vnlearned soeuer you thinke we are but by the grace of God and light of his word can easilie discouer the falsehood and corruptions of your Religion Let vs now consider vpon what points you were bolde to vtter so fondlie your iudgement of me and thereby make triall of that profound learning which you take to your selfe with out cause as shall here and euerie where appeere First you charge me Pag. 98. that I vnderstand not M. Martins meaning which though it were true yet were it I trust a veniall offense But I perceiued his meaning well inough framed mine answere directlie to the same The question was whether to attribute to our sufferings the vertue of satisfying for our sins be not iniurious to the passion satisfaction of Christ I said it was and so I saie still Master Martin alleadgeth against me the words of the Apostle Saint Pauls who saieth we shal be heires with God Rom. 8.17 and follow heires with Christ if we suffer with him that we may be glorified with him Mine answere was that our suffrings are required not as causes of our saluation and eternall glorie yet to be borne of necessitie vnles we wil fall awaie from his grace and glorie Wherein now haue I swarued from M. Martins purpose His argument was you saie to prooue that good workes are not iniurious to saluation because the scripture requireth them as necessarie to saluation But why tell you not how M. Martin meant they are required as necessarie then had you disclosed your owne folly For we graunt they are necessarilie required in that sense that the Apostle teacheth and are not in that respect anie waies iniurious or derogatory to the sacrifice of Christ But this prooueth not that they satisfie for our sinnes for then should they be efficient causes of our saluation as you would haue them to be thought and then should they derogate greatlie from the merites of Christ Were you so astonied that you could not make mine answere agree to M. Martins argument or had you a pleasure thus to cauill Secondlie you say pag. 99. c. I vnderstand not S. Paule alleaged by M. Martin your selfe setting downe such an exposition of his wordes as both is contrarie to his wholl doctrine disprooued by the verie words themselues For where you saie this place of the Apostle prooueth inuinciblie that workes are the efficient causes of our saluation it shall easilie appeare that herein you doe not onelie misconstrue the Apostle but vtter blasphemie against the blood of Christ such a notable expositor are you become of the holie scriptures S. Paule saith we are ioint heyres with Christ Rom. 8.15 if so be we suffer with him that we may also be glorified with him Doth this prooue our workes or sufferings to be causes efficient of our saluation By what diuinitie by what Logick by what sophistrie wherein lieth the inuincible necessitie of this consequence doth not the Apostle himselfe conclude the contrary in the wordes immediatlie following when he saith Rom. 8.18 I account that the sufferings of this present time are not worthie of the glorie that shal be reueiled vnto vs Our sufferings are not worthie the glorie of heauen and therfore deserue it not If then there be not anie proportion at all betweene our sufferings and eternall glorie as the Apostle plainlie affirmeth how can our sufferings be causes efficient of that moste excellent glorie saluation which Christ hath purchased for vs doth he not cal it our inheritance when he saith we are the heires of god fellow heires with Christ then doth it follow most inuincibly that it is not obtained by our workes but doth belong vnto vs by the right of our adoption whereby we are made the sonnes of God Neuertheles as the father requireth obedience of his sonne to whome he leaueth his inheritance so the Lord most iustly may exact of his children to whome he hath prepared a kingdome Eternall life belongeth vnto vs by right of our adoption and is not purchased of vs by our workes all duties of seruice and obedience And as the obedience of the childe is not the cause efficient of the earthlie inheritance no more are the workes of godlines wherein the faithfull are occupied causes efficient of immortalitie and saluation When the earthlie father saith to his naturall sonne and heire thou shalt inherit my landes and goodes if so be thou wilt obeie my will can your wisdome hereof gather an inuincible argument that this obedience in the heire is the proper and efficient cause of that inheritance so when the Lord speaketh to his children in like manner I wil giue vnto you eternall life if you can be content patientlie to waite for the time of your ful deliuerance and to suffer afflictions in this life as it is necessarie for you to do who but a blinde papist wil argue hereof that these afflictions endured in the meane time are causes of eternal life which is the free gift and grace of God and yet is this M. Rainolds inuincible argument or rather inuincible sollie and ignorance Now where he maketh a comparison betweene Christes sufferings ours pag. 100. and because Christes sufferings merite eternal life No comparison betwene the merites of Christ and our good workes reasoneth that ours therfore do the same he deserueth that all the boies in the schoole should clap their hands against him as not onely disputing moste absurdlie but dishonouring our sauiour Christ intollerablie Will you match your selues with Christ your workes and your sufferings with his you make a verie vnequall moste vnreasonable comparison For is there in you that perfection of vertue and excellencie of grace that was in Christ wherby he fullie satisfied the law of God and therfore deserued worthelie the Kingdome of heauen All our righteousnes is vnperfect all our obedience is full of infirmitie whatsoeuer we can do or suffer is stained with some pollution of sinne and therfore of due can merite nothing at the hands of God much lesse the Kingdome of heauen and life euerlasting Thus your summe was not rightlie gathered as you maie see Pag. 102 Rom. 6.23 Eternall life is a free gift and therefore is not obtained by merite of good workes Thirdlie M. Rainolds saith I vnderstand not S. Paul alleadged by my selfe that eternal life is the gift of god Whereupon I gather that seing it is the free gift of God our workes are not the causes therof For if our workes were causes efficient of eternal life the Apostle would not saie that eternal life is giuen freely vnto vs by God seeing to giue freelie and to giue vpon desert cannot be verified of one thing But eternall life is a free gift 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle doth affirme expressly and therefore is not purchased by merit of our good works where is to be noted the opposition betweene eternall death and life touching
but proude blaspemie to saie as the Rhemists saie that as death is the stipend of sinne so life euerlasting is the stipend of iustice seing the one stipend is of meere due and desert the other onelie of grace and mercie so that if God would enter into iudgement with vs according to the rigour of his iustice we could not chalenge euerlasting life for any iustice that we had wrought as all the scriptures doe moste aboundantlie and plainelie teach Their onelie excuse hangeth vpon Saint Augustine whoe in a certaine epistle writeth Epist 105. 〈◊〉 Sixtura that euerlasting life is repayed to our merites going before and yet may it well be called grace because our merites are wrought in vs by grace not gotten by our owne habilitie to like effecte he writeth in diuerse other places of his workes and treatises as euerie one knoweth that hath bene conuersant in reading his bookes What then shal we graunt Saint Augustine to be an author of this Popish and Sorbonicall doctrine of iustification by merite of workes Nothing lesse The answere is easie and no more easie then true that by merites Saint Augustine vnderstandeth good workes after the manner of speach in latine and by stipend or reward he meaneth that benefite or gifte which God repaieth to good workes to the workers of iustice What difference then is there betweene our Sorbonists and Saint Augustine with whome we also consent In wordes may seeme no difference at all in substance and truth of doctrine as great difference as is betweene heauen and earth life and death God and man We know and confesse with Saint Augustine according to the doctrine of holie scripture that life eternall is a reward of iustice and good workes but not as death is a stipend of sinne according to the Sorbonists and Rhemists religion And howsoeuer Saint Augustine pleaseth them in his exposition of this place the which notwithstanding being rightlie vnderstood maketh nothing for them yet other fathers haue obserued of the Apostles wordes set downe in this manner that eternall life is onelie a gift not deserued but freelie bestowed and that this was the cause whie the Apostle applied not the name of stipend to life euerlasting as he had done before to death Looke vpon Origen in his commentaries vpon the fourth of the Romans and the latter end of the sixt And this as it is sound and sincere doctrine so must it also of all Christians necessarilie be confessed For he that sinneth hath deserued death worthilie in respect of the sinne committed which is a transgression of Gods will and commaundement and for which without remission there is no hope to escape eternall condemnation But can he that worketh well for one or two or moe good workes claime vnto himself as a due debt the kingdome of heauen for the same For what if the Lord will examine our workes straitlie according to his lawe in euerie circumstance our inward zeale loue intention desire of Gods glorie continuance and perseuerance in well doing conformitie of our will with the rule of Gods word and shall finde in the worke and in the worker great infirmitie manie wants much imperfection manifold sins in the meane time both in thought in worde and deed shall the good workes notwithstanding being thus tried found in them-selues insufficient vnanswerable to gods iustice and also hauing manie sinnes inherent together with them in the same person stand vp before the Lorde and chalenge of right the reward of life euerlasting in his kingdome Neuer durste yet anie childe of God vpon trust and confidence of his owne iustice chalenge such debt at the handes of God or yet appeare at all in his presence The Prophet Dauid although he were a holie man and had not onelie repented hartelie for his wicked deedes but also brought forth manifold fruites of repentance and regeneration yet desireth moste humblie of the Lord that he would not enter into iudgement with him psal 143.2 for so much as if he woulde so doe neither he nor anie man liuing could escape condemnation And againe If thou saith he wilt marke our iniquities O Lorde whoe can stand before thee psal 130. â— Wherein he plainlie teacheth that for a man to trust in his workes how good or glorious soeuer they are or seeme to be and vpon this confidence of his merites to looke for heauen as a due reward at gods handes is not onelie to deceiue himselfe but to incurre that iudgemente and condemnation which the Lord for his sinnes and vnworthines that by examination he findeth in him might iustlie cast vpon him Therefore he saith in another Psalme that they are happie not which haue good workes wherein to trust psal 32. â— but whose sinnes are forgiuen and whose iniquities are couered And this haue also all the godlie fathers of Christes Church euermore confessed that their workes of due and debt deserued nothing of the Lord but punishment and therefore disclaiming all their merites and acknowledging their owne manifolde transgressions and imperfections they flie to the Lordes mercie onlie and trust to be saued by grace and remission of their sins not by desert or merite of their righteousnes that they haue wrought Yea the Romane Church it selfe which moste of all magnifieth the merites of workes yet being secretlie and as it were vnwittingly caried away with sway of this trueth hath sometimes made open confession thereof and taught all hir children to sing an other song then that which now so commonly is heard amongst them of iustification and saluation through merite of their workes For in the seruice that is prescribed for the dead this praier is set forth to be vsed of all and is oftentimes repeated Domine quando veneris iudicare terram vbi me abscondam á vultu irae tuae Quia peccaui nimis in vita mea In officis defunctoruns Commissa mea pauesco ante te erubesco dum veneris iudicare noli me condemnare Quia peccaui nimis in vitamea that is O Lord when thou shalt come to iudge the earth where shal I hide my selfe from the presence of thy wrath Because I haue siâ—ned exceading lie in my life My misdedes I am afraid of and I blush before thee when thou shalt come to iudge condemne me not For I haue sinned exceadingly in my life Thus is euerie one taught to praie and this you confesse to be a good praier and necessarie for all to vse as at other times so especially when death approcheth And verelie howsoeuer it is now for a fashion with great countenaunce and vehement disputation auouched by some that we merite heauen by our good workes yet I am perswaded that no aduersarie of conscience can otherwise thinke or dare in perill of death otherwise saie but that he hath deserued for his sinnes punishment and death euerlasting and cannot auoide the same if God will render to his workes the reward that of due belongeth vnto them and therefore casting awaie all trust in his workes will aske pardon and mercy not claime any debt or due reward of the Lord. So though in their life time many of them be obstinatlie bent and haue in their mouth nothing so much as good workes merite rewarde due debt recompense for their wel doing yet the time drawing neer when they must holde vp their handes at the barâ—e of the Lords iudgement seat and there must make answere for themselues and their workes must be tried by the lawe of God they giue ouer their former confidence they haue no ioie in them-selues yea they distrust their owne workes they tremble and quake inwardly they are in fearfull heauines and perplexitie of minde they knowe not whither to turne them-selues and if God giue such grace vnto them then they see and forsake their error of deseruing heauen then they confesse they are sinners and therfore guiltie of death and then learne that lesson in their end which afore in their life time they would not vnderstand Yet doth euerie faithfull Christian keeping as much as in him lieth the commandements of God hope for the kingdome of heauen aske eternall life yea and also in some sorte promise to his workes the crowne of glorie not for merite and worthines of his works but in respect of Gods meere mercy whoe hath promised to bestowe vpon vs and our workes greater reward then we can possiblie deserue This is the difference betweene the doctrine of Christ of the Prophets of the Apostles and of the fathers which we follow and the doctrine of the Sorbonistes and Rhemists and all Papists which whoe so holdeth shall be sure neuer to be saued Thus appeereth how vaine and childish it is that you intitle your schoole of Sorbone with the names of Salomon Dauid Esaie Ieremy Peter Paule Augustine as though they had euer bene entred into that Colledge and taken degree in your schoole whereas whosoeuer marketh the point of difference betweene their doctrine and that of Sorbone shall plainlie perceiue they were no Sorbonists nor euer alowed the Sorbonicall and pharisaicall iustice of merites How ignorantlie you obiect shamefull ignorance to me maie appeere by that which now and before hath bene aunswered it being indeed manifest that your selfe either know not the true state of the controuersie or els haue replied neuer a word aptlie to purpose Soli Deo sit gloria ERRATA Pa 37. lin 17. strange p. 86 15 there p. 143.1 meaning p. 144.17 renegates P 294 21 as well p 334.5 is as corrupt pag. 351 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in certaine copies p. 159. the last line and pag. 160. the first line read it thus before Valentinian to haue a Councell that a Councell by the Emperour c. Other errors perhaps haue escaped but the reader I trust will easilie espie correct and pardon them Imprinted by THOMAS THOMAS Printer to the Vniuersitie of Cambridge 1585.
the cause of either which the Apostle doth so plainlie propound vnto vs. The proper working cause of death is sin so the Apostle saith The wages of sinne is death Rom. 6.23 so that no mans labour is more trulie the cause of his reward then sinne is the cause of death and condemnation Why did not S. Paul on the other side saie likewise the wages of good workes is eternall life Nay why said he the clean contrarie that eternall life is the free gift of God Can you tell vs anie cause but onelly to exclude from our works all merite of eternal life And where the Apostle admonisheth vs Phil 2 12. to finish our saluation in feare and trembling his meaning is nothing lesse then to ascribe the finishing of our saluation to good workes as though the Lord began and left the rest for vs to finish but to teach that we must runne our race in careful obedience to Gods commaundements vntil we come to the end of our course receiue our reward Nether may you beare vs in hand here because the kingdome of god is called in the scriptures a reward of our weldoing therfore it dependeth vpon the worthines and merit of our good deedes For it is a free reward of onely grace not of desert or merite as the father rewardeth his sonne of loue and fauour not of debt seeing he oweth him nothing at all This you haue bin answered a thousand times though you can saie nothing to purpose against it yet you will not submit your heartes to the trueth of God but seeke occasions of wrangling without ende Fourthly you say I vnderstand not the state of the question pag. 103. c. wherof I write and then you make a long discourse of grace and workes of mercy and iustice to prooue that in the regenerate there is not any contrariety betweene these but that they maie stand wel together A man would think your selfe were not altogether ignorant of the matter whereof you speake taking vpon you to reforme the iudgement of an other yet haue you herein bewraied more want of skill then I would haue thought hadde bene in you vnlesse perhaps you dissemble your knowledge which I do not easilie beleeue For although grace is not contrarie to workes because the cause cannot be contrarie to the thing whereof it is the cause yet whoe seeth not that grace may haue an other effect besides good workes where of it selfe alone is the cause and must not in that respect be ioined with good works but discerned and distinguished from them By grace in this controuersie I vnderstand not those graces of Gods spirit which are infused into vs when we are regenerate as our aduersaries doe making grace and workes all one but the loue and mercie of God as the scriptures haue taught vs to take the same as when the faithfull seruants of God are said to haue found grace in the eyes of the Lord and when the Apostle writeth 2. Tim. 1.6 that grace was giuen vnto vs in Iesus Christ before all worlds And so likewise in this question must it be taken when we are said to be elected called iustified saued by grace that is by the loue of God where with he embraced vs freelie vnles you will saie we had grace and good workes inherent in vs before we were create◠yea before the world it selfe was framed From this grace procede both good workes and our saluation yet so as saluation is to be imputed not to our workes but onelie to grace and although these two are not contrarie the one to the other yet in the matter of saluatiō there is not the least cooperation between good workes grace but works are whollie excluded from all societie or fellowship in that busines Rom. 11.6 So the Apostle hath plainlie taught If by grace not of workes Againe If righteousnes be by the law Gal. 2.21 Rom 4.2 then hath Christ died in vaine Againe If Abraham were iustifyed by workes he hath whereof to boast Gal. 3.11.18 but not with God Againe the iust shall liue by his faith but the lawe is not of faith Againe f the inheritance were of the lawe then were it not of promise wherefore in effecting our iustice and saluation good workes may not drawe in the same yoke with grace notwithstanding otherwise they agree well together Thus haue I brieflie answered all your friuolous discourse and shewed that you obiecting ignorance of the question to me in trueth neuer vnderstood it rightlie your selfe The scriptures you bring for your purpose to prooue that eternal life is of works as well as of grace are but wrested and shamfullie abused by you When S. Paule saieth Rom. 2.6 that God shall render to euerie man according to his workes we confesse and alwaies haue that God not onelie doth recompence the wickednes of the sinner with deserued punishment A rewarde we confes merit we deny but also rewardeth the vertues of the godlie with life and felicitie euerlasting And when Christ shall sit on his iudgement seate euerie man shal be tried by his workes which in the wicked doe deserue condemnation of themselues and in the children of God are signes and fruites of their faith whereby they haue laide holde vpon Iesus Christ their onelie Sauiour and iustifier But make your argument good if you canne which you gather of these words God shal render to cuerie man after his workes therefore good workes are efficient causes of our saluation or as you moste vntrulie and wickedlie doe sette downe good workes and euill are laide in indifferent balance so that one is the cause of heauen as the other is the cause of hell This diuinitie M. Rainolds you neuer learned of Saint Paule Pa 2.105 M.R. saith that good workes and euil are laid in indifferent balance that good workes are the cause of heauen as euil are the cause of hel but haue drawne it out of the stinking puddle of poperie and it smelleth so lothsomelie in the noses of the godlie that if your senses were not by custome of such filthie doctrine altogether stuffed you coulde not abide the sauour thereof Doe good workes deserue heauen as euill doe hell what Prophet or Apostle euer saide so sinne is indeede the cause of death and deserueth euerlasting paine because it is a transgression of Gods lawe but good workes are not the cause of heauen nor can deserue eternall life because they doe not perfectlie answere the iustice of Gods lawe which pronounceth them accursed Deut. 27.26 Gal. 3.10 that abide not in all things written in the law to doe them Are your good workes so absolute and entire in euerie respect that being examined by the lawe of God laid in the balance of perfect iustice they are found in nothing too lighte if you say so you are past all shame you forget your selues you know not God if otherwise how can you escape the curse but
Saint Bernard It sufficeth to me for all righteousnes to haue him alone mercifull to me to whome alone I haue sinned All that he hath decreed not to impute to me is as though it had not bene at all Hominis iustitia indulgen tia Dei Sermon 61. Not to sinne is Gods iustice mans iustice is the mercifulnes of God In another sermon vpon the same booke If saith he the mercies of God are from euerlasting and for euer I also will sing the mercies of God for euer Shall I sing myne owne righteousnes Lord I will remember thy righteousnes onely For that is mine also For thou art made vnto me of God righteousnes Neede I feare lest that one be not sufficient for vs both It is not a short cloke which as the Prophet saith cannot couer two Thy righteousnes is an euerlasting righteousnes What is longer then eternitie It will couer both thee me largelie being a large and euerlasting righteousnes And in me it couereth the multitude of sinnes in thee O Lord what els but the treasures of piety the riches of goodnes Here S. Bernard teacheth vs two pointes against the Papistes one that our righteousnes whereby we are iustified before god is the righteousnes of Christ imputed to vs an other that we are saued not by the goodnes and desert of our workes but by couering and forgiuing of our sinnes Epist 190. Thus in an other place saith he to like purpose A man was indetted and a man made paiment For if one saith he died for al therfore all are dead Vt satisfactio vnius omnibus imputetur sicut ommum peccata vnus ille portauit that the satisfaction of one might be imputed to all as he alone bare the sinnes of all Againe in this same epistle he saith Therfore where reconciliation is there is remission of sinnes and what is that els but iustification If remission of our sinnes be our iustification then can not the Popish doctrine be allowed which teacheth that we are iustified and saued by our merites Yet further in an other place the same good father Ad. milit tem pli cap. 11. He that hath taken awaie the desert of sinne by giuing vnto vs his righteousnes he hath paied the debt of death and restored life For so death being dead life returneth as sinne being taken awaie righteousnes commeth againe Furthermore death is abandoned by Christs death and Christes righteousnes is imputed vnto vs. Mors in Christi morte fugatur Christi nobis iustitia imputatur Thus plainlie doth Saint Bernard teach imputed iustice which our Papists now a daies make a mock at but to the destruction of their owne soules One other place more out of S. Bernard wherein he writeth moste sweetlie and comfortablie that the testimony of a good conscience consisteth in three things For first of all it is necessarie to beleeue that thou canst not haue remission of thy sinnes but thorough the mercifulnes of God In. Annuntiat Marie ser 1 Secondlie that thou canst haue no good worke at all vnles he also giue it Lastly that thou canst deserue eternall life by no workes but also it must be giuen vnto thee freely And of this last pointe thus he addeth Now concerning eternall life we knowe that the sufferings of this life are not worthie the glory to come no not if one man should suffer all For mans merites are not such that for them eternall life is due by right or that God should doe any iniurie vnles he sholulde giue it For to omit that all merites are the giftes of God and so man for them is rather made debter to God then God to man what are all our merits to so great glorie Quid sunt me rita omnia ad tantam gloriā Thus notably doth S. Bernard approoue the verity of our faith doctrine concerning the cause and meanes of our saluation and treadeth downe and stampeth vnder his feete all Pharisaical and Papisticall merites And forsomuch as M.R. hath a special grace more then any of his fellowes to obiecte one Protestant against an other and with such oppositions hath replenished his booke I may be bolde to put him in minde what one of his graund masters hath taught touching this principal controuersie of our iustification and saluation Pighius against the Papists in the matter of iustification teacheth the verie same that we do I meane Alberte Pighius who notwithstanding he were a captaine Papiste and hath written much in maintenance of Popishe religion yet in this matter hath giuen al papistes the slippe hath subscribed to our doctrine Out of his long discourse I wil set downe onelie this sentence And thereof is it that our righteousnes is placed in Christes obedience Pighius Cōtrouers 2. because the same is imputed to vs being incorporate into him as though it were our owne so that by it we are accounted righteous And as once Iacob being not the first borne by natiuitie hyding him-selfe vnder his brothers garment hauing put on his coate which smelled most sweetlie did insinuate him selfe to his father that vnder an other mans person he might receaue the blessing of the first borne so also it is necessarie that we lie hid vnder the pretious purenes of Christ our eldest brother that we sauour of his sweete smel that our sins be buried couered with his perfection that we thus offer our selues to our most louing father that we may obtaine of him the blessing of righteousnes Herein as Pighius agreeth with the truth with vs so hath he much offended his own friends for thus leauing them in the plaine field Tapper the wise Deane of Louaine writeth bitterlie against him for his opinion herein and saieth he learned it by reading Caluines Institutions Which perhaps was true seeing of him also he learned much more You see Master Rainolds our doctring iustified both by the scriptures of God and by the testimonies of moste learned and godlie fathers and by consent of as learned a Papist as your Church hath in these later times bred anie Now then peruse ouer againe your wholl tale and weigh it in a true balance and you shall finde it lighter then anie fether Fiftlie you obiect that I vnderstand not our owne doctrine and here according to your maner Pag. 110. c. you wander vp and downe as a man that had lost his waie who though he knowe not whether to goe yet wil be going still It pitieth me to see your miserable follie and blindnes wherinto you are willingly fallen But thus wil the lord deale with such as wilfully giue ouer the knowne truth Where I saie that we must necessarilie suffer with Christ if we will be glorified with Christ this seely sophister asketh how this standeth with our doctrine of onelie faith as though there were anie likenes of contradiction at all betweene these two sayings For knowe you what is meant by onelie
l. 3. wherein first of all priuate masse vsed in the Popish synagogues â—eceaueth a blowe For Chrâ—sostome saith Christ is handled witâ— all mâ—ns hands 〈◊〉 the Popish masse the priest onelie hâ— adlâ—h all that is handled 〈◊〉 whoe is so â—imple not to see 〈◊〉 mâ—â—niâ—g of that godlie and eloquent father in this kinde of speach Doe all men handle Christ with their handes indeed doth Saint Chrysostome meane a reall handling as a man handleth bread The papistes will have Christs flesh â—andled Really do yourselues thinke thus groslie â—r els for a shew pretend you to maintaine the same That Christ may thus be handled taken vp laid downe broken eaten swallowed remoued from place to place tossed to and fro and all this as you speake really is monstrous and lothsome doctrine in the eares and harts of all godlie and reasonable men This S. Chrisostome once to haue imagined neuer shall you shew in this world Chrisostome meaneth the sacrament of Christ which we handle indeede and which in some sense in called Christ himselfe This to be moste true is plaine by Chrysostome in the same place S. Chrysostome expouâ—deth his owne meaning For he saith We see the Lord sacrificed and the people are sprinkled and made red with his blood and this done plainly without deceit in the sight of all men If Chrysostome may be allowed to expound himselfe your glosse of real handling Christ in the sacrament must giue place For if he meant as you meane that Christ is handled indeed then meant he also that Christ is sacrificed indeede in our sight that the people are dyed and embrued with blood indeed that all men see the same indeed For these speaches are all of one stampe all after one sorte to be vnderstood as one parte is true so is another Then tel vs M.R. if Christ be sacrificed indeede if the people be embrued with his blood indeede if this be euident to all men indede you maie not vrge vs so extreamlie in one and giue vs the slip in all the rest Let vs then consider what replie you make to this answere which to be true and sufficient you can not denie pag. 220.217 The papistes saie they see Christ Really sacrificed in their Church First you saie I am ignorant of the catholike faith For in the Church catholike we see Christ offered Then you maintaine that S. Chrysostome in saying we see Christ sacrificed speaketh properlie for this you saie is seene in the catholike Church The godly I graunt see in spirit this sacrifice of Christ thus the oblation of Christ is seene in the catholike Church But we speake of a real sacrifice of Christ which no man seeth nor euer shal see For a reall sacrifice prooueth a real death so Christ when he was sacrificed reallie died also reallie But no man seeth Christ dying who died but once now liueth for euer And they that really sacrificed our sauiour Christ did in that acte really wickedly murther him so your Priests if they be reall sacrificers of Christ are in the same action also reall murtherers of Christ Take both or refuse both if you take vppon you the one you must not nor cannot denie the other Murtherers of Christ you wil not be accounted yet you professe your selues to be sacrificers of Christ that openly which is al one as if the Iewes should confesse that they crucified Christ but yet they murthered him not wherefore it is in a word an heresie blasphemie to saie Christ is sacrificed in the Church otherwise then in a sacrament remembrance of that one sacrifice as both Chrysostome the fathers write commonlie in which manner and no other he is seene to be sacrificed in the Church That you adde of seeing god is poore diuinitie being admitted that we see Christ in the Catholik Church how followeth your reason therefore we see him sacrificed if you haue either wit or religion your selfe may see you speake without al wit and religion Secondlie you answere 〈…〉 that I am ignorant of the Lutheranes doctrine and then as you are wont you rehearse certaine places out of Luther wherunto I haue no nede to answere How cunning you your selfe are of that doctrine let others iudge when you saie Vntruthes boldlie set downe by M. Rainolds they acknowledge bread to be the bodie of Christ Doth Luther or anie Lutheran teach that bread is the bodie of Christ Do they adore it as you also affirme This to be false whoe knoweth not They neither acknowledge the bread to be God nor giue any godlie honour to it And that might Kemuitius haue taught you in the same place that your selfe alledge He saith we adore in spirit truth Kemnit exam pars 2. de Euchar cap. 6. not the bread but Christ in the action of the Lordes supper And so doe we also acknowledge teach that Christ in the supper is to be worshipped adored in spirit truth of all Christians That you alledge out of Master Caluine for your third answere pag. 223. as it is of vs entirelie allowed so it notably detecteth the falshood of your slaunder when you write and beare your reader in hand that we make the sacrament a bare signe and figure For we teach and euer did Caluin de coena Domini as Caluine doth in this place that it is ioyned to his truth and substance and not onelie representeth but also exhibiteth vnto vs the bodie of Christ Now then this being our doctrine touching the sacrament as your selfe may see in these wordes of Caluine plainly declared cease for shame hereafter contrary to your owne knowledge and conscience to charge vs for making the sacrament a naked and onelie figure But now Master Rainolds draw these things to the point and match them with your conclusion and then see what agreement there is betweene them Can you gather of that Caluine saith we see the body of Christ in a sacrament that therefore we see Christ visiblie sacrificed in the Church such reasons are too lamentable as here and euerie where you bring vs. Then Master Rainolds admitting this to be indeede a phrase of speach pag. 224. asketh whether it follow that therefore it is a phrase of speach also to say that Christs body is there at all I answere expounding Chrysostome by Chrysostome and that in the same place and words as Christ is handled with all mens hands S. Chrysostome rightly expounded so is he visiblie sacrificed and so are the people made red with his blood that is by way of a sacrament Therefore set your heart at rest M. R. out of this place shall you neuer prooue your reall presence That you adde of figuratiue expositions is superfluous Of Saint Chrysostomes vehemencie in amplifications pag. 226. knowen to all that knowe Chrysostome this place hath a liuely example peruse it your selfe Master Rainolds compare one speach with an
other and say if you can otherwise That you aske whether he amplifie a lie or truth I answere his amplification is true as he meant it and as it must of necessitie be expounded Of Priests and sacrifice enoughe hath bene spoken before Such priests as Chrysostome after the common manner of speach speaketh of we acknowledged which were the Bishops and Pastours of the Church And concerning the amplification which you say it is impossible to interprete of our communion if you had wil this thing is possible and easie enough We say therefore with Saint Chrysostome we see Christ that is we see a sacrament of Christ For Christ him selfe I thinke you wil not say is seene We see Christ sacrificed that is we see the sacrament of Christs sacrifice administred wherein Christs sacrifice is recorded according to his coÌ„maundement The Priest is bent to the sacrifice that is the minister of Christ ministreth the sacrament of the sacrifice offereth the sacrifice of prayers and thanks giuing The people receiue the precious blood nay M.R.S. Chrysostomes words are more vehement then so he saith the people are sprinckled imbrued with his blood belike S. Chrysostome was here somewhat too vehement in your iudgement The exposition I leaue to your selfe tell vs withal how the people are thus sprinckled in your Church that come not once neere the cuppe Holy water sprinckling you haue enough amongst you but this sprinckling of blood whereof S. Chrisost speaketh you must needes confesse cannot belong to the people amongst you Christ sitting in heauen is receiued in the Church who seeth not the meaning that Christ sitting in heauen as touching his bodilie presence is in the sacrament spirituallie receiued This Doctrine is the Doctrine of our Church and for this no man amongst vs needeth to feare the controlement of anie coÌ„missioner so his meaning be sound as Chrysostomes was to declare a true spirituall presence and communication of Christ in the sacrament not to â—â—siâ—â—ate a caâ—nal being and receiuing of Christ therein which Saint Chrysostome in manie places moste plainly confuteth and which he neuer thought anie man once so fond to imagine That Chrysostome compareth this sacrifice with the Leuiticall sacrifices 〈◊〉 â—29 and that of Elias prooueth not yet a Reall sacrifice of Christ in the sacrament Anâ—ther 〈◊〉 argument of M.R. Let your reason thus be framed according to your minde Chrysostome compareth and preferreth the sacrament of Christs supper wherein the sacrament of Christs death is represented and reâ—orded to the sacrifices of the Lâ—uiticall Priests and of Elias therefore as they offered some Real sacrifice of a beast so the Priest nowe offereth a Reall sacrifice of Christ This conclusion holdeth not Master Rainolds it is too weake Were you not at Rhemes you might see the force of Saint Chrysostomes comparison to lie herein that the olde Priests were appointed to sacrifice onelie a lambe or goate or kowe or some other brute beast but now the sonne of God himselfe is moste liuely yet spirituallie not reallie sacrificed in the Church when the sacrament of this sacrifice according to his institution is receiued Your eloquence in the end is nothing els but childish rayling necessarie for such a cause as you haue taken in hand to maintaine which cannot otherwise be vpholden or continue in anie reasonable account CHAP. 10. Of the place in S. Lukes Gospell which Beza is charged to haue corrupted BEfore you come to the matter pag. 23â— it pleaseth you a litle to whet your eloquence in rayling at Beza a man though much hated of Papists who loue none that loueth not their Pope be he neuer so learned or godly yet knowen to all men euen his enemies to be indued with excellent graces of Gods spirit which haue shined in him notablie to the glorie of God and profit of the Church Your spitefull reproches cast against him others are now of all esteemed as they are in truth fained slaunderous vnworthie of anie regard or credit His skill in the bible hath sufficiently appeered to your griefe and if you Master Rainolds would herein compare your selfe with him it were a token of your singular boldnes and arrogancie His skill in murthering men you saie was better which argueth you haue no conscience to deuise to speake to write moste vntrulie But say your pleasure your reward with God and men is certaine Many I knowe haue written against him much you may knowe that he hath fully answered them al. But of your Remish or Romish colledge of English students I knowe not anie that hath written ought against him in that tongue which he could read and vnderstand The words are in Luke 22. v. 20. which in the Greeke that Beza translated by construction indeed require tha the cuppe which is called the new Testament should be shed for vs. In which respect Beza translateth them otherwise For further knowledge hereof you referre your reader to M. Martin and so doe I for answere to M.D. Fulke And here you might as well haue cut of this long taile of your treatise which hath not in it one drop of learning or profit you rayle at me you raile at Beza you rayle at the holie communion pag. 235. which you cal profane bakerlie but reason scripture or proofe you bring not anie for your sayings I see you are a resolute man continew thus a while and I nothing doubt but he whose ordinance and sacrament you haue thus boldelie and wickedly blasphemed wil be auenged vpon that profane heart and tongue of yours But let vs heare what you saie First pag. 239. whereas I said if they vnderstand by the cuppe the bloode in the cuppe as they doe then is there mention made of double bloode you tell me I lie groslie and intollerablie such curteous speaches I haue no cause to thanke you for but let all men of wisdome be iudges whether I haue not saied the truth Thus you make S. Luke to speake this cup that is this bloode is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you Is not here by your construction mentioned first one blood then an other your reply is pitifull M. R. For to say This Christ is Christ the sonne of God this God is God of heauen and earth as it signifieth not a double Christ or God so is it nothing like this saying of yours concerning the blood in the sacrament For you cannot make the construction as you pretend this blood is the blood of the new Testament the wordsstand otherwise vnles you wil commit a greater fault then that wherewith you charge Beza so hainously S. Luke speaketh not as you make him this blood is the blood of the new testament but this cup is the new testament in my blood If by cup he meant blood as you affirme then our sauiour Christ his blood was the new Testament in his blood And is it all one to say This blood is