A refutation of sundry reprehensions, cauils, and false sleightes, by which M. Whitaker laboureth to deface the late English translation, and Catholike annotations of the new Testament, and the booke of Discouery of heretical corruptions. By William Rainolds, student of diuinitie in the English Colledge at Rhemes

CHAP. II. Of the Canonical scriptures, and that the En∣glish cleargie in accepting some and re∣fusinge others, are ledde by no learning or diuinitie, but by mere opinion and fantasie. (Book 2)

AFTER S. Iames foloweth a questiō proposed by M. Mar∣tin,* 1.1 how it chaūceth that the English church doth admit S. Iames epistle which sometime was not admitted, and yet wil refuse Tobias, Eccle∣siasticus, & the books of Machabees, which were no farther disproued, then that of S. Iames. The reason in truth is, & the same in effecte geuen by M.VV.* 1.2 because these later contayne such proofe of the Ca∣tholyke religion, as by no sophisticatiō can be eluded. S. Iames they thinke is not so flat, but shifts they haue to ridde their handes of him well inough. So much writeth Caluin. Some there are, that thinke this epistle not vvorthie of authoritie,* 1.3 but I because I see no sufficiente cause vvhy it should be reiected,* 1.4 gladly vvithout contro∣uersie embrace it. for vvhereas the doctrine of

free iustification semeth to be refuted in the se∣cond chapiter, in his place I shall easelie ansvvere that matter. As if he had sayd, that therefore he admitted it, because he had found out a quidditie to auoide that hard obiection agaynst only faith. which answere notwithstāding because it is false, peeuish, sophistical, and cannot abide the tryall, as wel proueth Illyricus, Pomerane & Musculus, they ther∣fore thought the other way more clean∣lie, rather vppō pretēce of some doubte made in the primitiue churche, cleane to shake it of with the rest, then vppon a vaine toy which must in fine shame it selfe, make hazard of their solifidian iustificatiō, which must needes come to the grounde, if this Apostle retaine his old credite. This I say in deede is the reason, but because thus to haue spoken plainlie, had geuen a sure demonstratiō to the reader, that they make no more account of scriptures then of fathers, no more reckning of Iames or Peter, then of Gregorie or Austin if they be against their conceaued heresies, therefore M. VVhit. semeth to shape a more cleanlie an∣swere, and this yt is.

* 1.5All the church (saith he) reproued not the epistle of Iames, and they that reproued it

vvere moued so to doe by no sure reasons:* 1.6 but these bookes vvhich you name, Tobias, Eccle∣siasticus, the Machabees, the vvhole churche of old reiected: nether vvere they vvritten in the Hebrevv tounge, vvhereas no bookes of the old testament vvere Canonicall but onlie those, vvhich the lord commended to the old churche. Two reasōs he seemeth to geue, the first that no bookes in the olde Te∣stamēt are Canonicall but such as were written in the Hebrew, the proofe wherof consisting onlie in M.VV. autho∣ritie without ether reason, or proba∣bilitye, or Doctor, or Councell, if I op∣pose against him S. Augustine with the catholike churche of that age,* 1.7 I trust the reader wil not greatlie stagger which syde he ought to take.* 1.8 and if this reason hold, I marueile what shall become of Daniel, a great parte wherof is held of them for Canonical, & yet is not writtē in the Hebrew. His other argument is of more force, that the vvhole primitiue church refused the bookes of Machabees,* 1.9 Iudith, & Tobie: but certaine onlv, & that vppon no good reason refused S. Iames. These two partes if he proue, and shew this difference, he sayth somewhat, & I wil be of iudgement as he is. if not (whereof I assure my self) then as befo∣re,

so here styll, lust and fantasie ruleth them in mangling thus the scriptures, not reason & diuinytie. let vs see how he proueth that the whole churche re∣iected the former. S. Hierom sayth, the church readeth the bookes of Iudith, Tobias, & the Machabees, but reckeneth thē not amongst canonicall scriptures. This for them. how may we fynd now, that not the whole churche but some particuler men, and they not vppon any good reason refu∣sed S. Iames? For this part we must cre∣dit M.VV. vppon his worde. for besyde his worde, reason or coniecture he yel∣deth none, but cōtrariwise to disproue this his distinction, and approue that without reason or conscience, he and his fellowes haue made choyse of the one with condemnation of the other, thus to do M.VV. him selfe ministreth vs mattet abundant. for thus he wryteth in his first booke in iustifiynge frier Luther against S.* 1.10 Iames. Luther vvas not ignorante vvhat the aunciente church iudged of Iames his epistle. Eusebius doubted not to vvrite of that epistle expresslie, I vvold have all men to knovv, that the epistle vvhich is as∣cribed to Iames, is a bastarde epistle. vvhat could be writtē more plainly? but perhaps Eu∣sebius pleaseth you not. geue me a reasō vvhy.

heare then Hierome, vvhom you knovv to have bene a Priest of the Romane Church. The epistle of Iames is auouched to have bene set forth by some other in his name. the one af∣firmeth it to be a counterfeite, the other saith, it is supposed to have bene published not by the Apostle, but by some other. vvhy then are you angrie vvith Luther, vvhom you see not sud∣denlie or rashlie first to have begon to doub••e of that epistle, but therein to folovve the iud∣gement & ••••stimonie of the auncient Church? Let vs now ioyne together these two proofes of M. VV.* 1.11 with consideration what thence is and must be deduced, to wit, the cause why the Englishe congre∣gatiō admittinge S. Iames, hath reiected those other, and we shall straightwaies finde, not only that he ouerthroweth himself (which is a comō tricke amōgst such good writers) but also conclu∣deth the contrarie of that which here he pretēdeth. The Church readeth the bookes of Iudith, Tobie and the Machabees, saith S. Hierome, but reckeneth them not amongst the Canonicall scriptures. In that the Church at solemne times read them, it is a great argumente that she much honoured them, although she admitted them not as then vniuersallie into that highest roome of supreme authoritye. But

of S. Iames we heare not so much, but contrariwise Eusebius directlie affir∣meth (if M. VV. saie true) and iudgeth, & wold all other men so to iudge, that that epistle of S. Iames is a false and bas∣tard epistle. and Hierome, a prieste after the order of the Romane Church, (and not a mi∣nister after the fashion of the English congregation) is brought to proue the same. Who seeth not now what greate difference there is betweene these two verdits geuen in by these auncient fa∣thers. the first being read in the Church, had a degree to Canonicall scriptures, the later had no such. Of the first he bringeth in S. Hierome saynge onlie that as then it was not acknow∣ledged for Canonical. he bringeth in S. Hierome to saie as much of the second, and for a surcharge he ioyneth Eusebius, directlie affirming it to be a bastard epi∣stle, and withall wishinge all men so to iudge of it: him self inferreth that Luther in his rashnes which we condemne, folowed the iudgement and testimo∣nie of the aunciēt & primitiue Church. he affirmeth farther as a general princi∣ple, & namely treatinge of this epistle: Quod principio statim non habet diuinam au∣thoritatem,* 1.12 non potest tempore & hominum ap∣probatione

fieri diuinum. That vvhich at the first hath not presentlie diuine or canonicall authoritye (as in their opinion S. Iames had not) can not be made canonicall by the approbation of men. yet now of these, he wold haue vs learne this distinction, that the primitiue Church vniuersallie reiected the bookes of Iudith, Tobie, & the Machabees, & some onlie, and those without iust cause, refused S. Iames epis∣tle: and therefore that the English con∣gregation hath done verie discretelie, to authorize the one, & disauthorize the others. let him not playe to much the Sophister, but answere as becōmeth a Diuine, & saue him self in this, frō opē folie & contradiction, & he shall shew more wisedome & learning thē hether∣to he hath geuen vs occasion to deeme in him.

And that he may the better waye the veritie and substance of his aunswere,* 1.13 and the reader haue occasion to consi∣der, what a variable & tottering gospel these men preache, and how iustlie we obiect to them, that at their pleasure they make hauocke of scripture: I will laye to M.VV. reasoning, the effecte of the late disputation had in the Tower with F. Campian touching this pointe.

This they make the mayne grounde of their whole argamēt.* 1.14 Those bookes vvhich olde fathers and Councels haue not receaued for canonical, & bookes to ground our faith vpon, them can not nev•• me••, nor the Tridentine Councel make canonical. This proposition stand••ng for good which they so confi∣dentlie vrge,* 1.15 and M.VV. thinketh y•• moste assured, let vs see vppō this rule what waste they make of the sacred bookes. vppon that ground thus they buylde, or rather pull downe. Aug. li. 2. cap. 8. de doct Christiana leaueth out Baruch, and the tvvo last bookes of Esdras. Hierom in his preface vppon the booke of Kinges, saith, that Sapientia Salomonis, Iesus the sonne of Sirach, Iudith and Tobias, are not in the Ca∣non. Eusebius in his sic••e booke and 18. chapi∣ter (it is the 19.) leaueth out the third and fourth of Esdras, Tobias, Iudith, Baruch, Sa∣pientia, Ecclesiasticus, and the bookes of Ma∣chabees. and concerning the epistle to the He∣brevves, though him selfe say plainly it is S. Paules, yet he confesseth that many haue doubted thereof. also cōcerning the second epis∣tle of S. Peter, he saith it vvas doubted of ma¦ny, & so of some, vvere the last tvvo epistles of Iohn. The same Eusebius li. 4. ca. 26. (it is 25.) speaketh of Melito bishop of Sardis, vvho reckening vp the volumes of the old tes∣tament,

omitteth Esdras, Tobie, Hester, Iudith, Baruch, VVisdome, Sirach, the bookes of Ma∣chabees. And the Coūcel of Laodicea omitteth Lukes gospel & the Apocalyps. you see there∣fore that these olde Fathers, haue leaste these books out of the canon, & yet vvere not called heretikes nor blasphemers. Thus farre they. Afterwards they define those to be not Canonical but Apocriphal,* 1.16 that are not in the (auncient) Canon receaued and allovv∣ed to haue proceeded vndoubtedly from the ho∣ly Ghost. and those Apocriphal are forbid to be read. and though they may be read for mo∣ral lessons, yet not for matters of religion. Af∣terward the same argument is resumed againe, and especially that parte vrged,* 1.17 that the Councel of Laodicea leaueth out those former bookes, in the olde Testament, Tobias, Iudith, the booke of vvisdome, Ecclesiasticus. and in the nevv Testament, Luke, and the A∣pocalyps. And when F. Campian answe∣red, that that Councel was but particu∣ler, reply was made, that the Councel vvas prouincial, and farther confirmed by the sixte general Councel holden in Trullo, Constantine being presidēt, as Bartholomeus Carāza vvri∣teth, fol. 71. And therefore vve may leaue out of the canon Tobie, Iudith &c. vvhich your Councel of Trent thrust in as autentical. Hetherto your brethren in the fourth

dayes conference.* 1.18 In the first day, vp∣on like warrant they recken amongst Apocryphal bookes, that which you labour so much to saue, S. Iames, which there is called a counterfeit or bastard epistle, by iudgement of Eusebius. Item, the epistle of Iude, the later of Peter, the se∣cond and thirde of Iohn. And against these they alleage Eusebius▪ Hierome, Epi∣phanius, and the Councell of Laodicea, confirmed as they say there againe, by the general Councel holden in Trullo. And yet (such is their inconstancie) in the same place, some of these, in worde they professe to receaue, but only as at pleasure, of curtesie and liberalitie, not as of fayth, dutie, and necessitie. For the summe of all commeth to this, and it is the effect of that disputation.

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

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

This being your reason, and the same so manifestly approued by them and you, out of the same, for our pre∣sente

purpose against you this I note. [ 1] First how iustly we accuse you for de∣facing and renting out so many parcels and whole bookes of scripture.* 1.19

In the olde Testament.

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

In the nevv Testament.

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

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

[ 2] Nexte your distinction of the vvhole Church, and some of the Church, were it true, as it is most false, is vtterly refu∣ted by these your owne doctors: for by

their sentence, whatsoeuer hath bene doubted of not onely in the whole Church, but in a part (for they goe not about to proue that these were doub∣ted of in the whole Church, and leaste of all S.* 1.20 Lukes Gospell) that may you doubte of, and number amongst the bookes Apocriphal: and both you and they proue as substantially that S. Iames was doubted of, as you proue the same of Iudith, Hester, the Machabees or any o∣ther. sauing that they fowly ouerreach them selues when they affirme that S. Lukes Gospell with those other, was leaft out and not receaued for Canoni∣cal in the Prouincial Councel of Lao∣dicea, and the same confirmed by a ge∣neral Councel afterward.

[ 3] Then commeth to my remembrāce your profoūd argumēt against M. Cam∣pian in defence of Luther. Luther despi∣seth S. Iames his epistle saith M. Cam∣pian.* 1.21 you answere. Bene habet, crimen hoc omne Iacobi epistolam attingit &c. That goeth vvell. All this fault toucheth only Iames epistle. Luther doth not in a vvorde violate Matthevv, Marke, Luke, or Iohn, nor Paule, nor Peter:* 1.22 only he somevvhat shaketh vppe Iames epistle. A deepe reason: as though S. Iames beinge canonical scripture

were not to be esteemed as honorably, and violated as litle as S. Peter,* 1.23 or any of the other. and as though he in so wri∣ting, and you in so defendinge, doe not lay the way open to shake of and vio∣late all the reste as wel as that. For now if a man burden you with the refusal of S. Luke, your defence is already proui∣ded. bene habet, al goeth vvel. Al this faulte toucheth only S. Luke. Our doctors doe not in a vvorde violate Matthevv, Marke, Iohn, nor Paule, nor Peter, only vve somevvhat shake vp Lukes Gospel, and so peece-meale til none be leafte, you may and will shake out one after an other, & stil, Bene habet, all goeth vvell, vntill you fall to open profession of Atheisme, in the broade way whereof, you are farre & wel gone already.

[ 4] Fourthlye, because in the end of your preface yow bragge so much of your forefathers,* 1.24 that they haue euer vāqui∣shed ours, here you put vs in mind what forefathers those are.* 1.25 Hetherto your forefathers were knowen to be, Aerius in denying prayer & sacrifice for the dead, Vigilantius of whom yow learned to condemne the inuocatiō of Saintes,* 1.26 & honor done to them in the Church, Iouinian in breaking vowes of chasti∣tie

deliberatelye made to God, and making the state of matrimonye, tou∣ching merite, equal in the sight of God with the state of virginitie & continen∣tie. Which men notwithstanding were forced to yeld to our forefathers, S. Epi∣phanius,* 1.27 S. Hierom, and S. Augustine as hetherto al Christendom is witnes, and therefore were not such victorious capitaynes as you woulde make them. In this place as though your purpose were to ouerbeare vs with number, and make your armye so much the more stronge, you multiplye and set in ranke againste vs more fathers. For whereas you so blasphemouslye speake of the booke of Iudith,* 1.28 that it is far vnvvorthy to be called scripture, and yet match S. Luke and the Apocalyps with it, whereas you saye most plainlye of these and al the forenamed bookes, that yow are not bound to admit them but may re∣fuse them, that they be read for moral lessons not for matters of religion, you simplye disallow for canonical those two bookes. And who are your fathers herein, but those auncient Archhere∣tikes Marcion and Cerdon,* 1.29 & those other for ther brutishnes called Alogi or Bruti.

In which your doinge as the reader

[ 5] may easely perceaue how yow trotte forwarde to playne Apostasie from Christe, by callinge now the verye Gospel into questiō: so why we should number you amongest those olde Brutishe heretikes,* 1.30 your selues yeald vs more abūdāt reasō, thē our fathers had in calling them by that name. For your self M.VV. cōfesse and proue your doc∣tors and maisters to be the most sens∣les and brutishe creatures that euer wēt on the earth. For, to auoide directe answeringe to the question proposed you,* 1.31 hovv you knovv the bookes vvhich you call scripture, to be heauenlye and penned by diuine inspiration, that is, by vvhat testimo∣nie you knovv those vvritinges to be canoni∣cal or holye vvhich be so called, you say, and I vvith as good reason vvill demaund of you hovv you knovve the sunne to be the sunne, or hovv you assure your self that God is God. for vve knovv as assuredlye that these are the holy scriptures cōmēded by God to his Church, vvritten by the Prophetes and Apostles, and deliuered by diuine authorytie, as vve knovv the moone to be the moone, or (at a vvord) any other thinge, vvhatsoeuer vve comprehend by most certaine knovvledge: and this ansvvere Caluine also geueth you. And this answere I admitte from you and Caluine,* 1.32 and

hereof I conclude that you are more trulye called Alogi and brutishe,* 1.33 then were those other auncient heretikes. For was there euer in the worlde, any so notable a Choraebus or Grillus hauinge the shape of man, that fell at brawlinge & disputinge with his friēdes, whether the sunne which we see, were the sūne, or the moone, the moone, as you do against Luther, & your churches against the Lutheranes, whether S. Iames epistle be canonical? then yf you thinke right, (as I truste you wil speake wel of your selfe) with the same breath you con∣demne your father Luther, and your brethren the Lutheranes, for the veriest sottes and stockes that euer liued: for they know not the moone, they know not the sunne, which to you shineth so bright & cleare. And to oppose your self vnto your brethrē at home, and to your owne self, how say you to S. Luke, to the epistles of S. Peter, Iude, Iohn, & the Apo∣calyps, be they canonical or no? yf you say yea, as I thinke you will, (or at the lest,* 1.34 that was your opinion in Septem∣ber laste, as your booke sheweth) then your doctors now denyinge the same, you see what is to be concluded, that one parte of you is as wise as those

former, who know not the sunne from the moone. Yf you denie, and be of their iudgmente, as it may be very wel, your faith beinge as mutable as is the moone, yet so you proue your self no wiser then they, who in so shorte space haue fallē out with your self & altered your iudgmēte, and now esteeme that for apocriphal, which then was to yow canonical, that is, now iugde that to be the moone, which then you thought to be the sunne. Our lorde geue his people grace to thinke of you as you proue your selues, that is, so fantastical & inconstant, that you know not what to say: and whyles you seeke to keepe your selfe aloofe from the Catholike churche, the sure piller & groūde of tru••he,* 1.35 you plunge your selues ouerhead and eares, in such foule absurdities, as ne∣uer did heretikes before you.

[ 6] For what is the reason of al this? because besydes the written word or scripture, yow wil not acknowledge any traditiō of the Church, wherevnto by this question yow are enforced of necessitie.* 1.36 For if we are bound to be∣leeue certaine bookes, as for example the Gospel of S. Matthew, S. Marke, S. Iohn, and S. Paules Epistles to be

Canonical, that is heauēly and pēned by di∣uine inspiration, and yet the same can not be proued by scripture, thē cleare it is that we are bound to beleeue some∣what which by scripture cā not be pro∣ued, and so the tradition of the Church is established. And marueyle it is that yow perceaue not, how grosly yow ouerthwart your self, and plainly refel that, which yow would seeme most ear∣nestly to confirme. For if yow march your beleefe of scripture, with know∣ledg of the Sunne and Moone, and such like as are knowen by only sense & the light of nature:* 1.37 then you deny it to be a∣ny article of your faith. For these two, are directly opposite: and the apostle confirmeth this reason, whē he defineth faith to come by hearing,* 1.38 and hearing by the vvord of God. ergo fides ex auditu, auditus per verbū Dei. And therefore if you beleeue, not with humaine faith, as yow beleeue Tusculanes▪ questions to haue bene written by Cicero, but with Christian & diuine faith, as yow beleeue Christ to be your sauiour, if thus you beleeue the Gospel which beareth S. Matthews name, as likewise that of S. Marke, and S. Iohn, to haue bene written by them: then yow beleeue so, because so yovv

haue heard it preached,* 1.39 and so yovv haue re∣ceaued. and consequently by the Apos∣tles authoritie, that verie matter so preached vnto yow is the vvord of God. which word of God whereas yow find not in the scriptures,* 1.40 hereof it foloweth manifestly, that somewhat is the vvord of God which is not scripture. and there∣fore yow and your fellowes beleeuing only scripture, beleeue not al the vvord of God, but only a peece thereof. and so did the worste heretikes that euer were, yea so do at this day the verie Turkes and Mahometanes.

[ 7] But to end this special matter with yow M. VV. touching your distinction betweene S. Iames, and Tobias, Iudith, the Machabees, &c. where you make this to be the difference, that S. Iames vvas refu∣sed but of a fevv, and the other generally of the vvhole Churche, tota Ecclesia repudiauit say you, for declaration of your truth herein, I referre you to the moste eui∣dent testimonies of the same auncient Churche. S.* 1.41 Augustine setting downe the Canonicall scriptures as they were read and beleeued in his time, placeth S. Iames I cōfesse in order with the Gos∣pels, & Pauls epistles: yet not excludīg those other, but in the selfe same place

numbringe Tobie, Iudith, and the Macha∣bees with the bookes of Moses and the Prophetes. his (saith he) 44. libris, ve∣teris testamēti terminatur authoritas. In these fourtie and foure bookes, is concluded the au∣thoritie of the old testament. Likewise the Councel of Carthage approueth for Ca∣nonicall S.* 1.42 Iames, but in the same Canō it approueth as far the other forenamed and teacheth of them as directlie as of the other, that they are Canonicall scriptures. Somewhat before S. Augu∣stines daies, they were not by publike decree of the Church receaued, as ap∣peareth by S.* 1.43 Hierome and the Councel of Laodicea, but then, when there was as greate doubte of. S. Iames epistle, S. Paule to the Hebrewes, and the Apocalyps. touchinge the first, it is manifest by that which hath bene said by you and your felowes. Of the secōd, there was more question then of the first, and S. Hierome seldome citeth it, but he geueth a note, signifyinge that it was not in his time taken for Canonical. In the Epistle to the Hebrevves, vvhich the custome of the Latine Church receaueth not, (saith he) it is thus vvritten. Againe. the blessed Apostle, in his Epistle to the Hebrevves,* 1.44 although the custome of the Latin Church receaueth it not amongst

Canonicall scriptures. Againe.* 1.45 this authoritie the Apostle Paule vsed, or vvhosoeuer he vvere that vvrote that Epistle. In catalogo he saith, that euen vnto his time,* 1.46 it vvas not accounted the vvritinge of Paule: and that Caius an auncient writer denyeth it to be his. and in his epistle to Paulinus sette before the Bible, he saith, that a plaerisque extra numerum ponitur. of the more part it is put out of the nūber of Paules vvritinges. The like might be declared by S. Cipriā, Lactantius, Tertullian, Arnobius, and S. Austine, if it were needefull. and the Apocalyps was yet more doubtful then ether of these two, & as wee see by the Councel of Laodicea, leafte oute of the rolle of Canonicall writinges,* 1.47 when both the other of S. Iames and S. Paule were put in. Wherefore, as false that is which M.VV. constantlie auoucheth of the auncient Church, touchinge the seueringe of these sacred volumes, so hath he not yet, nor euer shalbe able with reason to satisfie M. Martins de∣maund, why they of England haue cō∣descēded to admit the one rather then the other.

And here the reader may consider & esteeme as it deserueth, of that glo∣rious 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which in fine he singeth

to him self, settinge the crowne of tri∣umphe vppon his owne head and his felowes.* 1.48 Nothing (saith he) is novv more vulgar then the Papists arguments against vs. Quicquid afferri a quoquam potuit, vidimus, diluimus, protriuimus. vvhat so euer could be said of anie of them al, vve haue seene it, refel∣led it, and trode it vnder foote: he may con∣sider I saie, how like this man and his companions are to worke such maiste∣ries, who as yet knowe not what those weapons are, which they should vse in atchiuing such conquests. For whereas they vaunt to doe this by the written worde, & yet are not resolued amōgest them selues what that written word is, and how farre it extendeth, it is as fan∣tastical a parte to bragge of victorie, as if a mad man should rūne into the field to slea his enemie, and when he com∣meth there, knoweth not with what weapon to begin the fight. Wherefore wel may he, and his felowes heare and see the Catholike doctrine, as Esai spea∣keth of the Iewes concerninge the do∣ctrine of Christ,* 1.49 hearing shal you heare & shall not vnderstand, and seeing shal yovv see and yovv shall not see, and wel may they treade it vnder theire feete, as our Sa∣uiour parabolically forespake that he∣retikes

wold doe, when he said:* 1.50 Nolite proiicere margaritas ante porcos, ne forte con∣culcēt eas pedibus suis, but to refel, confute, & suppresse it, that is no more possible, then that Christ should be false of his worde and promisse,* 1.51 that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it. And whereas it hath cōtinued by the protestāts cōmon graūt, aboue a thousand yeares, in truth, euer since Christ his passion, against other maner of tempests then these are, heretikes of excellēt learning, heresies of maruelous subtilitie, most mightie Emperours, rulers of the worlde: now to imagine that it maie be vanquished of these grosse and contrarie heresies, fortified with no maner of learning, wherof manie are so base, that men euē by the light of nature abhorre thē, ha∣uing nothing to mainteine thē selues, but onlie a vaine challēginge of the Spi∣rite, and bold crakinge of the vvord of the Lord, which a parrat cā doe with a litle instruction as well as they, thus I saie to talke, were more fit for Pasquillus Estaticus, or a sicke man whē he raueth, than a sober Diuine, that wayeth what he speaketh.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 4.
• * 1.2

  Whit. cont. Camp. pag. 17.1••.19.
• * 1.3

  Cal. in argu∣ment. ep Ia.
• * 1.4

  The Here∣tikes sit in iudgemente vpon the scriptures, & allovv & disallovve as they find moste fit for their sectes.
• * 1.5

  Whit. pag. 5.
• * 1.6

  The reason why the en∣glish clear∣gie admitte some books of scripture and refuse others.
• * 1.7

  Aug. de doct chri. li. 2. c. 8.
• * 1.8

  A ca. 2. vers. 4. vs{que} ad fi∣nem 7. ca.
• * 1.9

  Pag. 5.
• * 1.10

  Contr. Cāp. pag. 9. vide ibi pa. 10.12
• * 1.11

  M. VV. rea∣sons make most against him selfe.
• * 1.12

  pag. 5.
• * 1.13

  The summe of the Tow∣er disputa∣tion tou∣ching the scriptures.
• * 1.14

  The fourth dayes con∣ference.
• * 1.15

  Whit. pref. pag. 4. & 5. & con. Camp. Pa. ••0.
• * 1.16

  Ibi. A. 2.••.
• * 1.17

  Ibi. 3. b. 8.
• * 1.18

  The firste dayes con∣ference in the Tower. D. 1.2.
• * 1.19

  Sundrye bookes of the scrip∣ture denied by the pro∣testantes.
• * 1.20

  S. Lukes gos¦pel doubted of.
• * 1.21

  Contr Cāp. pag. 9,
• * 1.22

  exagitat.
• * 1.23

  The open way to deny al scripture.
• * 1.24

  pag. 24.
• * 1.25

  Aug. de he∣resi••. he∣resi. 53. Epiph. here. 75.
• * 1.26

  Hiero. cont. Vigilanti. & Io••iniat.
• * 1.27

  The protes∣tantes as in sūdry other partes of their doc∣trine, so in denying cer¦taine books of scripture, imitate the aunciēt he∣retikes.
• * 1.28

  The 4. daies conference.
• * 1.29

  Epiph. here. 42.
• * 1.30

  Epiph. her. 51.
• * 1.31

  W. contra Cam. p. 28.
• * 1.32

  Insti. li. 1. ca. 7. ¶. 4
• * 1.33

  The protes∣tants refu∣sing the au∣thoritie of the church, can neuer geue reason how they know some bookes and not other, to be canoni∣cal scripture
• * 1.34

  Cont. Cam∣pian. pag. 9.
• * 1.35

  I. Tim. 3. v. 15.
• * 1.36

  The protes∣tats refusing the churche, beleeue not the scrip∣tures.
• * 1.37

  See after chap. 16.
• * 1.38

  Rom. 10. ver. 17.
• * 1.39

  1. Cor. 15. ver. 11.
• * 1.40

  Somewhat is the word of god besi∣des scrip∣ture.
• * 1.41

  Aug. de doc. Chris. l. 2. ca. 8.
• * 1.42

  Con. Cart. 4. ca. 47.
• * 1.43

  Con. Laod. can. 59.

  The epistle of S. Paule to the he∣brewes, as much doub∣ted of in the primitiue Churche, as that of S. Iames. and b••••n, as much as those books of the olde testament which the protestants reiect.

  Hier. in Esai cap. 6. et 8.
• * 1.44

  Latina co••∣suetudo.
• * 1.45

  Idē in Hier. cap. 31.
• * 1.46

  Hiero. in Ca¦talogo. Caius.
• * 1.47

  Cōei. Laod. can. 59.
• * 1.48

  Pap. 24. M.VV. brag of cōfuting the catholi∣ke doctrine, vayne and impossible.
• * 1.49

  Mat. 13. v. 14
• * 1.50

  Mat. 7. v. 6.
• * 1.51

  Mat. 16. Luc. 22.