To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
FROM the translation, which he impugneth by such strōg arguments as novv hath bene shewed, he proceedeth to the annotations, which he refelleth vvith like learning and vvisedome. And first he beginneth as before vvith a like inuectiue in these vvords. Nihil illis annotationibus contaminatius vnquam in lucem prodiit &c. Nothing vvas euer pu∣blished a brode more corrupt then those an∣notations.
Truely as heretofore I haue euer hated the Romane religion euen vvith al my hart, so sone as I could iudge of it, so novv I confesse that I am induced by these mens desperatnes and importunitie to abhorre it much more. Hovv much or hovv litle he abhorreth our religion, vvere it not for regarde of his ovvne soule, it is not much material. For except he haue better learning in store then he hath vttered yet, I trust his great hatred against it wil not do it any great harme. And these are but vvords. And as he vpon this pretended occasiō, concei∣ueth so euil of our faith (if he meane as he speketh) so I knovv many, vvho ha∣uing bene brought vp not in Catholike religion as he vvas in heresie, but in heresie vvith him, & continuing a long time in the same, and louing it vvith al their hart, comming to better iudgmēt, through the grace of God, vpon consi∣deration of such lying writers as he most honoreth, M. Iewel, M. Horne &c. haue bene so altered, that they haue detested his gospel euen to hel gates: of which number I confesse my self to be one. But this kinde of asseueration is common to both sides. This rather is worth the examining, whether we
haue ministred him sufficient occasion to fall in to so deepe hatred of the Ca∣tholike faith, or they rather haue geuē vs iust cause in like maner to ab∣horre their new gospel. This in some parte wil appeare by M W. discourse against these Annotations.
Thus he proceedeth. I doubt not but vvhen this beate of the Papistes is somevvhat cooled, vvise men vvil daily more and more dislike that religion. For vvhen they vnder∣stand such things as of old vvere alvvaies accompted false or at least suspected, the same novv to be set forth of these men as most true articles of the Romane religion, vvhen they consider vvith them selues hovv miserably these men abuse the holy scriptures to most ab∣surd interpretations, it can not othervvise bee but that they vvil disallovv the vvhole cause of the Papists, vvhich they see to be supported vvith such trifles and tales. VVhen they heare the vvise men vvhich came from the East to vvorship Christ to be called three kinges, vvhose names are Gaspar, Melchior, Baltasar. That Iohn Bap∣tist vvas a monke and father of monkes. That vvhen S. Steuin vvas stoned to death a stone rebounded backe from his elbovv vvhich novv is kept at A••cona in Italie. That Elias the Thesbite is expected to come
before the later day.
Vnto three heads he reduceth al the faults vvhich he findeth in the Anno∣tations. [ 1] To errors committed in mat∣ters historical, [ 2] to faults committed in framing arguments, [ 3] and to certaine blasphemies as he calleth them vtte∣red against S. Paul. The first parte is comprised in these vvords which here thou seest. The second and third shal folovv in order. To ansvvere al that he saith pointe by pointe, vvhat he mea∣neth by aestus pōtificius, Heate of the Papists vvhich he hopeth vvil be cooled, I knovv not vvel. If he meane the zeale of good Priests vvho to reclaime some from damnation, venture their liues in England. although he vvith his fe∣lovv ministers take a readie vvay to coole their heate by their straūge ma∣ner of disputing, I meane by thrus∣ting in euery Syllogisme a conclusion of treason, from Sacrament, Masse, Confession, Reconciliation, Church, inferring, ••go you are traitours, and so enflaming the ciuil magistrate to ansvvere by hanging, them vvhom they cannot ansvvere by learning, yet our lord be praised this maner of their dealing, though it be bloodie and of
them assumed against the preaching of their first apostles and martyrs euen of necessitie, because othervvise they see their gospel can not stand, yet I say, our lord be praised, experience shew∣eth that it cooleth none, but enflameth many. Ignem veni mittere in terram (saith our Sauiour) et quid volo nisi vt ardeat? & howsoeuer our lord shal deale hereaf∣ter with our Countrie, whether he wil abandō it to Apostasie, as he hath Asia and Africa, or reduce it to the v∣nitie of his church, which he of his in∣finite mercie graunt, thus much assure your self M. W. that this kinde of heate wil neuer be cooled in your daies. The plot is laid, the charges are cast, and the matter is begonne, and we see and feele that Christ hath powred his bles∣sing vpon it abundantly.
If you meane the heate of vvri∣ting bookes, vvith vvhich notvvithstā∣ding you are not much troubled, the vvay to coole that heate is, ether to ā∣svvere them more substantially then hitherto you haue, or els not to an∣svvere them at al. For so long as you set forth such stuffe as you for your part and your late vvriters of like qualitie allovv vs, your selues blovve
the coales and make matter to kindle the fier, that if men vvould be silent, children may find sufficient argument to proue you heretikes.
If you imagine that our church is so vnconstant that she vvil in short time leaue this zeale in preaching the Ca∣tholike religion, and thereby that your congregatiō shal gather strength and stabilitie, and vvise men vvil fal in good liking thereof, then your ig∣norance is great, vvho knovv nether the nature of our Catholike Church & religiō, nor of your ovvne heretical faith and congregation. Not of ours, because you may learne, or remember that from Christs time hitherto, ne∣ther by persecuting Emperours, nor by vndermining heretikes, othervvise qualified thē are the Lutherās or Zuin∣glians of these days, it vvas or could euer be subuerted, but rather the more it vvas assaulted, the better irresisted, the more it vvas gainsaid, the more it florished, & vvhē suttle heretikes vpō temporal fauour vvere most insolent, then she most excellently did defende her self. Examples you haue of the times of S. Augustine against Pelagius & the Manichees, S. Hierō against Io∣vinian
and Vigilantius, Lanfrancus a∣gainst Berengarius, and al the Primi∣tiue church against Constantius, Valēs, and Arrius. Ignorant you are of your ovvne faith and gospel, because you may remember that nether had it euer any stay or stabilitie since it vvas first begotten, nether can it haue so longe as it endureth, the very pillers vvhich vnder proppe it being such rottē mat∣ter, as of it self quickly corrupteth & falleth in to dust.
For when in king Henries raigne it first set foote in our realme vpon oc∣casions which I am content to passe o∣uer, though M. Fox to the euerlasting shame both of such a gospel and such gospellers, haue recorded them and committed them to eternal memorie, hovv variable a state it had your elders know, & he much complaineth. Euē as the kinge vvas ruled (saith he) & gaue care sometime to one, sometime to an other, so one vvhile religion vvent forvvard, at an other season as much backvvard againe, sometime cleane altered and chaūged for a season, as they could preuaile vvhich vvere about the kinge. So long as Q. Anne liued, the gospel had indifferent good successe. And not only Queenes, but very meane gē∣tlemen
and doctors of phisicke were then able to craze your gospel, and set it backward or forward as pleased them. For so much also is recorded in M. Foxes storie in the ende of king Henries life.
Thus writeth he. So long as Quene Anne, L. Cromvvel, B. Cranmer, M. Denny, D. Buts, vvith such like, vvere about the King and could preuayle vvith him, vvhat organe of Christes glorie did more good in the church thē he? Againe vvhen sinister & vvicked counsel had gotten once the foote in, thrusting truth & veritie out of the princes eares, hovv much as religion and al good things vvent forvvard before, so much on the contrary side al reuolted backvvard againe. And this gospel (as M. Fox cal∣leth it) which King Henrie left esta∣blished as he thought most assuredly by Acte of Parlament, in his sonne King Edwards daies went cleane vpside doune. In Q. Maries daies came a new alteration. vnder the Q. Maiestie that now is, an other cleane contrarie. And at this present, finde you not a general murmuring euen amongst the Protes∣tants against the Communion booke and state of religion which in the be∣ginning of hir Maiesties raigne was
brought in? If the Catholikes said nothing, haue you not the Puritans most eagerly detesting your faith, and were it not for the Princes sword, like to dispossesse you of chayrs and chur∣ches? And what stabilitie can that gos∣pel haue which altogether dependeth of the good allovvance of the Prince and her councel in Parlament, which we know within these fiftie yeres so often to gaine said one an other. And if it should please God to turne the Quenes hart to the catholike faith (for which we incessantly pray) vvere not the face of your religiō streightvvaies altered & turned quite vpside downe? must nor the inferiour partes of the body turne and frame them selues ac∣cording to the head? would not the same statutes which now are vniustly executed vpon Catholikes, without alteration of any one word, be much more iustly executed vpon the Minis∣ters & Superintendents, if so be they called her Maiesty Scismatike or Here∣tike? Wherefore litle reason haue you to imagine that wisemen wil fall in liking of your new deuised fansie, which as it altogether dependeth vpon the Fauour of Court and Courtiers, so
for this very reason, must needes euer remaine as chaungeable as the Court and Courtly beneuolence is.
And your father Luther who best knew the nature of his children, and qualitie of your religion, geueth such a sentence of it, as I doubt not at this present is allowed of al the wisest of our Realme, and much confirmed by your maner of writing. The arguments and reasonings of the sacramentaries (saith he) are such vaine vvordes vvithout witte, that I can not maruaile sufficiently hovv learned men can be moued vvith such lyes. & truly they do their matters vvith so fear∣ful a conscience, that they seeme to vvish they had neuer taken them in hand. Equidē opinor si eis esset potestas de integro cōsulēdi, quòd nūquam inciperent. Verily I suppose if they vvere to consulte of the matter a fresh, they vvould neuer begin their sacra∣mētarie heresie. And I verely suppose, if the wise gouernours of our Realme who now may see the issue of your gospel, what wickednes and iniquitie in lyfe, confusion and Atheisme in faith, contempt of God and man it hath brought with it, if they were now to consult of the matter a fresh, I be∣leeue verily with your father Martin
Luther, that amongst al heresies of name at this time currant in the Christiā world, they would least of al haue admitted yours, as being the most grosse, most licentious, and most vnprobable of al others.
But come we to the particular faultes historical committed by vs. Things alvvays accompted false or suspec∣ted, vve set forth as most true articles of the Romane religiō, as that the vvise mē vvhich came from the East, vvere 3 kinges and had such names. That S. Iohn Baptist vvas fa∣ther of monkes, That a stone vvith vvhich Steuen vvas stoned to death, is reserued at Ancona &c. Before I come to make ā∣swere, I wish the reader to carie in re∣membrance, [ 1] first the greatnes of his accusation against vs, That neuer a∣ny thing came forth in print, More con∣taminate then these annotations, That vve haue shevved herein great desperatenes and importunitie, That things alvvays ac∣cōpted false or suspected, vve affirme as most true articles of the Romane religion &c. [ 2] Then what we promised in these āno∣tations. Touching which, in the pre∣face of the new testament thus we write. In these annotations vve shevv the studious reader, the Apostolike tradition,
the expositions of the holy fathers, the decrees of the Catholike church and most auncient Councels. vvhich meanes vvho so euer trus∣teth not for the sense of holy scriptures, but had rather folovv his priuate iudgment or the arrogant spirit of these Sectaries, he shal vvorthely through his owne vvilfulnes be deceaued. Now vvhether part fayleth in perfourmance of that vvhich it vn∣dertaketh, vvhether vve geue not The sense of holy scriptures according to the Apostolike tradition, the expositions of ho∣ly fathers, or vvhether he conuince vs of Desperatnes, and importunitie, and such contamination as he threatneth, this is that vvhich the reader concerning ether side, hath ro note and consider.
Of the vvise men thus vve say. These three sages, being principal men of their countrie, represent the vvhole state of Princes, Kinges, and Emperours, that vvere according to the prophecies of Dauid and Esay to beleeue in Christ, to humble them selues to his crosse, to foster, enrich, adorne and defend his church: vvhere vpon it is also a very conuenient and agreable tradition of antiquitie, and a receiued opi∣nion among the faithful, not lacking testi∣monies of auncient vvriters, and much for the honor of our Sauiour, that these three al∣so
vvere Kings: to vvit, ether according to the state of those countries, vvhere the princes vvere Magi, & Magi the greatest about the prince: or as vve reade in the scriptures, of Melchisedech King of Salem, & many other Kings that dvvelt vvithin a smal compasse: or as Iobes three frendes are called Kings. These are commonly called the three Kings of Colen, because their bodies are there, translated thither from the East countrie. Their names are said to haue bene Gaspar, Melchior, Baltasar. In these wordes thou seest (reader) vpon what ground, and with what moderation we speake of that matter, not precisely auou∣ching them to be Kinges in such sort as we commōly esteeme of that name, but after an other sort and some inferi∣our degree. Albeit if we affirmed them to be as great monarkes as the Kinges of Fraunce or Spaine, or the great Sophie of Persia, we might so affirme for ought he bringeth to the contrarie.
But because M. W. maketh his first entrance with this matter, as though it were so absurd, let vs search out wherein lieth the great absurditie and fault committed in this note. Is it trowe you, in that we cal them Kinges, or in that we saie they were three, or
in that by our reporte their names are sayd to haue bene such? If because of the first, let him shew his reason why that can be so harmeful, what it ma∣keth against the honor of Christ, what against the veritie of the scrip∣tures, the faith of the church, tradi∣tion ecclesiastical, the maners of mē, or any title, point or dependence of Christianitie, and Christian professi∣on. The like I affirme of the second, the like of the thirde, the like of al three ioyned together. VVe cal them kinges, and why not? seyng the scrip∣ture wel beareth with that appellati∣on, and the auncient fathers haue so called them many hundred yeres be∣fore vve vvere borne. So Tertullian in his 3. booke against Marcion calleth them. so S. Cyprian calleth them, in his sermon De baptismo et manifestatione Christi. And S. Chrysostom proueth by scripture that they vvere kinges. thus he writeth. The vvisemen offered giftes to this child Christ according as the holy Ghost had testified before of them, saing Esai 60. They shal come from Saba offering gold, and frankencense, & pretious stone. VVe acknovvledge that the vvise men euident∣ly fulfilled this prophecy. Dauid quoque de
his ita testatur, psal. 71. Reges Thaersis et Insulae munera offerent, Reges Arabum et Saba dona adducent. Dauid also vvitnes∣seth of these, psal. 71. The kinges of Thaer∣sis and the Isles shal offer gifts, The kinges of the Arabians and Saba shal bring presents. And S. Hierom applieth that text of the psalme to them in like maner. And Tertullian against the Ievves vvho seemed vvith M. W. to enuie al this honor of Christ vvriteth thus. Dauid also spake of this offring of gold vvhen he sayd, ps. 71. there shal be geuen to him of the gold of Arabia. and againe, the kinges of Arabia and Saba shal bring him gifts. Nam et magos reges serè habuit Oriens. For the East part had commonly such vvise men for their kinges. S. Augustin plainely nameth them kinges. so doth Claudianus, so doth S. Isidorus, so doth S. Remigius, so doth Theop••ilac∣tus, so do generally the writers that haue liued in the church this later 500 yeres as we learne by S. Anselme, who speaketh De istis tribus regibus, Of these three kinges, as of a thing most vsual & vulgar. And Conradus Gesnerus di∣recteth you to certaine writers who haue made treatises, De tribus Magis, De tribus sanctis regibus, Of these three
vvise men, Of these three holy kinges. And among these auncient and Catholike fathers to alleage one new, Zuinglius holdeth it as very probable that they were kinges. Thus he speaketh of them, writing vpon the 2 chapter of S. Matthew. Magi (saith he) sunt sapientes et astrorum et omnium rerum peritissimi. huiusmodi homines ferè administrationi re∣rum publicarum adhibuerunt gentiles. Ma∣gi are vvisemen skilful in astronomy and al other matters. The gentiles made such men commonly gouerners of their common vvelthes. After al which, for vs to cal them kings, how can it in any sort be hurtful or preiudicial to any truth of Christian religiō? Nay on the contra∣rie side, whosoeuer carpeth at this, certainely he maligneth the glorie of our Sauiour, he secretly detracteth from his honor, and malitiously pin∣cheth and snarleth at the auncient and Apostolike church, which in this sorte witnessed such prophecies to haue bene fulfilled.
But perhaps M. W. is offended at the number of three, vvhere vpon S. Augustine so sweetely alludeth vnto the mystery of the Blessed Trinitie, and that Christe was King, God, and
yet should dye as a mortal man. This is that great corruption which so gre∣ueth him. But who would be greued here at, except some detestable Arian, Trinitarian, Libertine, or Anabap∣tist, against whose religion only (for ought I know) that note maketh. And touching the story that they were three, S. Austin plainely affirmeth it, Tres erant. So saith S. Leo the Great and first of that name, aboue a dozen times in his sermons vpon the feast of the Epiphanie. And whereas the Euā∣gelist speaketh of them, not in the dual but in the plural number, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fewer they could, not well be, and more we neede not to beleeue, except we see more reason thē yet appeareth.
And touching the last part, vz, Their names are said to haue bene such, how could vve haue spoken more moderatly? For who hath heard them called by any other names? And I sup∣pose they were not namelesse. And if they had names, why not Gaspar, Melchior, Baltazar, rather then Wil∣liam, Iohn, and Thomas, or any other, that M. W. list to imagine, whereas the common opinion of our forefa∣thers maketh for the first, no probabili∣tie or reason can be brought for the se∣cond.
And if M. VV. beleeue that the Ievvish Sinagoge erred not in conti∣nuing by tradition vvithout scripture the names of Pharaos vvicked sorce∣rers, Iannes and Mambres, vvhy thin∣keth he not this much more likely, that the Church vvould keepe in re∣membrance the names of these such excellent men, vvho vvith so great daunger came so farre to adore our Sauiour in his infancie, and are called Primitiae gentium, in vvhom the Church of the gētiles first begāne? But hovvso euer the exacte truth be in this case, it is a very smale point of desperatnes for vs to vvrite, that their names are said to haue bene such, & most false it is that we set this forth, as a most certaine article of the Romane religion: and whatsoeuer, e∣ther in general or in special shal be obiected hereafter, in the meane sea∣son the annotation grounded vpon good reason, gathered out of the scri∣ptures, the psalmes of Dauid, Esai, Esther, Tobias, besides other autho∣ritie sacred and prophane, S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome, Theophilact, Cicero, and Plinie, in any iudgment (I trow) is able to coūteruaile the bare worde of so seely a man as M. VV. shevveth him self.
Touching S. Iohn thus we say. Mat. 3. v. 1. Desert. Of this vvord desert (in greeke Eremus) commeth the name Eremitages, & Eremites, that liue a religious & austere life in deserts and solitarie places, by the exam∣ple of S. Iohn Baptist, vvhom the holy doctors therefore cal the prince, and as it vvere the author of such profession. S. Chrysost. hom. 1. in Marcum. et hom. de Io. Baptista. Hierō ad Eustach. de eustod. virg. Isid. l. 2. c. 15. de diui. off. Bernardus de excel. Io. Baptistae. vvhere∣vvith the protestāts are so offended, that they say S. Chrysost. spake rashly & vntruly. And no marueil, for vvhereas the Euangelist him∣selfe in this place maketh him a perfecte pa∣terne of penance and Eremitical life, for de∣sert or vvildernes, for his rough and rude ap∣parel, for abstaining from al delicate mea∣tes (according to our Sauiours testimonie also of him, Mat. 11.8. Luc. 7.33.) they are not ashamed to peruert al vvith this straunge commentarie, that it vvas a desert ful of townes & villages, his garment vvas chālet, his meate such as the countrie gaue and the people there vsed: to make him thereby but a common man lyke to the rest in his maner of lyfe: cleane against scriptures, fathers and reason. Here (Christian reader) to proue that S. Iohn was a monke, thou hast as before, reason plainly deduced out of
the scriptures, thou hast the auncient fathers deducing the same with vs, S. Hierom, S. Chrysostom, S. Isidorus, S. Bernard. Against these scriptures and aūcient Doctors, thou hearest the bare word of this new Doctor, who had he euer bene a good scholer, would neuer so boldly without face or forehead haue abused thy patience, as to oppose his only word against these reasons, Doctors, and scriptures.
Touching the stone which is reserued at Ancona, and the comming of Elias before the day of iudgment thus we say, Of the first, Reade a maruelous narra∣tiō in S. Augustine of one stone, that hitting the Martyr on the elbovv reboūded backe to a faithful mā that stood neere, vvho kee∣ping & carying it vvith him, vvas by reuela∣tiō vvarned to leaue it at Ancona in Italie: vvherevpō a Church or Memorie of S. Steuen vvas there erected, and many miracles done after the said martyrs body vvas found out, and not before. Aug. tomo 10. Ser. 38. de diuersis. in aedit. Paris. Now of al these, miracles, Church built in memory of Martyrs, Reuelations, Stone reserued, M. W. digesteth wel the rest, only he seemeth to wonder that a stone could be kept so long. As though that were
so wonderful a case, or there were not both in scripture, as Aarons rod and the Manna, and out of the scripture, as al Churches through Christendome are witnes, many things preserued as long time, far more vnlike to continue then stones, which may wel endure fifteene hundred yeres fiue times told, if they be kept as wel as that at Anco∣na. And whatsoeuer fault he find in the storie, let him scoffe at S. Austin who so seriously rehearseth it, not at vs, who refer only the reader to S. Austin, and speake neuer a worde of our selues.
And the like I answere for the se∣cond, of which these are our wordes. Christ distinguisheth here plainly betvvene Elias in person, vvho is yet to come before the iudgement, and betvvene Elias in name, to vvit, Iohn the Baptist, vvho is come already in the spirit and vertue of Elias. So that it is not Iohn Baptist only nor principally of vvhō Malachie prophecieth (as our Aduersaries say) but Elias also him self in person▪ which annotatiō conteineth nothing els tou∣ching this point, but the very wordes of our Sauiour and the prophete Mala∣chie, That Elias shal come. which wordes when our Sauiour spake, S. Iohn Bap∣tiste,
who was Elias by some resēblāce, figure, and office, was past and dead. This truth els where we approue by the authoritie of S. Aust. Tract. 4. in Ioan. li. 1. de pec. mer. ca. 3. and the rest of the latin Doctors. as S. Hierom ad Pammach. epist. 61. ca. 11. et in psal. 20. S. Ambr. in psal. 45. S. Hilar. can. 20. in Matth. Prosper. lib. vlt. de promiss. ca. 13. S. Greg. lib. 14. Moral. ca. 11. et homil. 12. in Ezech. Beda. in. 9. Marci. The Greeke fathers also, as S. Chrysost. hom. 58. in Matt. et hom. 4. in 2. Thess. et hom. 21. in Genes. et hom. 22. in epist. ad Hebr. Theo∣philact. and Oecumen. in 17. Matth. S. Dae∣mas. lib. 4. de Orthodoxa fide. ca. 27. Final∣ly by the vniuersal consent of al Chris∣tians, where of S. Austin is witnes in these wordes. Heliam Thesbitem vltimo tēpore venturum ante iudicium, celeberrimū est in sermonibus cordibusque fidelium. That Elias the Thesbite shal come before the day of iudgement, it is a most notorious thing in the mouthe and hartes of faithful men. And now the Prophet foretelling so, our Sauiour affirming so, the auncient fathers both Greeke & Latin teaching so, faithful and christian men alwaies beleeuing so, this is the questiō which I wil not dispute but leaue it at large, and M. W. may do wel to put it to his
thesis of Antichrist (for they are both iust of like probabilitie) and handle it at the next comencemēt, vz, whether we must rather credite him vpon his bare word telling vs one thing, or the vniuersal consent of Christendome & the primitiue Church, rising vpon the expresse wordes of the prophete and our Sauiour him self, teaching vs the contrarie. And these touching matters historical, be the horrible faultes of our Annotations, for which he accuseth vs of Desperatnes, and them of such absurdi∣tie, that neuer any thing more contaminate and corrupt, vvas set abrode in the sight of the vvorld.
Our errors in making arguments are far more, at least in number and shew, how soeuer they proue in sub∣stance and truth. I wil folow the or∣der begone, that is, first particularly I wil write downe the argument which he fathereth vpon vs, then the reason as we gaue it out: by conference whereof▪ the indifferent reader shal be able to iudge ether of our ignorance, or his impudencie. Thus he proce∣deth. VVise men must needes much more ab∣horre from your religion, vvhen they shal finde you thus to gather of the scriptures.
Christ and Peter vvalked on the vvaters. ergo the body of Christ may be shut vp in a litle bread. Our wordes are these. VVhen not only Christ, but by his povver Peter also vvalketh vpon the vvaters, it is euident that he cā dispose of his ovvne body aboue nature, & cōtrar••e to the natural conditions thereof, as to goe through a doore, Iohn 20. to be in the compasse of a litle bread. Ephiphan. in A••nchorato. Let M. VVhitaker shew the reason why the one folovveth not as vvel as the other, vvhy he vvil more abridge Christs povver, and bynd him to the rules of nature in the Sacrament, then in that miraculous entring to his disciples, or vvalking on the vvaters. A••beit if he had adui∣sedly considered the note, he might haue perceaued the same to cōsist, not so much in our collection, as in the authoritie of Epiphanius, vvho ma∣keth the case of Christs being in the Sacrament so cleare, that he accoun∣teth M. VV. and his felovves for their infidelitie in that behalfe, reprobates from the face of God, and sure of eter∣nal damnation. Excidit a gratia et salu∣te, in the place before quoted.
[ 2] Peter vvalked on the waters. Ergo the Pope of Rome hath authoritie ouer al the church.
This application as S. Bernard and Catholike men vse it, is no more re∣prouable, then that of our Sauiour, As Moyses exalted the serpent in the desert, so must the sonne of man be exalted, Or that of S. Paule, Abraham had tvvo sonnes Ismael and Isaac, one of the bond vvo∣man according to the flesh, and one of the free vvoman by promise. And as then he that vvas borne according to the flesh, per∣secuted him that vvas after the spirite, so novv also. But for a man to folovv M. VV. example, and make Christ or S. Paule to argue after his paterne thus, The serpent vvas exalted in the de∣sert, Ergo Christ must be hanged on the crosse, or, Abrahams tvvo sonnes could not vvel agree, but Ismael vex∣ed Isaac, Ergo the Ievves must vexe and persecute the Christians, this in old time vvould haue bene accounted diuinitie fit for Lucian and such like scorners, hovvsoeuer it be novv vsed of these nevv gospellers in great sad∣nes. Thus stādeth our note. Peter (saith S. Bernard) vvalking vpon the vvaters, as Christ did, declared him self the only vicar of Christ, vvhich should be ru∣ler not ouer one people, but ouer al. For ma∣ny vvaters are many peoples. Bernard. lib.
2. de considerat. ca. 8. See the place, hovv he deduceth from Peter the like authoritie and iurisdiction to his successor the bisshop of Rome.
[ 3] The good Samaritane said to the host, vvhatsoeuer thou shalt supererogate, I vvil restore it to the. ergo there are vvorkes of supererogation. This argument folow∣eth wel inough, and it is S. Augustins conclusion, not ours. This is the anno∣tation. S. Augustine saith that the Apostle (1. Cor. 9.) according to this place did super∣erogate, that is, did more then he needed or vvas bound to do, vvhen he might haue re∣quired al duties for preaching the Gospel, but vvould not. li. de op. Monach. c. 5. VVhereof it cōmeth, that the vvorkes vvhich vve doe more then precept, be called vv••rkes of Super∣erogation: and vvhereby it is also euident against the Protestants, that there be such vvorkes. See Optatus li. 6. cont. Parm. hovv aptly he applyeth this parable to S. Paules coūsel of virginitie (1 Cor. 7.) as to a vvorke of supererogation.
[ 4] Christ vvas transfigured. ergo he geueth vs his body in forme of bread and vvine. This is M. VV. scoffing, not our argu∣ing. we only deduce hence, that Christ may so do, as not being bound to philosophical rules or conditions
of nature, which is cleare and mani∣fest, not that for this cause he doth so, which is foolish and impertinent. See the first argument. Our wordes are. Marke in this Trāsfiguration many mar∣uelous points. As, that he made not only his ovvne body, vvhich then vvas mortal, but also the bodies of Moyses and Elias, the one dead, the other to die, for the time as it vvere immortal: thereby to represent the state and glorie of his body, and his Saintes in hea∣uen. By vvhich maruelous transfiguring of his body, you may the lesse maruel that he cā exhibite his body vnder the forme of bread and vvine, or othervvise as he list.
[ 5] Saintes in heauen are like vnto Angels, because they vse not mariage. ergo they can heare the praiers of al men, & euery vvhere succour vs. This consequent consisteth of two partes, the one is, the falsificatiō of Christs reasō, the other is like falsi∣ficatiō of our argument drawen thēce. For nether Christ said, Saintes are like vnto Angels, because they vse not ma∣riage, but contrarywise, they vse not mariage, because they are like vnto Angels: nether inferre we their abili∣tie of hearing or succouring vs, for that
false cause vvhich M. VV. assigneth, but because they are aduaunced vnto the state and condition of angels as sayth our Sauiour, whose office ••s to succour and ayde men, as in the scrip∣aure we find euery where, and the very English Communion booke doth teach and allow. The difference is as great, as if whē one argueth thus, N. is a man, therefore he hath a head: an other should inuert it after this sort, N. hath a head, therefore he is a man. The first is true, as any may per∣ceaue. the second is false, as whereby an asse or a goose is proued to be a man. This is our note. As Christ pro∣ueth here, that in heauen they nether ma∣ry nor are maried, because there they shal be as Angels: by the very same reason, is proued, that Saints may heare our praiers and helpe vs, be they neere or farre of, be∣cause the Angels do so, and in euery moment are present vvhere they l••st, and neede not to be neere vs, vvhen they heare or helpe vs.
[ 6] Ioseph vvrapped Christs body in sindo••. ergo Christs body on the altar must be layd in pure linnen. I know not what M. W. disliketh in this argument, whether
the real presence of the same body on the altar, which vvas in the sepul∣cher, or the linnen vsed at the altar, as it was in the sepulcher, or the rela∣tion from one to the other. Because ech part is warranted in the Annota∣tion by sufficient authoritie, I thinke it needeles to adde any more, vntil I better know the pointe whereat he is offended. This is the note. This ho∣nour and duty done to Christs body being dead, vvas maruelous grateful and merito∣rious. And this vvrapping of it in cleane sindon may signifie by S. Hierom, that the body of our Lord is to be vvrapped not in gold, pretious stones, and silke, but in pure linnen. And so in the vvhole Church it is obserued by S. Siluesters constitutiō, that the Corporal vvherevpon our Lordes body lieth on the altar, must be pure and plaine linnen.
[ 7] The vvomē came to behold the sepulcher. Ergo novv vve must goe in pilgrimage to the holy sepulcher. If M.VV. enforce the word, must, as it seemeth, we confesse the argument foloweth not, and the argument so, is of his owne deuising, not of ours. For we bind not, nor en∣force any man by this example, but they that list, may tary at home, and take their ease. Mary waying that du∣tie
of visiting such holy places in it self, without constrayning or binding any to it of necessitie, then presuppo∣sing this to be wel done by these holy womē, the reason foloweth wel thēce, to approue the like deuotion of Chri∣stian people now. And this deduction is iustified by S. Hierom and the vni∣uersal consent of Christendome in his time. The wordes of the note are. The deuoute vvomen came to visite our Sa∣uiours Sepulcher, and for their deuotion first deserued to knovv the Resurrection, and to see him risen. The honour of vvhich Se∣pulcher and of the pilgrimage therevnto in the primitiue Church, S. Hierom declareth in these vvordes. The Iewes sometime honoured Sācta Sanctorū, because there vvere the Che∣rubs, & the Propitiatorie, and the Arke of the Testament, Manna, Aarons rodde, & the golden altar. Doth not the Sepulcher of our lord seeme to thee more honorable? vvhich as often as vve enter into so often do vve see our Sauiour lye in the sindon: and stayng there a vvhile, vve see the Angel againe sitte at his feete, and at his head the napkin vvrapped together. The glorie of vvhose Se∣pulcher, vve knovv vvas long prophecied before Ioseph hevved it out, by Esay sayng. And his rest shal be honour: to vvit, be∣cause
the place of our Lordes burial should be honoured of al men. A••d at this present, notvvithstanding the Turkes dominion, yet doe the religious Christian Catholike me••n by Gods m••ghtie prouidence keepe the holy Se∣pulcher, vvhich is vv••thin a goodly Church, and Christians come out of al the vvorld in Pilgrimage to it.
[ 8] Christ appeared to the tvvo disci∣ples in an other forme. ergo he is in the sacrament in forme of bread. This is of like qualitie vvith the fourth, & needeth no farther ansvvere. The vvords are. Christ though he haue but one corporal shape, natural to his person, yet by his omn potencie he may be in vvhatsoeuer forme, and appeare in the likenesse of any o∣ther man or creature, as he list. Therefore e••et no man thinke it strange, that he may be vn∣der the forme of bread in the B Sacrament.
[ 9] Christ to the man domb and deafe sayd, Ephpheta. ergo exorcisme is to be vsed, & the same vvordes to be recited in baptisme. This ergo, is as wise as many of the rest, for ab••olutely no more necessarie it is to vse, Ephpheta, in baptisme because Christ so spake, then it is to vse, Eli Eli Lāmazabachthani, which Christ spake as wel as the other. Argument we make none, but only we note out of S. Am∣brose,
that the auncient and primitiue Church, which best knew which wor∣des & actions of Christ were imitable, which were not, that Church retained this word & other ceremonies vsed by our Sauiour. As also the same Church vniuersally vsed, Exorcisme, as witnes∣seth S. Austin, which he calleth, Tra∣ditionem ve••ust••ss••••••am, antiqu••ssimam, un∣datissimam, in Ecclesia toto orbe diffusa. A tradition most olde and auncient, and most grounded in the Church dispersed through the vvhole vvorld. Our vvords are. The Church doth most godly imitate & vse th••se very vvordes and ceremonies of our Sauiour in the Exorcismes before baptismes, to the healing of their soules that are to be bapti∣sed, as Christ heare healed tho bodily infir∣mitie and the disease of the soule together. Ambr lib. 1. de Sacram. ca. 1.
[ 10] Luke the Euangelist vsed a familiar pre∣face. ergo the author of the second booke of the Machabees might desire pardon and excuse his slendernes, and yet his vvritings be Cano∣nical. This argument foloweth wel. & M.VV. wil make many worse before he make one better, if he take and wa••gh the word and reason as they are deliuered in the Annotation. For it doth derogate as much frō the maiestie
of the holy Ghost to vse humane helpes in searching out the truth, as to craue pardon for the stile and maner of wri∣ting. And if you wil applie this note to that argumēt made against the Macha∣bees, and so much vaunted of by your deerest brother in Christ. M. VV. Charke in the Towre, you shal finde the case to be like, and both S. Luke and the Ma∣chabees, touching your censure to stād vpon one grounde. Thus vrgeth he there. The vvriters of scripture aske not any pardon ether for the matter or for the ma∣ner. Againe, VVhatsoeuer is the vvord of the holy Ghost nether doth aske, nor doth neede pardon in any respect. Againe, The holy Ghost neuer asketh pardon of man for any thing he doth, for that vvere to bring God vnder man & make the spirit of God subiect to the allovvance or disallovvance of sinful flesh. And may not al this as wel be ap∣plied against S. Luke? The holy Ghost is not ignorant, so as he needeth to runne to sinful flesh, thence to learne what Christ did. The holy Ghost can of him self teach his Euangelistes and craueth not help of mortal mā &c. And therfore S. Luke writeth not of the ho∣ly Ghost, when he professeth him self to write by humane ayde & diligence.
Much more these reasons take frō vs many entier epistles of S. Paule. For what shal we iudge of the epistle to the Romanes? Audacius autem scripsi vobis fratres ex parte. I haue vvritten to you bre∣thren more boldly in some part. what is this but an excuse, a very crauing of pardon? So to the Corinthians. And I vvas vvith you in infirmitie, & feare, and much trembling. Is the holy Ghost in in∣firmitie? in fearer doth the holy Ghost tremble? After, he desireth them, To beare vvith some litle of his folye. That I speake I speake not according to God, but as it vvere in foolishnes. because many glorye according to the flesh, I also vvil glorye, Factus sum insipiens, vos me coegistis. I am become foolish, you haue cōpelled me. Such places many we fynde in S. Paules epistles, which if some man like M.W. and M Charke should applye to the holy Ghost, and aske whether the ho∣ly Ghost could do this or that, could glorye, could bragge, could speake not according to God, could be foolish, the partie so arguing should proue him self litle better then a foole, & yet the argument is a pithy and wise as this against the Machabees. And I much muse, whether it is not more a∣gainst
the honor o•• the holy Ghost, to craue the praiers of sinful flesh, which im∣plieth sume feare of falling & humane imbecill••••ie▪ then to excuse the maner of the sti••e and writing, and in that re∣spect Craue pardon of sinful flesh, which is a thing of farre lesse preiudice. And yet this doth the Spirite of God al∣most in euery epistle of S. Paule, to the Romanes, to the Corinthians, to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, &c. Thus standeth the note. Hereby vve see, that though the Holy Ghost ruled the penne of holy vvriters that they might not erre, yet did they vse hu∣mane meanes to search out and find the truth of the things they vvrote of. Euen so doe Councels, and the President of them, Gods vicar, discusse and examine al causes by hu∣mane meanes, the assistance of the Holy Ghost concurring and directing them into al truth, according to Christes promise, 10.16.13: as in the very first Councel of the Apostles them selues at Hierusalē is manifest Act. 15, 7. and 28. Againe here vve haue a familiar pre∣face of the Author as to his frende, or to euery godly Reader (signified by Theophi∣lus) concerning the cause and purpose and maner of his vvriting, and yet the very same is confessed scripture, vvith the vvhole
booke folovving. Maruel not then if the au∣thor of the second booke of the Machabees vse the like humane speaches both at the begin∣ning and in the later end, nether do thou therefore reiect the booke for no Scripture, as our heretikes doe: or not thinke him a sacred vvriter.
[ 11] The Angel vvissheth wel to mē of good vvil, that is, those vvhom God embraceth vvith his grace and mercy. ergo men haue free vvill. By this example a man may see what difference is betwene the old Gospel and the new. If the wordes were ••easte as in the old time they were read and vnderstoode, the consequent of this reason would haue held, and so S. Au∣gustine gathered whom we alleage. But taking the word and sense as M. W. deliuereth it, nether S. Augustine nor any other sober man did or would euer haue inferred such a consequent. Our words are. The birth of Christ geueth not peace of minde or saluation but to such as be of good vvill, because he vvorketh not our good against our vvilles, but our vvilles con∣curring. August. quaest. ad Simplic. li. 1. q. 2. tom. 4.
[ 12] Christ vvent into Peters shippe. ergo the vvhole church is Peters shippe. This is of like qualitie with the second before
noted. It is only an allegory aptly and truly declared, the substance where∣of is vsual among the auncient fathers, who cal many times the Catholike church by the name of Peters shipp. And touching this special place, S. Gregorie maketh no question, but Christ so signified by this fact when he made choyse to enter into that shippe. Thus he writeth. Iesus a scen∣ded into Peters ship &c. sitting there he preached to the multitudes. Per nauem Pe∣tri, quid aliud quam commissa Petro ecclesia designatur? By Peters shippe vvhat els is signified, but the church, vvhich vvas com∣mited to Peter? To like purpose vpō the same place writeth S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, & S. Bede. The wordes of our annotation are these. It is purposely expressed that there vvere tvvo shippes, & that one of them vvas Peters, and that Christ vvent into that one, and sate downe in it, and that sitting he taught out of that shippe: no doubt to signifie the church re∣sembled by Peters ship, and that in it is the chayre of Christ, and only true preaching.
[ 13] Barnabas laid dovvne the price of his land at the Apostles feete. ergo vve must kisse the Popes feete. If the Apostle S. Pe∣ter had not before told vs that heretiks
in the later daies especially should be Illusores, mockers, and the Prophete Da∣uid named their general profession, a Chayre or schoole of scorners, Cathedrā irrisorum, we might by our owne expe∣rience haue learned thus much of the Protestant writers of our time, who by this feate among the popular haue brought into contempt the grauest partes of Christian religion, and haue much shaken the obedience due both to spiritual and ciuil magistrates. By this chiefely the Lutherans refel the article of Christes Ascension and being in heauen, as we see in Brētius. By this the Zuinglians refute Christs descēding into hel, as we see in mais∣ter Carlile, and disproue the real pre∣sence, whereof their common prea∣chings and writings are witnes. By this as a very plausible meane the Germane ministers stirred the people against their Emperour Charles the fift as vve reade in Sleidan. And hovv like M. W. is vnto them for his smale talent, by most of these his merie con∣clusions it appeareth. In this present, hovv far his vnreasonable collection differeth from our reasonable admo∣nition, the discrete reader may easely
iudge. Our vvordes are, Barnabas as the re••, did not only giue his goods as in vulgar almes, but in al humble and reue∣rent maner as things dedicated to God, he layed thē dovvne at the Apostles holy seete, as S. Luke alvvaies expresseth, and gaue them not into their hands. The Sunamite sel dovvne and embraced Elisaeus feete. Ma∣ny that asked benefites of Christ (as the vvoman sick of the bloudy fluxe) fel dovvne at his feete, and Marie kissed his feete. Such are signes of due reuerence done both to Christ and to other sacred persons, ether Prophetes, Apostles, Popes, or other representing his person in earth. See in S. Hierom of Epipa∣nius Bishop in Cypres, hovv the people of Hie∣rusalem of al sortes flocked together vnto him, offering their children (to take his blessing) kissing his feete, plucking the hem∣m••s of his garment, so that he could not moue for the throng. Ep: 61: cap. 4. cont. error. Io. Hierosol.
[ 14] The Eunuch of the Quene of AEthiopia, came to Hierusalem to vvorship. ergo pilgri∣mages to holy places are acceptable to God. why this reason should not be allowa∣ble, I can not gesse. The Eunuch came a long iourney frō Aethiopia to Hie∣rusalem there to worshippe God▪ and is commended for so doing. therefore
if we goe in like maner to Rome or Hierusalē for like cause, we are not to be blamed. where is the diss••militude? whence riseth the inequalitie? what part is there not answerable? that man to vs, his fact to ours, his intention to ours, the beginning, continuance and ende, proportionable to ours, euery part and parcel of his doing, fully resē¦bled in ours. If M.W. haue any hid ima∣gination which we can not reach vn∣to, let him imparte it, & we wil frame him a reasonable answere. The margi∣nal note vpon the wordes of S. Luke is this. Note that this Aethiopian came to Hierusalem to adore, that is, on pilgrimage. VVhereby vve may learne that it is an ac∣ceptable act of religion, to go from home to places of greater deuotion and sanctifica∣tion.
[ 15] To Christ is geuen a name aboue al names, that in the name of Iesus, al knees should bovv. Ergo so oft as vve heare the name of Iesus, vve must put of our cappes and make curtesy. For confirmation of this ergo, I send M. W. to M. D. Whitg. who wil ease me of some labour in this be∣halfe. He telleth him, That this gesture of capping and kneeling at the name of Iesus, hath continued in the Church many hun∣dred
yeres, & yeldeth this reasō thereof, that the Christians to signifie their faith in Iesus and their obedience vnto him, and to confute by open gesture the vvicked opinion of the Ievves and other infidels (vvho most abhorred that name) vsed to do bodily reuerence at al times vvhen they heard the name of Iesus, but specially vvhen the gospel vvas read, vvhich contained that glad ti∣dings of saluation, vvhich is procured vnto man by Christ Iesus, vvhere vpon also he is called Iesus, that is a Sauiour. Hereof he inferreth, Nether cā it be against Christia∣nitie to shevv bodily reuerence, vvhen he is named, by vvhom not only al the spiritual enemies of mankind are subdued, but also the faithful be made partakers of the king∣dome of heauen. Thus far he. Now if we shal ioyne to this reason, the reason geuen in the Annotation, that the Protestants gladly yelde this honour of cap and curtesie to the letters, ma∣ces, name, seale, seate, and very many other things hauing any relation or dependence of the Q. maiestie, of these two thus conferred togither, we shal find this to folow, and be a very good consequent. M. VV. yeldeth lesse honour and reuerence to the name and crosse of Christ, then he
doth to the name and so many base signes apperta••ning to a temporal prince: E••go M. VV. is a very Athe∣ist, one that maketh no account of Christ. This is the note. Name of Iesus.) By the like vvickednes they charge the faithful people for capping or kneeling whē they heare the name of Iesus. As though they vvorsh••pped not our lord God therein, but the syllables, or letters, or other material ele∣ments vvhereof, the vvord vvritten or spo∣ken consisteth, and al this, b•• sophistications to dravv the people from due honour and deuotion tovvard Christ Iesus, vvhich is Satans drift by putting scruples into sim∣ple mens mindes about his sacraments, his Saints, his Crosse, his name, his image, & such like, to abolish al true religion out of the world, and to make them plaine Atheists. But the Church knovveth Satans cogitati∣ons, and therefore by the scriptures and rea∣son, vvarranteth and teacheth al her ch••l∣dren to do reuerence vvhen so euer Iesus is named. because Catholikes do not honour these things nor count them holy, for their matter, colour, sound, and syllables, but for the respect and relation they haue to our Sauiour, bringing vs to the remembrance and apprehension of Christ, by sight, hearing, or vse of the same signes. Els vvhy make
vve not reuerence at the name of Iesus the sonne of Sirach, as vvel as of Iesus Christ? And it is a pityful case to see these prophane subtelties of Heretikes to take place in reli∣gion, vvhich vvere ridiculous in al other trade of life. VVhen vve heare our Prince or Soueraine named, vve may vvithout these scruples doe obeisance, but tovvardes Christ it must be superstitious.
These be the arguments, which he saith are of our making, how truely, thou maist now iudge. To speake of them more at large and in special, ech one contayning so diuers matter, of Praying to Sainctes, of the Real pre∣sence, of Peters primacie, of Pilgri∣mage, of Canonical scriptures &c. vvould amount to a great volume. Touching these and the like, because it is growen now of late to a common veyne in writing and preaching, thus much wil I say in general, that M. VV. and his felowes in making such sporting conclusions, First, shew them selues as ignorant in diuinitie as may be, for so much as hereby they geue forth plaine signification, that they know not the first rule, or principle of Christian religion, they know not what Christian faith meaneth. Secon∣darely,
that by so doing, they instruct their scholers and auditors to make a mocke of Christ and his gospel, and to scoffe at euery part of Christianitie. Both these I wil ioyntly declare in a few lines. Note thou therefore (good reader) that Christian faith, and the articles thereof are of this propertie and nature, that they can not be con∣cluded or proued by any manifest rules of natural wisedome and reason, as we find in other sciences, Geome∣trie, Philosophie, Law &c. but they rest only vpon the authoritie of Christ our Sauiour and his Apostles, who first deliuered them vnto vs. For as the Apostle teacheth, Fides est substantia re∣rum sperandarum, argumentum non appa∣rentium. Faith is the substance or subsis∣tence and foundation of things hoped, the argument or sure persuasion of things not ap∣pearing to sense, or reason, or humane discourse. As for example. we beleeue the resurrection of our bodies, not be∣cause it can be confirmed by any phi∣losophical or logical demonstration, (for if it could be so, then were it not properly an article of faith) but be∣cause Christ and his Apostles so taught. This being the ground and es∣sential
forme of faith, and of euery parte thereof, because men are hardly m••ued to beleeue things so vnproba∣ble, so f••r b••yond reason, and against cōmon sense, the office of Diuines is by compar••ng these articles with o∣ther workes of God, ether in the cre∣ation of the world or redemption of the same, to declare that these are not so vnpossible or vncredible as men imagine, but such as God hath done the like in many other, and therefore may also in this present. So our Saui∣our disputed against the Sadduces. Erratis non scientes scripturas, neque virtu∣tem dei &c. You erre not knovving the scrip¦tures, nor the povver of God. And concer∣ning the resurrection of the dead, haue you not read that vvhich vvas spoken of God, sayng I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Iacob? In which wordes are conteined 2 or 3 ar∣guments to proue the resurrection. One, that God can do it, because he is of such power. An other, that it is not vn••••kely but he wil do it, because he doth towardes the dead, things as hard & vnprobable as that, vz▪ that he protecteth, sustaineth, and preserueth them as their God and Sauiour, and
in that sense is called the God of A∣brahā, Isaac, & Iacob, many hūdred ye∣res after their death. Nether of which argumētes for al that, proueth directly that the dead shal rise, but that depen∣deth only vpon the wil and word of God reuealed in the scriptures, which our Sauiour doth first of al insinuate.
After like maner disputeth S. Paule in his epistle to the Corinthians. If the dead rise not againe, then in vaine is our preaching, then in vaine is your faith, then are vve the most miserable men that liue, then nether Christ is risen. As the graine vvhich is sovven in the earth, dieth first be∣fore it rise againe vvith such fruit and com∣moditie as vve see, so is it in the resurrection of our flesh. In al which arguments there is no one that conuniceth necessarily, no not that which is the principal: Christ is risen, therefore vve shal rise, be∣cause true it is, wel might Christ rise, though we neuer rise, as he truely was crucified and descended into hel, as we by Gods grace shal neuer. But the ve∣ritie of this pointe being first planted in the harts of Christian men by Christs teaching and doctrine, then afterwar∣des these reasons are good motiues to declare, that the resurrection standeth
wel with Gods prouidēce, his iustice, his mercy, his other workes in crea∣ting or redeeming of the world.
The like is to be said of that, where∣with M.W. maketh most sport, I meane the real presence. which if any man would directly proue by one of M.W. arguments, as, Christ vvas transfigured. Ergo he geueth vs his body in bread & vvine, he maketh as blynd an argumēt as did a famous English preacher, vvho in great sadnes would proue the English Cōmunion booke to be good, because in our Creede we are bound to beleeue not the Masse, but The communion, of Saintes. Or as did an other of like vo∣cation, then a preacher, afterward•• a Doctor, vvho felt him self much trou∣bled in conscience, and almost per∣swaded that the masse was found in many places of scripture, because in many subscriptions of S. Paules epistles he found written, Missa est Corintho, Missa est Philippis, Missa est Roma, Missa est Athenis, Missa est Nicopoli. But no Catholike man was euer so mad, as from Christs transfiguration to deduce such an Ergo: and absolutely as vvel he might infer, ergo he is in eue∣ry cheste, in euery chamber, in euery
tree, in euery mountaine, in euery peece of bread in the vvorld. But thus to ••angle, is for Lucianes & hickscor∣ners, it is not for Diuines. Thus far only we applye such reasons. First grounding our faith simply vpon our Sauiours wordes declared by the vni∣forme consent of three Euangelists & S. Paule, and interpreted by the vni∣versal consent of Christs Catholike church in al times and ages: because we find certaine carnal and fleshly mē, lead by reason and sense and humane conceite, offended at this article, vpon pretence of philosophical rules, of na∣tural qualities, of mathematical dimē∣sions, as we see by M.VV. we suppo∣sing that they be not plaine Atheists (wherein perhaps sometimes we are much deceaued, for D. Whitegift tel∣leth vs that the English Church, is novv full of such) by declaration and compa∣rison of other things which they pro∣fesse to holde and beleeue, shew them that this is not so vnpossible, or so vn∣credible, or so vnlikely as they pretēd, whereas some other points they retaine as far aboue reason as this. And thus far forth we applye Christs transfigu∣ration, Christs walking vpon the wa∣ters,
his entring vnto his disciples the dores being shut &c. to declare that his body is not bound to those gene∣ral rules, which nature and reason hath appointed to common bodies, and on vvhich is founded the greatest part of the Zuinglian Diuinitie. And there∣fore as in the first, if a man would haue brought Christs or S. Paules reasons to M. VVhitakers ergo, as thus:
God is omnipotent. Ergo the dead shal rise.
God is the God of Abraham, of Isa∣ac, and Iacob. Ergo the dead shal rise.
Christ is risen againe. Ergo the dead shal rise.
The Apostles were not miserable fooles. Ergo the dead shal rise.
Their preaching was not in vaine. Ergo the dead shal rise.
The husband man soweth corne, and it dieth before it bringeth forth fruite. Ergo the dead shal rise.
As I say any man framing these ar∣guments of Christs and S. Paules wor∣des, were he an Ethnike, had plaied the ignorant foole, if he bare the name of a Christian, had plaid the part of a wicked caytife, and an Athe∣ist: because true it is, euery article of
our faith is in this sort subiect to scorne and irrision: so M. W. in this case folowing the like example, must needes before God and man sustaine a hard iudgement. And therefore if he shal be disposed hereafter to write more bookes, I would wish him to leaue this apish tricke which he hath learned of M. Iewel, who notwithstan∣ding got smal honour thereby. and surely if the matter were correspon∣dent, such kinde of iesting would bet∣ter become some merie felow making sport vpon a stage, with a furred hood & a wooddē dagger, thē either a learned bishop, such as M. Iewel tooke him selfe to be, or a profound Reader of diuinitie, as I thinke M.W. would glad∣ly be accounted.
And whereas next he saith. Quando has nouorum magistrorum &c. vvhen vvise men shal heare these interpretations & ar∣guments of these nevv maisters, if there be left in them any sense, I vvil not say of the holy Ghost, but of common iudgment, they can not thinke a religion builded vpon these grounds, to be firme, assured, and better then al other, I answere, first, that he much deceaueth him selfe, when he calleth these the interpretations of new mais∣ters,
as he doth likewise after in his Antichristian booke where he saith, Nou•• Theologi Rhemenses &c. The nevv Di∣uines of Rhemes teach that the bishops blessing taketh avvay venial sinnes, where as we speake not so of our selues, but vpon warrant of an old Diuine of Mi∣lan, euen S. Ambrose whom there we cite. And here excepting the places where we vrge the very text of the E∣uangelist, euery one of the other is the interpretation of old and aunci∣ent fathers, of S. Epiphanius, S. Am∣brose, S. Hierom, S. Austin, S. Chry∣sostom, S. Siluester, &c. And if these be new maisters, I maruel who be old? be like M. Iewel, M. Horne, M. Fulke, M. Keltridge, M. Charke, and such vvorthie doctors of your old congre∣gation, vvhich novv grovveth vvel to fiftie yeres standing, if I misrecken not my selfe. For M. D. Haddon a fevv yeres sithence, in his ansvver to Oso∣rius made greate vaunt, that then your gospel had continued aboue thirtie yeres (abating from that count 6 yeres) Annos plusquam triginta, excep∣to sexennii turbulentissime tempore. And therefore belike novv it is come to a goodly and a reuerend antiquitie.
But as auncient as it is, many a good man liueth who knew when it was not begotten, and may liue ful wel, til it be againe dead and rotten.
Then vvhereas you aff••rme our re∣ligion to be built vpon these grounds, you folovv but the cōmon v••yne of your felowes, that is, to belye vs: sa∣uing that you haue gotten perhaps a deeper habite therein, thorough to much imitation of M. Iewel. In this very kinde S. Austin complaineth that he was much iniuried by the here∣tikes of his time, & so doth Luther that he vvas vexed by the heretikes of his age. vvhose authoritie I had rather vse to you then S. Austins, because you seeme to honour him more, & esteeme him for an old father, reiecting S. Au∣stin amongst the nevv maisters. Thus saith Luther to Zuinglius and Oeco∣lāpadius & the rest of that sect, & thus he requesteth of them, as we request of you being of the same order. Obse∣cramus (saith he) & obtestamur vos Sacra∣mentarios, &c. VVe desire and beseech you Sacramentaries, if hereafter you vvil needes rayle against the Lutherans or nevv papists as you cal vs, yet abstaine from lying, and fayne not, nether vvrite of vs othervvise
then vve publikely professe & teach. Nam ex his quae iam diximus, patet nos non it a do∣cere, vt hactenus de nobis impudentissimè mentiti estis. For by that vvhich hath bene spoken, it is cleare that vve teach not so, as hitherto you haue most impudently belyed vs.
So Luther of the Zuinglians. & we leauing Luthers termes to him selfe, re∣quest the like of our aduersaries. If they tel vs of any fault cōmitted in the hād∣ling of Gods mysteries, we are ready to acknowlegde and amend the same. If we defend any point of doctrine er∣roneous in their iudgement, let them refel it by Theological argument, by Scriptures, Fathers, Councels, or reasō grounded vpon them, and vve are in quiet and orderly sort ether to yeld to them, or shew them their o∣uersight. If they fal to scoffing & scor∣ning, and making ridiculous & boysh arguments of their owne, & then shew their profound wisedome in cōfuting the same, and withal crye out vpon the Importunitie, and Desperatnes of the pa∣pistes, as we can not but tel them of their peeuishnes, and laugh at such mi∣serable shifts, so we dare assure them that the wise wil neuer be moued to
like wel of their ruinous gospel, tho∣rough such iesting trickes most vnfit for Diuines, & which are able to quayle and disgrace a good cause, though it stoode vpon better grounds thē their gospel yet doth, or (I hope) euer shal.
Pag. 21.
The incre∣dible lying & falsifica∣tions vsed by the En∣glish wri∣ters of our time, are a great mo∣tiue to the Catholike fayth.
Pag. 22.
Mat. 2. v. 11.
mat. 3. v. 12.
Act. 7. v. 58.
The summe of M W ac∣cusation.
The prote∣stants ma∣ner of dis∣puting.
Tower dis∣putation Tiburne dis¦putation.
See M. Fox. martirolo∣ge in King Henries time.
Luc. 12. v. 48
English writers.
The Catho∣like Church built vpon a rocke. (Christ) and therefore in al times constant & vnmouea∣ble.
The English church bu••lt vpon the fauour of Lords & Ladies, gen∣tlemen and gentlewe∣men, and therefore euer totte∣ring, and variable.
Fox act and monumen∣tes pag. 512 Desyre of reuenge. Ibid. p. 592. Couetous∣nes.
Fox acts & monumēts in Henri. 8. pa. 1295. postremae aeditionis.
Fox actes & monumēts, in the end of king Hen¦ryes lyfe▪ pag. 682.
Continual chaunge of the English fayth.
Luthers iud¦gement of the Sacra∣mentarie religion.
Luther tom. 7. defensio. verborum coenae fol. 381.
Trepida cō∣scientia.
Faultes hi∣storical.
Note.
In the pre∣face fol. b. ii
In Mat. 2. v. 11.
Psal. 71. Esa. 60.
Chrysost. Theophil. Cic. de diui∣nat. Plin. lib. 20.
Esther. 1.13.14.
Tob. 2.15. Ambro. 1. offic. ca. 12.
That the wise men were king••.
Tertullian contra Mar∣cionem. l. 3. Ciprian. ser. de Bapt. numer. 1. Chrys. hom. 1. ex variis in Mat. locis
Hier. in psa. 71.
Tertull. cō∣tra Iudaeos probatio. natiuit. Christi.
Aug. ser. 43. ad fatres in Ere.
Claudian. in Epigrāa. Isidorus & Remigius apud D. Tho. in catena in Mat. 2. Theophi. in Mat. 2. Ansel. in Mat. ca. 2.
Gesnerus in Pādectis Vniuersa. lib. vltimo. tit. 2. fol. 29.
Zuing. to. 4. in Mat. ca. 2.
That the wise men were three.
August. ser. 1 de epipha. Leo sermo. 2.3.4.5.6.8.
Their na∣mes.
2. Tim. 3. v. 8.
Mat. 3. v. 1.
Monastical life.
Magd. cent. 5. c. 6. pag. 711.
Cent. 1. li. 1. cap. 10. Cythraeus in 3. ca. Mat. ••ucerus ibi.
Bee Canis. de verbi Dei corruptelis lib. 5. c. 2.3.4
An easy kind of an∣swering.
Act. 7. v. 58.
Relikes & miracles in the honor of Martyrs.
Hebrew. 9. vers. 4.
Mat. 17. v. 11
Apoc. c. 11. vers. 3.
Aug. de ci∣uit. li. 20. cap. 29.
Intolera∣ble bold∣nes and ar∣rogancie.
Faultes in making ar∣guments.
Whit. pa. 22 Argumēt. 1.
Mat. 14. v. 26
Real pre∣sence.
Mat. 14. v. 29
Ioan. 3. v. 14
cal. 4. d
Scripture made ridi∣culous, whē it commeth to the han∣dling of prophane men.
Peters pri∣macy.
Luc. 10. v. 35.
Ma••. 17. v. 2.
Mat. 22. v. 30 Scripture falsified.
Communiō booke, in the collect of Michel∣mas day.
The Saints heare our prayers.
Mat. 27. v. 59
S. Hiero. in hunc locum
To. 1. Conc.
Mat. 28. v. 1.
Pilgrimage to holy pla∣ces.
In epist. 17. Paul. & Eus••. ad Marcel. tom. 1.
Esa. 11.
Mar. 16. v. 12
Christ body vnder di∣uers formes
Mar. 7. v. 34.
Mat. 27. v. 46
Aug. de Ec∣clesiasticis dogma. c. 31▪ Idem de nu¦pt••is, & con∣cupis ē••••a. lib. 2 ca. 18. & 29.
Exorcismes and other ceremonies in baptisme.
Luc. 1. v. 3.
Pag. 3.
In the 4. daies con∣ference. The prote∣stants rea∣son against the Macha∣bees, is as forcible a∣gainst S. Lu∣kes gospel.
More argu∣ments of humane spi¦rit in S. Pau∣les epistles thē in the booke of Machabees. Rom. 25. v. 15.
1. Cor. 2. v. 3
Ibi. c. 11. v. 1.17.
Ib. c. 12. v. 11
Rom. 15. v. 30.
2. Cor. 6.11. Ephe. 6., 19. Colos. 4.3. Thes. 5.25.
Sacred wri∣ters and ho¦ly Coūcels.
Luc. 2. v. 14. This is M. W. glose added to the text.
Free wil.
Luc. 5. v. 3.
The Catho∣like Church Peters ship.
Gregor. in Iob. li. 17. c. 14.
See S, Amb. in Luc lib. 4 cap. 5. Aug. quaest. euāg. l. 2. c. 2 ••ed. in Luc. cap. 5.
Act. 4. v. 37.
2. Pet. 3. v. 3.
Psal. 1.
Heretikes generally geuen to scorning & mocking.
Vide Bren∣tium contra Bullinger. de mansio∣nibus in caelo. anno 1561. fol. 22.23.35. Carlile in his booke that Christ descended not in to hel. fol. 35, 36, 37, 38, & 96, 97, 98.
Sleid. li. 17. pa. 311.
4. Reg. 4. v. 37.
Luc. 8. v. 47. Luc. 7. v. 38.
Act. 8. v. 27.
Pilgrimage to holy pla∣ces.
Phil. 2. v. ••0.
D. Whit. de∣fens. tract. 21. c. 7. pa. 743.
M.W. taketh parte with Iewes and Infidels a∣gainst Chris¦tians.
Why Chris∣tians do ho¦nour at the name of Ie∣sus.
The Protes∣tantes vse more deuo∣tion, and yelde more reuerence to the pic∣tur of a dog and a lyon, then to the name, image or crosse of Christ.
The Protes∣tants wil haue no re∣uerence done at the name of Ie∣sus.
How Ca∣tholikes honour the name of Ie∣sus, and o∣ther things pertaining to him.
Wherevnto the Protes∣tants ten••t by such ri∣diculous cō¦clusions.
Heb. 1. v. 1.
Ibi. c 11. v. 1. Rom. 8. v. 24
The true na¦ture of Christian faith.
Marc. 12. Mat. 22.
1. Cor. 15.
How S. Paul. proueth the resurrection Cor. 15.
How one part or arti∣cle of faith, is applied to the con∣firmation of an other.
Before pa. 177.178.
Whitg. de∣fēce against M. Car. Trac 3. c. 6. ¶. 4.
The English writers teach the way to scorne al Christian religion.
M. Iewel thorough∣out his first booke a∣gainst ••. Harding.
Pag. 2••.
Pag. 114. Annot. in Mat. cap. 10. v. 22.
The anti∣quitie of the Protes∣tants church
Haddon in fine epist. contra Oso∣ri••••••.
Aug. de nupt. et con cupis. lib, ••. cap. 31.
Luth. to. 7. defens. ver∣borū coenae fol. 400.
Debacchari
The Zuin∣glians nota∣ble lyers.
The pitiful shiftes of our aduer∣saries.