priesthood, because he hath not declared expressly what special sacrifice Melchisedech offered.  
another example I noted out of the sixth Chapter to the Romans, 
pag. 543. etc.  in that notable place, where the Apostle writeth that the stipend of sin is death, but life everlasting is the gift of God. 
Rom. 6.23.  Upon these words our Rhemists have noted, that the sequel of speech required, that as he said, death or damnation is the stipend of sin, so life everlasting is the stipend of justice, and so it is. Wherein every man may behold their intolerable sauciness and presumption in setting the holy Apostle to school, in controling his speech, in corrupting his meaning. For if the case had stood so clearly and roundly as these men teach, that even as condemnation is the stipend of fin, so is eternal life the stipend of justice, it had been as easy for the Apostle to have so written, as to alter his words, and having said that death is the wages of sin, to affirm after an other manner of speech that life everlasting is, not the wages of justice, but the gift, and free gift of God. And doubtless according to the doctrine of S. Paul, and the holy ghost, it is no other, but proud blasphemy to say, as the Rhemists say, that as death is the stipend of sin, so life everlasting is the stipend of justice: seeing the one stipend is of mere due, and desert, the other only of grace and mercy: so that if God would enter into judgement with us according to the rigour of his justice, we could not challenge everlasting life for any justice that we had wrought, as all the scriptures do most abundantly and plainly teach. Their only excuse hangeth upon Saint Augustine who in a certain epistle writeth, 
Epist. 105. 〈◊〉 Sixtura.  that everlasting life is repaid to our merits going before, and yet may it well be called grace, because our merits are wrought in us by grace, not gotten by our own ability: to like effect he writeth in diverse other places of his works and treatises, as every one knoweth that hath been conversant in reading his books. What then? shall we grant Saint Augustine to be an author of this Popish and sorbonical doctrine of justification by merit of works? Nothing less. The answer is easy, and no more easy than true, that by merit's Saint Augustine understandeth good works after the manner of speech in latin, and by stipend or reward he meaneth that benefit or gift which God repaieth to good works, & to the workers of justice. What difference then is there between our Sorbonists, and Saint Augustine, with whom we also consent? In words may seem no difference at all: in substance and truth of doctrine as great difference, as is between heaven and earth, life and death, God and man. We know and confess with Saint Augustine according to the doctrine of holy scripture, that life eternal is a reward of justice and good works, but not as death is a stipend of sin, according to the Sorbonists and Rhemists religion. And howsoever Saint Augustine pleaseth them in his exposition of this place, the which notwithstanding being rightly understood maketh nothing for them, yet other fathers have observed of the Apostles words set down in this manner, that eternal life is only a gift, not deserved, but freely bestowed, and that this was the cause why the Apostle applied not the name of stipend to life everlasting, as he had done before to death. Look upon Origen in his commentaries upon the fourth of the Romans, and the latter end of the sixth. And this as it is sound and sincere doctrine, so must it also of all Christians necessarily be confessed. For he that sinneth, hath deserved death worthily, in respect of the sin committed, which is a transgression of Gods will and commandment: and for which without remission there is no hope to escape eternal condemnation. But can he that worketh well, for one, or two, or more good works, claim unto himself as a due debt, the kingdom of heaven for the same? For what if the Lord will examine our works straitly according to his law in every circumstance, our inward zeal, love, intention, desire of God's glory, continuance and perseverance in well doing, conformity of our will with the rule of God's word, and shall find in the work and in the worker great infirmity, many wants, much imperfection, manifold sins in the mean time, both in thought, in word, and deed, shall the good works notwithstanding being thus tried & found in themselves insufficient & unanswerable to god's justice, and also having many sins inherent together with them in the same person, stand up before the Lord, and challenge of right the reward of life everlasting in his kingdom? Never durst yet any child of God upon trust and confidence of his own justice, challenge such debt at the hands of God, or yet appear at all in his presence.  
The Prophet David although he were a holy man, and had not only repent heartily for his wicked deeds, but also brought forth manifold fruits of repentance and regeneration, yet desireth most humbly of the Lord that he would not enter into judgement with him, 
psal. 143.2.  for so much as if he would so do, neither he nor any man living could escape condemnation. And again: If thou (saith he) will mark our iniquities, O Lord who can stand before thee? 
psal. 130. ●.  Wherein he plainly teacheth, that for a man to trust in his works, how good or glorious soever they are or seem to be, and upon this confidence of his merits to look for heaven as a due reward at gods hands, is not only to deceive himself, but to incur that judgement and condemnation, which the Lord for his sins, and unworthiness, that by examination he findeth in him, might justly cast upon him. Therefore he saith in another Psalm that they are happy, not which have good works wherein to trust, 
psal. 32. ●.  but whose sins are forgiven, and whose iniquities are covered. And this have also all the godly fathers of Christ's Church evermore confessed, that their works of due and debt deserved nothing of the Lord but punishment, and therefore disclaiming all their merits, and acknowledging their own manifold transgressions and imperfections they fly to the lords mercy only, and trust to be saved by grace and remission of their sins, not by desert or merit of their righteousness that they have wrought.  
Yea the Roman Church itself which most of all magnifieth the merits of works, yet being secretly, and as it were unwittingly carried away with sway of this truth, hath sometimes made open confession thereof, and taught all her children to sing an other song, then that which now so commonly is heard amongst them of justification and salvation through merit of their works. For in the service that is prescribed for the dead this prayer is set forth to be used of all, and is oftentimes repeated, Domine quando veneris judicare terram, ubi me abscondam á vultu irae tuae? Quia peccavi nimis in vita mea. 
In officis defunctoruns  Commissa mea pavesco, & ante te erubesco: dum veneris judicare, noli me condemnare. Quia peccavi nimis in vitamea. that is, O Lord when thou shalt come to judge the earth, where shall I hide myself from the presence of thy wrath? Because I have si●ned exceeding lie in my life. My misdeeds I am afraid of, and I blush before thee: when thou shalt come to judge, condemn me not. For I have sinned exceadingly in my life. Thus is every one taught to pray, and this you confess to be a good prayer, and necessary for all to use, as at other times, so especially when death approacheth. And verily howsoever it is now for a fashion with great countenance, and vehement disputation avouched by some, that we merit heaven by our good works, yet I am persuaded that no adversary of conscience can otherwise think, or dare in peril of death otherwise say, but that he hath deserved for his sins punishment and death everlasting, and cannot avoid the same, if God will render to his works the reward that of due belongeth unto them: and therefore casting away all trust in his works, will ask pardon and mercy, not claim any debt or due reward of the Lord. So though in their life time many of them be obstinately bend, and have in their mouth nothing so much, as good works, merit, reward, due, debt, recompense for their well doing, yet the time drawing near, when they must hold up their hands at the bar●e of the Lords judgement seat, and there must make answer for themselves, and their works must be tried by the law of God, they give over their former confidence, they have no joy in themselves, yea they distrust their own works, they tremble and quake inwardly, they are in fearful heaviness and perplexity of mind, they know not whither to turn themselves, and if God give such grace unto them, than they see and forsake their error of deserving heaven, than they confess they are sinners, and therefore guilty of death, and then learn that lesson in their end, which afore in their life time they would not understand.  
Yet doth every faithful Christian, keeping as much as in him lieth the commandments of God, hope for the kingdom of heaven, ask eternal life, yea and also in some sort promise to his works the crown of glory, not for merit and worthiness of his works, but in respect of Gods mere mercy, who hath promised to bestow upon us and our works greater reward, than we can possibly deserve. This is the difference between the doctrine of Christ, of the Prophets, of the Apostles, and of the fathers, which we follow, and the doctrine of the Sorbonistes, and Rhemists, and all Papists, which who so holdeth shall be sure never to be saved. Thus appeareth how vain and childish it is, that you entitle your school of Sorbone with the names of Solomon, David, isaiah, jeremy, Peter, Paul, Augustine, as though they had ever been entered into that College, and taken degree in your school: whereas whosoever marketh the point of difference between their doctrine and that of Sorbone, shall plainly perceive they were no Sorbonists, nor ever allowed the sorbonical and pharisaical justice of merits. How ignorantly you object shameful ignorance to me, may appear by that which now and before hath been answered, it being indeed manifest that yourself either know not the true state of the controversy, or else have replied never a word aptly to purpose.  
Soli Deo sit gloria.    

ERRATA.  
Pa 37. lin 17. strange. p. 86 15 there p. 143.1. meaning. p. 144.17. renegates. P 294 21 as well p 334.5. is as corrupt pag. 351, 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in certain copies p. 159. the last line, and pag. 160. the first line read it thus; before Valentinian to have a Council: that a Council by the Emperor. etc. Other errors perhaps have escaped: but the reader (I trust) will easily espy, correct, and pardon them.   

Imprinted by THOMAS THOMAS Printer to the University of Cambridge. 1585.