faith If you doe not you are to blame to charge me with ignorance of that which your selfe do not vnderstand Iustification by faith onely excludeth not necessary dueties of Christian obedience if you doe then can you not but plainlie perceiue that the doctrine of necessarie suffering with Christ is not anie waie contrary to the Doctrine of our iustifying by faith onelie Although we trulie teach that onelie faith doth iustifie because it is the onlie instrument by which we take holde vpon Iesus Christ and so are iustified yet we teach that iustifiing faith can neuer lacke good workes and hereof it followeth that whosoeuer hath faith must also bring forth the fruites of faith which are good workes that necessarilie therby to declare and testifie his faith as the Apostle Saint Iames doth fullie prooue This necessarie coniunction of workes and faith the effect and the cause doth not disprooue but that our apprehension of Christ is to be attributed to onelie faith Faithe although it neuer be alone yet it apprehendeth Christ iustifieth alone as the beholding of the light is the onely proper function of the eie although the facultie of seeing cannot be deuided from the sense of feeling Yet no man will saie that we perceiue the brightnes of the sunne by our feeling but by our seeing onelie So though our faith can neuer be alone but is alwaies fruitfull of good workes yet it onelie doth iustifye and not good workes in that it onelie laieth holde vpon Christ our righteousnes You haue a weake head Master Rainolds if you stagger at this But blessed be God that striketh his enimies thus with giddines To like purpose serueth that you alledge out of Illyricus and others concerning the controuersy whether good workes are necessarie to saluation There is none so ignorant but knoweth the iudgement and resolution of the Church And although Illyricus be earnest How good workes are necessary not as causes of saluation but as effectes of a iustifiyng faith saieth they are no way necessarie to saluation yet he confesseth a faithfull man must needs doe them as duties necessarilie required by the Lord not that they are anie waies the cause or merite of saluation If you vnderstand the proposition thus then in this sense they are not necessarie for then should they derogate from the merites of Christ But as effectes of faith and iustification so are they necessarie and this doctrine as it is true so is it far from all papistrie For papistes teach that workes are efficient causes of their saluation and that is moste false and iniurious to the blood of Christ Christians holde that good workes are necessarie fruites of faith and that those who are iustified and reconciled with God must walke before him in new obedience and serue him in righteousnes and holines all their daies You wish I were a Papist for mine owne sake and for your sake againe I wish that you were none Which of these wishes is better the day of the Lord shall make manifest In the meane time enioye that happines which you haue purchased by your falling from vs or rather from Christ I will be no companion of your Apostasie CHAP. 6. Of reproouing the auncient fathers for their doctrine touching good workes IF wrangling were anie waies to be commended in these great and waightie controuersies of Religion Pag. 114. c. then had Master Rainolds deserued praise and thanks for his paines in this behalfe But as in all debating and triall of truth it is acounted an vnhonest part to deuise false shifts for maintenance of vntrueth The fathers in their writings haue sundry weeds growing with the good corne so in matters of Gods worship and Religion to vse craftie cauillation is a most wicked and damnable practise The auncient fathers holding the ground and foundation of doctrine did oftentimes builde thereon stubble and strawe partlie by some superstitious opinions which themselues conceiued of such inuentions and partlie by the sway and violence of custome whereby they were caried to a liking of those things which they saw commended and practised by others And yet God forbid that because of some errours which they held we should raze their names out of the Calender of Gods Saintes or thinke otherwise then reuerentlie of them Among other infections that raigned in the fathers daies this was not the leaste that they hoped in some sort to make some parte of amendes to God for their sinnes by voluntarie punishments which they sustained in this life Whereof although by a consequent it followeth that they did iniurie to the satisfaction of Christes death yet they meant not directlie to take anie thing from it but trusted by it onelie to be iustified and saued Neuertheles being ledd by a likelie and probable persuasion of mans witt that God would spare them if they punished them selues they trusted by this meanes to make some recompense for their offenses and therefore suffered much hardnes trauaile and penaltie in the course of their life which if they had done simplie with desire and purpose thereby to make themselues fitter for the seruice of God it had bene a godly and profitable endeuour And this no Protestāt misliketh seeing the Apostie hath taught that it is expedient for all Christians to beat downe and subdue their owne bodies 1. Cor. 9.26 But to put anie confidence of appeasing Gods wrath in these actions deuised by them selues cannot be excused in anie whosoeuer Howbeit I would not any should thinke that when the Fathers speake so often of Satisfaction and Penance Satisfactions not alwaies meant in respect of God they meane allwaies a satisfaction vnto God for sinne as the Papists doe For those satisfactions were nothing els for the most parte but penalties appointed by the Church for such to endure as had by some open falling into greater transgression giuen a publike offense to the Church of Christ Such were brought vnder penance by the censure discipline of the Church which when they had accrodinglie performed in token of their vnfained repentance then were they receiued againe into the companie of the faithfull and then was satisfaction made namelie in respect of the Church Of these Ecclesiasticall satisfactions we reade often in the fathers and councels but hereby is not meant that by these they purchased remission of their sinnes at the hands of God And yet I denie not but manie did put too great superstition in these outward exercises trusting something thereby to finde fauour with God the rather for their harde vsage of themselues Which though it be an error yet were they notwithstanding good men and holie fathers as I called them In which respect when you labour and spend much of your oyle to prooue me contrarie to my selfe you may see what a trifler you are and how vnworthie of answere Were not the Apostles holie men Holy mē may haue had their errors and that in weighty
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
the scriptures wherein he doth not so much honour to them for placing them in the first roome as iniury and disgrace in ioyning with them anie other For as they are grounds of all true doctrine so are they onelie grounds and as in matter of faith arguments ought principallie to be drawne from them so such arguments onelie conclude necessarilie as euen your owne Thomas of Aquine doth directlie confesse Thom. 1. part 1. qu. artic 8. ad 2. Traditions of the Apostles are but deuised forged things which you make your second heade and therefore no staie for a man to settle his conscience vpon For tell me if you can which be the Apostles traditions how many and where they may be found If you cannot satisfie this demaunde as you cannot indeede how may you then make any reckoning of that whereof you haue no certaine knowledge how can you without falling builde your faith vpon fantasies such as they are The Apostles doctrine we haue in writing other traditions of the Apostles we receiue none for our beliefe Concerning the catholike Church which is your third head we reuerence and loue it as the spouse of Christ but we know that her duetie is to hearken onelie to the voice of Christ her husband and that she hath no authoritie to adde so much as one iotte to his worde or anie waies to dissent from it And further we know that your Romish synagogue is not that Catholike Church of Christ whereof we speake For generall councels and Doctors which are other twoe of your principall heades we esteeme and regarde them in their place we thanke God for them we reade allowe and commend them so far forth as they agree with Gods word If you thinke they neuer disagree from it your owne masters will correct you and tell you an other tale Are not these then goodly groundes and heads of faith that euen your selues are enforced oftentimes to disauow As for your supreme pastor of the Church we know him not by that name if you meane anie other but Iesus Christ alone For who so els taketh that honour and office vpon him to be the supreme pastor of the Church he is a theefe an Apostata an Antichrist make as great accompt of him as you list And where you saie we care for none of these groundes you speake vntruelie your selues indeede caring for none but onelie the last which is in stead of all the rest The determination of your supreme pastor that is your scripture your Apostolicall Tradition your Church your councels your Doctors your Faith your saluation your onelie staie in this world and in the world to come Scriptures you prooue we deny pag. 26. because we admitte not the authoritie of Tobias for inuocation and helpe of Angels nor of Ecclesiasticus for free will But you must first of all prooue which neuer shall you be hable to prooue that Tobias and Ecclesiasticus be canonicall scripture before you can inferre that we denie the scripture These bookes are not the holie Canonicall scriptures as we haue prooued against you by most inuincible and manifest demonstration by councels Fathers Doctors your owne Cardinals and schoolemen and we reioyce with all our harts that such popish doctrine hath no better scripture for proofe thereof then Apocryphall which because it hath a counterfayte stampe is no currant monie among the Lords people And for Traditions vnles you can approoue them by authoritie of Apostolicall scripture you haue our answere we regarde them nothing we know not from whence they came we will not giue ouer the certaine scriptures for such obscure and most vncertaine traditions For Councels true it is the argument holdeth not in this forme such a Councell decreed soe and therefore so must we beleeue Sett this principle downe for certaine and perpetuall in diuinitie and we shall haue strange beliefes enow yea scarsely shall we retaine any one true beliefe Two farâ—ous generall Councels haue beene held in Nice the first and the second In the first is condemned the Popes supremacie Can. â— in the second is established the Idolatrous worship of Images The first beliefe you will not alow the second we detest Let Councells therefore be esteemed as they deserue let their decrees be examined by Gods word and if they agree let them be receaued for that agreement if not let them be reiected for the contrarie The same iudgement haue we of auncient fathers pag. 27. Learned and Godlie men we graunt they were but yet men hauing their infirmities and imperfections Their learning their zeale their ages were noe priuiledge vnto them but that notwithstanding they might be deceiued in their writings and expositions of scripture And take you this Master Rainolds for a sure conclusion that in the sayings of those who are all of them subiect to errour there is no stable and steadie ground to build our faith vpon lest perhaps we build vpon error in steade of trueth vpon the sand and not vpon the rocke So that without tryall and examination no sentence of a father nor of all fathers may safelie be receiued Neither are we so addicted to the late writers pag. 28. as to beleeue whatsoeuer they haue saied we are no more partiall vnto them in this behalfe then we are vnto the auncient fathers our religion and faith hangeth not vpon the sayings of men be they olde or younge but onely vpon the canonicall scriptures of God And as for Augustine Ierome and Cyprian they are as much ours in the moste and weightiest controuersies as Luther Caluine or Melancthon And if they or any other be against vs so longe as scripture is for vs our cause is good and we will not be ashamed thereof And therefore moste false is it that you say our Diuinitie resteth vpon these fathers pag. 29. c. whome you so scornfullie compare with the olde fathers We vse not to alledge for proofe of any doctrine Thus saith Caluine Bucer or other but thus saith the Lord thus saith the Prophet thus saith the Apostle thus the Euangelist thus is it written in the scriptures thus we reade in some booke of the olde or new Testament Notwithstanding we vse also to reade the fathers both olde and new as much as your selues and oftentimes we rehearse their sentences and expositions not as proofes in doctrine of them selues but to stoppe your mouthes that crie so lowde in the eares of the simple that all the fathers are against vs it being moste true that they are notablie and generallie as I haue saide for vs You talke in this place as one that would saie something and telleth a long tale but in the end forgetteth of what he meant to speake Of all that you saie make your conclusion and then shall appeere how emptie and barren a declamor you are Now saith Master Rainolds if these serue not pag. 31. a man woulde thinke their martyrs testimonie should be irrefragable And thinke you
fathers and Doctors as you report Luth. cont Regem Angl. fol. 342. vnius maiestatis aeter nae verbum Euangelium Dei verbū est super omnia c. but that he setteth against the sayings of fathers of men of Angels of Diuells the word of the onely eternall maiesty the Gospell And againe immediatly he saith The word of God is aboue all the maiesty of God maketh with me that I care not though a thousand Augustines and Cyprians stood agaynst me Gods word is of more authoritie then all men or Angels Is this to set his priuate iudgement against all the fathers is this pride is this presumption must Gods word and maiestie and Gospell yeald to the iudgement of fathers be they neuer so manie This forsooth is your modestie that though the Lord hath spoken it yet if the fathers saie anie thing against it you will not prefere your iudgement grounded on the scriptures before the auncient fathers Accursed be such modestie that doth soe great iniurie and dishonour vnto god This ciuilitie towards men is treason and blasphemie towards the lord Remember what Elihu saith Iob. 32. v. 21.22 I will not now accept the person of man neither wil I give titles to man For I may not giue titles lest my maker should take me away suddenlie If this affection was in Luther as it was what fault can you finde therin You aske of me the reason why I so busilie defend Luther I aske of you the reason why you so continuallie accuse Luther If you seeke for some reasons to accuse him I cannot want better reasons to defend him your accusations being so vntrue That you say we aduance him into the place of Christe or at least among his Apostles belike you imagine that Luther is to vs as your Pope is to you whome you more esteeme and honour then Christe and all his Apostles For saie they what they will their saying hath litle force or authoritie if it like not your holie father but his saying must preuaile whatsoeuer they saie to the contrarie You thinke it good reason I should giue ouer all defense of Luther seing he bare extreame hatred as you say against the Sacramentaries here you bring in much to that purpose which yet you know is not the matter you tooke in hand But it is alwaies the propertie of such discreet and worthie writers whatsoeuer they finde though from the cause to hale it in by some meanes in one place or other I answere in a word Luther dissented bitterlie from Zuinglius and O Ecolampadius in the matter of the sacrament as it falleth out often times that sharpe contentions may arise amongst Godlie and learned men yet it is no cause why we should not answere in Luthers behalfe when he is wrongfullie charged by you Therefore you come to scanne my defense of Luther particularlie pag. 48. and finde your selfe occupied in deuising diuers senses of Luthers words and then disputing against them First if all the fathers teach one thing and bring scriptures for them Luther the contrarie bring scriptures for him whether in this case Luther may preferre his iudgement before all the fathers This is not the case M. R. that Luther ment you must therefore proceade further yet in your suppose Next then you put case If a thousand Augustines Churches teache some doctrine citing no text for it and Luther bring some text of scripture after his sense against the same the matter is not in citing textes but in deliuering the doctrine that is approoued by the text Then leaue your childish trifling and take Luther as he meant If Augustine or Cyprian or any other father maintaine any thing against Gods word Luther or any other minister of Christ may in such case preferre his iudgement warranted by the word of God before theirs If you denie this you are not worthie to be called a Christian and yet closelie you doe denie it in that you reprooue Luther and condemne him for saying the same And where you saie I can bring no instance that euer the auncient fathers did so haue you forgotten what fell out in the Councell of Nice Socrat. l. 1. c. 11. when the fathers agreeing to dissolue the marriage of ministers were withstood by Paphnutius One man maintaining the trueth of Gods word may lawfully dissent from others although neuer so many August cont petil l. 3. c. 6. and yealded in the ende Here one Paphnutius iudgment was preferred before al the other three hundred fathers And so often times the iudgement of many hath beene corrected by one S. Aug. saith whether of Christe or of his Church or of any other thing that appertayneth to our faith and life I will not say we not to be compared to him that sayd though we but as he added If an Angell from heauen shall preach any thing besides that ye haue receiued in the legall and Euangelicall scriptures lette him be accursed If we maie accurse them how many and whosoeuer they be that teach contrary to the Propheticall and Apostolicall scriptures then may we preferre our iudgement in such cases before them Saint Augustines words you see are very sharpe but he learned thus to speake of the Apostle him selfe August epi. 19. In an other place Saint Augustine saith For all these fathers yea aboue all these the Apostle Paul offereth himselfe I flee to him I appeale to him from all writers that thinke otherwise This was S. Augustine bolde to write euen to S. Ierome and feared not any suspicion either of arrogancie or heresie for the same such accoumpte then must be made of the trueth that we must stand with it against al the world and not for reuerence of mens persons giue it ouer or betraie it or be afraid to defend it If this be so as you will not I am sure for shame or feare denie openlie then haue you nothing to burthen Luther in this behalfe When you say Though the fathers in the Councells of Nice Ephesus Chalcedon had alleadged no direct and euident place against Arius Nestorius Eutyches yet the Christian people were bound to beleeue them grounding them selues onelie vpon the catholike and vniuersall faith of the Churches before them it is boldly and bluntlie spoken These godly and catholike fathers assembled in Councel against those heritikes confuted them by the authoritie of Gods word and as it were cut the throte of their heresies with the sworde of the spirit This was onelie the weapon then vsed and with this they preuayled The councels and fathers confuted all Heretikes by the scriptures as likwise haue all other godlie councels euer done against all heretikes and enemies of the trueth For in Religion there is no trueth but grounded vppon scriptures no errour or heresie but repugnant to scriptures no heretikes but refuted by scriptures They dealt not against the heretikes as you imagine omitting scriptures and grounding vpon the faith of Churches
is not of the same length with your conclusion that therefore he offered sacrifice in bread and wine But that you saie is a reason of his priesthood which I denie and it is the thing in controuersie should by you haue bene prooued not barely affirmed For though as you report the words of Moses it may seeme that the reason of Melchisedechs bringing forth bread and wine was for that he was the Lords priest yet Moses in in his owne language saieth not so but thus And he was a priest of the most high God as it is also translated by Pagnine and Vatablus and Arias Montanus according to the originall veritie And though sometime it may so be taken yet how can you prooue that so it must of necessitie here be taken And if it be your sacrifice for al that will not here of follow as you maie learne by Andradius your greatest Doctor Li. 4. Defen Trid. whoe maketh that a reason whie Melchisedech being a Cananean and ioined perhaps in blood or frendship with some of the Kings that Abraham slue notwithstanding was so farr of from seeking to be reuenged of Abraham that he met him frendlie and presented him with gifts because the bonds of country and kindred are not so strong as of godlines religion popish arguments confuted and reiected by papists them selues So the reason is not as you imagine He offered sacrifice in bread wine therefore he was a Priest but by Andradius iudgement he was the Lordes Priest and therefore he refreshed Abraham a true worshipper of the Lord. But what if all this were graunted without resistance that Melchisedech offered a sacrifice in bread and wine it must be cast in a strange mould before the sacrifice of your Masse can anie waies be framed hereof For first this sacrifice might be a figure of Christes bodie and blood represented and offered vnto vs in bread wine with out anie such vnholie sacrifice as is imagined in your Masse And so did the auncient fathers meane when they applied this historie of Melchisedech to the sacrament of Christes supper How the fathers applie Melchisedechs fact to the sacrameÌ„t of Christs supper Wherfore when you haue digged as depe as you wil yet shal you not finde the mine or spring of your sacrifice here Againe what resemblance is there betwene Melchisedechs bread and wine and your Masse wherein you teach is neither bread nor wine remaining at all That you bring out of Musculus and Caluin concerning referring those wordes and he was a Priest to that which followeth and he blessed him you are not hable to confute and therefore you do well and wiselie to note it but shew no reason against it and so likewise you set before your reader an other place of Caluin wherein he writeth that their opinion is confuted who seake out the cheife resemblance betweene Christ and Melchisedech in offering of bread and wine seing the Apostle who standeth vppon other points not so notable and principall as that speaketh not so much as once therof This was to hott for you to beare therfore you let it fal to the ground couering it with the naked names of Hierome Gregory Nazianzene Out of Caluins words by you repeted you will the reader to note two things Pag. 62. which being noted neuer so much make nothing for your profit The first is that Caluin and the Caluinistes as it pleaseth you to speak finde nothing wherin Melchisedech sacrificed and so by sacrificing prefigured the sacrifice and Priesthood of Christ whereunto I haue alreadie answered and further adde now that we finde in Melchisedech as much as the Apostle hath found We expound and vnderstand the figâ—re of Melc in such sort as the Apostle hath taught vs the Apostle hath found as much as truly can be found vnles you wil say the holy ghost was grosly fouly ouerseene in omitting the chiefest thing wherin Melchisedech represented our sauiour Christ We thinke it no shame to finde no more then the cleare light and wisdome of Gods spirite could finde wherwith the Apostle examining searching throughlie the wholl historie of Melchisedech hath not giuen the least inkling of your surmised sacrifice He sheweth diuerse properties in which Melchisedech was a figure of Christ comparing not anie sacrifice of Melchisedech with the sacrifice made by Christ but the person of Melchisedech with the person of Christ So you haue found such a propertie betwenee them two as he neuer saw and therefore must needes account your selues wiser then he which we by your leaues cannot acknowledge and therfore refuse your inuention The second is that the auncient fathers acknowledge Melchisedech to haue sacrificed in bread and wine and so to haue foreshewed Christes sacrificing in like manner What is to be answered to the fathers comparing Melchisedeches bread and wine to the Lords supper To this an easie answere maie serue First that whatsoeuer the fathers teach without warrant of Gods word must be iudged no better then stubble and straw which hath no vse in the building vp of gods spiritual Temple but serueth onelie to be burnt Secondlie that the fathers not one of them all applie this of Melchisedech to the Popish masse which was not hatched in the daies of the ancient fathers but is a latter birde of Antichrists brood Thirdly that none of the ancient fathers do prooue by this any real sacrifice of the Church wherein Christ is to be offered continuallie as the Papists doe most wickedlie and horriblie maintaine Lastlie the fathers onely meant to commend the excellency of the Lords supper which Christ instituted in bread and wine by this fact of Melchisedech that brought forth bread and wine as it were in these signes shadowing and figuring Christ vnto vs who long after appointed the same to be sacraments of his body and blood This was the cause why they so often alledge this example of Melchisedech as you may perceiue by Cyprian who saith In sacerdote Melchisedech sacrifice Dominici sacramentum praefiguratum videmus that is Cypr. ep 63. In Melchisedech the Priest we see the sacrament of the Lords sacrifice prefigured Thus Cyprian writeth in the same epistle that you alledge here by whose wordes you maie learne to what purpose the fathers applied that of Melchisedech farre otherwise then you doe And in that Cyprian calleth bread and wine his bodie and blood therein is no difficultie meaning sacraments of his bodie and blood As for the new oblation that Irenaeus speaketh of Iren. li. 4. c. 32. it is the praiers and almes of the faithfull which they offer vnto God in the celebration of the Lords supper which is so far from your sacrifice that you maie as soone make the north and south pole meete togeather as this testimonie of Irenaeus with your idoll of the Masse In that you beare your reader in hand I haue dissented from Caluin and the Protestants that argueth
and detestable in the eies of the God of heauen This therefore is a sure reason and shal stand against the gates of hell and force of all papistes that Christ is a Priest for euer and hath an euerlasting Priesthood Therefore he is the onely Priest of the new Testament and his Priesthood is not communicated to anie other and so your priestes are no priests your sacrifice is no sacrifice your Religion is no Religion your Christ is no Christ your God is no God Depart from them whosoeuer will not be partakers of their condemnation To shew this reason to be childish Pag. 76. you haue brought indeed a childish exception Christ is you saie a true man for euer a king for euer our doctor master and teacher for euer yet are there many men kings doctors teachers besides Christ. An obiection of M.R. answered This man is suddenlie so drowned in the dreggs of poperie that he hath lost all taste and sense of trueth for els he would haue bene ashamed of such an answere which nothing cōmeth neare the matter We speake of those offices which Christ was apointed to beare by the annointing of the holie ghost and special commission from God you bring instance of things that be of an other condition and nature as to be a true man an earthlie King an outward minister of the word such like Christ is our onelie king Prophet and Priest so that in this sense in which these are giuen to him none can be King Prophet or Priest but he For he onelie is our spiritual King he onely is our teacher and author of all heauenlie doctrine he onelie can offer the sacrifice propitiatorie for the sinnes of the world If you thinke anie can be a King or Prophet in this manner but onelie he you take his honour from him and giue it to an other to whome it doth not appertaine which you do indede most notably in sesing your selues vpon his Priesthood which doth as truelie belong to him alone as the other of his Kingdome and Prophecie do Now then weigh with your selfe what a witles obiection you haue made and if you can bring no better defense for your Priestes then your haue hetherto done you haue good cause to be sorie and ashamed that euer you changed your copie and of a minister of the Gospel became a priest of the popish order God giue you grace to repent that the fruite of Christes priesthood maie not be denied vnto you another daie That which followeth is but a supplie of superfluous wordes without wit without learning without trueth The comparison you make betwene an earthly prince and Christ doth nothing fit your purpose For if you haue as lawfull authoritie vnder Christ to exercise a priesthood as the ciuil gouernours haue vnder their prince to execute their office laid vpon them then shew your commission and we require no more For as no man dare presume in the affaires of the state to commaund or enterprise anie thing in the princes name without a sufficient warrant from the prince so maie no man take vpon him anie ecclesiasticall function in the Church vlnes he haue a commaundement from the Lord. But Christ neuer gaue you anie such commaundement he neuer laid vpon you any such office he neuer called you to this honour to be his fellow priestes els bring vs your Charter that we maie se it and shew vs your letters of orders that we may trie them And further you are to consider that although the prince bestow offices preferments vpon his subiects as pleaseth him yet his Regalities he keepeth to himselfe and no subiect wil presume to chalenge them Pharao gaue Ioseph as great authoritie as anie princes vse to giue anie of their seruants yet the chaire of estate he kept to himselfe therin he was aboue him But you moste rudelie and arrogantlie intrude your selues into Christs seate and will not onelie be his vicepriests but as good priests as he ioined in the same commission with him according to the same order of Melchisedech that he was of so you are not content with such offices as he hath appointed vnto you but you claime his chiefest principalities which is no lesse a fault then high treason against the hiest maiesty M. Rain maketh an end of this treatise with an other foolish cauil taken out of the communion booke wherein he saith commission is giuen in some cases to the minister to remitt sinnes whie saie you in some cases The Minister of God hath power to forgiue sinnes not in some cases onelie but in all whatsoeuer if the sinner repent beleeue the gospell This authoritie is giuen vnto him by Christ this the parlament communion booke confesse this the ministers daylie practise amongst vs. Neuertheles you are still as farre from your purpose as before For this maketh not our ministers to be priests but preachers of repentance which bring the glad tidings of the gospell to all those that be heauie laden and desire to be refreshed Neither haue they power themselues to forgiue sinnes Mar. 2.7 for God onelie forgiueth sinnes but hauing the word of reconciliation committed vnto them from God they offer pardon and in his name pronounce pardon to the sinner that turneth from his sinnes vnto the Lord. If you know this why striue you against a knowen confessed truth If you be ignorant what commission the ministers haue receiued of Christ then be content to learn it out of the word of god As for your priests you haue alleadged nothing to prooue their calling and authoritie lawfull and I haue shewed that the scriptures giuing all priesthood after Melchis order to Christ onelie haue wrung in sunder the necks of your popish sacrificers and therefore it is the duetie of all Christians whose saluation consisteth in the sacrifice priesthood of Christ to thinke of you as you are indeed enemies of Christ Baalites idolatrous Antichristian Priestes whose punishment shal be with the Beast in the lake that burneth with fire brimstone for euer The Lord open the eies of his people that they may see your wickednes and beware of you least they be in wrapped in the same condemnation with you CHAP. 5. Of penance and the value of good workes touching iustification and life eternall IN the beginning of this Chapter M. Rainolds chafeth and laieth about him on euery side Pag. 82. c. striking now at one man now at another sometime this waie sometime that as though he were suddenly fallen into some maladie great distemperature in his head The occasion riseth vpon my words in saying our aduersaries doctrine cannot stand vnlesse we will alow for good those thinges that in the writings of the fathers are moste faultie And whoe knoweth not if he haue read any thing in the fathers The Popish religion gathered of the corruptions of fathers former times but that the popish religion for the moste part is
92. Satisfaction for sinnes wrought onely by the sacrifice of Christs death is grounded vpon the rock that neuer can be shaken euen the word of god that abideth for euer For as the redemption of mankinde is to be ascribed onelie to the sacrifice of Christes death and cannot without singular blasphemie be assigned to anie other thing so likewise is the satisfaction for sinne appropriated to the same sacrifice of Christ cannot without like blasphemie be giuen to any workes of man how excellent soeuer You make it a small matter to satisfie for sinne that teach it is in the power of man by his owne paines and penance to appease the wrath of God wherby it plainly appeareth you neither know the grieuousnes of sinne nor the iustice of god that requireth a greater punishment for sin then any man is able to suffer yea you charge the Lord himself with iniustice in that hauing laid the guiltines of our sins vpon his sonne and punished them al in him is not content with that punishment satisfaction If we do satisfie for our sinnes then hath not Christ satisfied for them but exacteth of vs a further paiment and satisfaction for the sinnes for which Christ hath once sufficientlie satisfied alreadie The prophet saith He is punished for our transgressions Esai 53.5 he is bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace is layde vpon him by his stripes are we healed And immediatlie againe he repeateth the same and sayth The Lord maketh the punishment of vs al to light vpon him Veâ— 7. 1. Ioh. 1.7 The Apostle Iohn saith The blood of Iesus Christ doth purge you from all sâ—â—ne Apoc. 1.5 And in his reuelation he saieth that Christ hath washed vs from our sins in his blood Thus are we taught in the scriptures of God to beleeue that our sinnes are forgiuen and we reconciled to God not for anie thing that we can worke or suffer but onelie for the death blood-sheading of Christ So all your satisfactions are hanged vpon the hedge and serue for nothing els but to plunge you deeper into the pitte of condemnation which you shall neuer escape so long as you trust to anie satisfaction but onelie of Christ As for your Tridentine councell which you alleadge it is but a bable A childe may soone espie the vanitie and falshood of this diuinitie that you deliuer vs here by warrant of that Councell Concil Trident sess 14. ca. 8. This it is The satisfaction which we vndertake for our sinnes is ours but yet by Christ Iesus which in effect is all one as if they had said that Christ him selfe hath not satisfied for our sinnes at all but onelie hath purchased to vs a facultie and habilitie euerie man to satisie for his owne sinnes The scriptures teach that Christ himselfe hath satiâ—fied for our sinnes 1. Pet 2.24 This is the mysterie of your satisfactions a mysterie of great impietie For the scriptures teach the cleane contrarie S. Peter saith that Christ hath borne our sins in his bodie vpon the crosse And how hath he borne them if he hath not satisfied for them did he take them vpon himselfe to returne them back to vs againe or did he not perhaps fullie satisfie for them Tell vs then how farre Christ hath satisfied and how much remaineth for vs to satisfie that we maie know how to deuide aright the satisfaction betweene Christ and vs. But accursed for euer be they that deny the satisfaction of Christe to be most perfecte and will supplie it by their owne diligence and labour Christ hath perfectlie redeemed vs therefore Christ hath perfectlie satisfied for vs. The work of Christs redemption is our satisfaction For this redemption consisteth in fully satisfying the warth of God against sinne Neither is it possible for any to satisfie for sinne but a redeemer onely For this cause was the name of Iesus giuen to our Redeemer because he saueth vs from our sinnes Matth. 1.21 And how is this saluation wrought 2. Cor. 5.21 In that he became man for vs that is our sinnes were imputed to him Heb. 10.14 and he made a sacrifice for them and by this one oblation hath consecrated for euer those that are sanctified Then is there left to vs no parte of satisfaction but when soeuer we repent of our sinnes and beleeue in the satisfaction of Iesus Christ we are clerelie acquitted of all our offenses for the merit of that perfect sacrifice which Christ offered for vs. If you denie this thinke of your selfe as you liste you haue no more parte in Iesus Christ then hath an Infidel That you rehearse out of Brentius pag. 93.9.4 and Andreas Fricius is idle and serueth onely for stuffing Brentius saith truelie we must not onelie take awaie nothing from Christ that belongeth vnto him but not giue him more then the scriptures haue taught to be due vnto him For he is iniuried and dishonoured both waies neuertheles this that you will seeme to giue him more then we is by no means to be accepted for so much as it taketh from him a thousand times more then it can pretend to bestowe vpon him For in ascribing that vertue to the sacrifice of Christ to make our workes of force to satisfie for our selues you pull awaie from it violentlie that full and perfect power of satisfying once for all of it selfe which doth truelie and properlie belong vnto it so herein you may well be compared to those wicked Iewes that made cursie to our Sauiour Christ and yet did buffet him on the face with their fists Andreas Fricius if he haue anie priuat opinion of his owne let him take it to him selfe he may not obtrude it vpon the Church without warrant of Gods word And yet out of his wordes by you rehearsed what can you gather seruing for proofe of mans merits or satisfactions What your opinion and iudgement is Pag 95 c. M. Rainolds of my learning and writings I trust you thinke I make no great account Verilie among the wholl rable of popish proctors there is none that I haue read of lesse wit and learning then your selfe What account your fellowes make of you I cannot report but if they esteeme you for one of their worthies you are more beholding to them then you haue deserued of them For alas what haue you brought thâ— in truth is worthie answere what haue you said wherein appeereth any learning more then moste common what cause haue you thus to bragge in your selfe thus to contemne others God giue you grace to see to know to examine your selfe that you maie perceiue your owne weakenes and pouertie If I should boaste of my selfe mine owne tongue would condemne me this childish profane manner I leaue to you and your companions who hunte so greedelie for the praise of learning that you despise the simplicitie of Gods trueth and Gospell Yet there is none of vs how
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
and then shall you prooue your selfe to be a perfect heretike and so must you saie or els you saie nothing to the question Can you denie M. Rainolds but that Christes bodie is altogether of the same substance with our bodies and hath the properties of a true and naturall bodie speake plainlie and tell vs your minde lest you giue vs cause to doubt of your soundnes in this article as you haue here giuen verie great For if you confesse this to be true doctrine as you must vnlesse you be indeed one of those heretikes that held the contrarie why bid you me looke how I free my selfe from the filthie and wicked heresies of the Ebionites and Nestorians Marke I beseech you good reader how this prating patrone of Reall presence M.R. saieth it is hereticall to affirme that Christs body is consubstantiall to ours would haue it seme to sauour of wicked heresy to affirme that Christs bodie is a true bodie consubstantiall to ours and all this because the same wicked heresie of reall presence can neuer be defended vnlesse this be denied Yea Master Rainolds saith those heretikes not onelie maie but must thereof infer that Christ was begotten betwene our Ladie and Ioseph Wherein as he hath auouched a plaine heresie which he cannot cleare him selfe from vnlesse he will openlie recant his owne wordes so is it most false that he saith it must be inferred hereof that Christ was begotten as other men No such necessitie Master Rainolds That he was miraculouslie borne of a virgine is no reason but that his bodie may be of the same substance with ours a true and naturall bodie indued with the same qualities and properties that ours are saue sinne from his conception and glory from his ascension whereof in saying it must follow that Christ was not borne of a virgine you haue vttered in plaine tearmes an hereticall assertion defend it or retract whether you will For if this follow thereof indeed which is hereticall then that must of consequence be hereticall which yet is a most true and Catholike doctrine A third answere you make out of Chrysostome pag. 188. who surelie answereth nothing at all for you He exhorteth that we beleeue Christes words This is my bodie to be true Chrysostome obiected by M.R. maketh against hiâ— although we see not his bodie with our eyes And whoe confesseth not this we graunt that the bread is Christes bodie as Christ said whoe euer said the truth But the meaning is that the bread is a sacrament of Christes bodie Chrysost Hom. 83. in Mat. as S. Chrysostome in the same homilie twise or thrise in plain speach affirmeth not that the bread is chaunged into Christes naturall bodie which Chrysostome neuer once dreamed of And that you may perceiue he meant no transsubstantiation the same he said of this sacrament he also saith by and by of baptisme wherein your selues accord with vs that no transsubstantiation is wrought As Christ is in the supper so is he in baptisme inuisiblie mystically truelie in both carnallie bodilie reallie in neither Chrysostome hath spoken neuer a worde for you But M. Rainolds according to his manner translateth a pace out of the Centuries out of Melanchthon pag. 189. c Westphalus and Luther with their sayings filleth a number of pages onlie to shew there is a difference of iudgement among the protestants about the sacrament which to be indeed true al the world knoweth But what hereof will you haue your Reader to conclude Controuersie among the Protestants about the sacrament confessed when he seeth that Luther and some others mislike our doctrine and reasons concerning the sacrament of Christes supper That neither he nor we teach thereof a right That you hould the true part That no credit in other pointes is to be giuen to anie of vs all This is the marke whereat you aime here els where in citing so manifold testimonies out of our writers which sleight although you must confesse is false and knowe your selfe there is no plaine dealing nor soundnes therein yet you are content for aduantage to set it out with greatest countenance that it may bleare the eies of the simple If Luther teaching otherwise of the sacrament then Zuinglius and Oecolampadius did disputed against their reasons this is no matter to maruell at for graunting the premisses to be true it is to late to denie the conclusion The argument that is grounded onelie vpon reason in matters of Religion and faith we graunt moste vnfainedlie to be no lawfull weapon in the Lords warfare And therefore whatsoeuer they haue said against Philosophie and reason Arguments taken from reason in matters of Religion what force they haue when it disagreeth from the faith which in the scritures we learne all that we allow with all our heartes and neuer vsed thus anie argument taken from naturall reason against either you or Luther For reason must submit it selfe to faith we know faith must not be restrained or stretched according to reason But when reason in not controlled of faith then I thinke you will not say but an argument builded vpon reason maketh a necessary proofe Now in this matter faith and reason are not contrary no faith teacheth that Christs body is without the properties of a true body al reason prooueth that if Christ haue a true body as he hath then his body is indued with natural qualities and properties of a body Reasoning against this sound immutable reason you plainely shew your selues to be void of reason Now that one and the same body as Christ hath but one onely body should be at once of contradictory dispositions as namely both visible and inuisible both in a certaine place in no certaine place as you teach and boldly but moste vntruly maintaine this is contrary not onely to reason but also to faith which teacheth that God cannot lie and therefore neuer can make two contradictories true for in the one alwaies an vntruth of necessitie resteth As for example if Christs body be alwaies visible and circumscripte then is it a manifestlie to say the same body is inuisible and incircumscripte but Christs body is alwaies both visible circumscripte and therefore in saying his body is inuisible and incircumscripte you cannot be excused from vntruth and contradiction In faith is no contradiction in your assertion there is a foule and palpable contradiction wherefore your assertion is not of faith If I had to deale with Westphalus or Illyricus further would I answere there speaches but as you make them here to serue your purpose I haue not any more to say vnto them Then leauing them I returne to your selfe M. R. to examine what you bring for defense of the cause which you haue taken in hand to maintaine The testimonies of Cyrill and Damascen you lightly passe ouer pag. 198. De Trinit lib. 2. The fathers against the Reall presence Cyril saith that Christ touching the presence
you more substantially prooued For my part I thinke not and so do the best Hebricians that I haue read both protestants papists The text in the hebrew is easie enough and yealdeth a true and godlie sense Your last example Gen. 3. v. 15. prooueth no error in the Hebrew but onelie in your latine translation The Hebrewe in all the copies olde and new vnles one wilfullie corrupted by Guido Fabricius hath one reading whereby a comfortable promisse is set forth that the womans seed shal bruse the serpents head your translation containeth grosse impiety blasphemie referring that moste excellent worke to the woman which onelie appertaineth to the seed of the woman About this you saie the Protestants keepe a sturre And cause I thinke M.R. is angry with vs for making sturr about the chiefe promises of our redemption Such regarde haue the papists either of their owne or of our saluation wherefore some sturre should be kepte vnles it be no matter if whatsoeuer belongeth vnto our sauiour Christ were applied to the blessed virgine his mother as in this place moste horriblie and in the Psalmes alreadie hath bene notoriouslie performed by you in token of your great loue to our Ladie but small regarde of our Lorde That we haue charged the Apostle with anie error is a bolde manifest vntruth Pag. 324. Betweene the Apostles citation 1. Cor. 2. v. 9. the Prophet Esayes authoritie Chap. 64. v. 4. there is some diuersity in one word The Prophet hath expectanti ipsum to him that waiteth for him the Apostle diligentib ipsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them that loue him Which diuersitie came not through ouersight or error in the Apostle but either that the Apostle followed the common reading of the Greeke or as his manner for the moste part is did take the sense not tying himself to the words For they that loue God are such only such as waite for him and this waiting for god ariseth of the loue of God You think the Apostle Prophet in these words declared the vnspeakeable ioyes of heauen which are prepared for the children of God and therefore you frame an argumente against iustification by faith Proude blasphemies vttered by M.R. against Gods word which you in your accustomed spirit of blasphemie call our mathematicall solifidian fansie because the Apostle writeth that God hath prepared so great things for those that loue him By the things which the eie hath not seene the eare not heard the heart not conceiued is meant the doctrine and mysteries of the gospell which the Lord hath reueiled to such as waite for him or loue him And to let you expound the wordes according to your owne sense doth this make any thing against the doctrine of iustification by faith onelie that God prepareth euerlasting inexplicable ioies for those that loue him For whome should they be prepared but for such as indeed loue him But is our loue worthie that rewarde Is it giuen to such as loue him in respect and for the merit of their loue This must you prooue if you will refell our doctrine in this behalfe But this was no matter to be handled in this place It was a poore glance and did no harme Here M.R. bringeth in a troupe of authorities together pag. 326. c. to prooue that false which I haue said and all true that he saith long sentences are translated out of Castalion D. Humfraie Pelicane and Munster wherby howsoeuer it fareth with his cause the volume of his booke is well increased For whereto serue these testimonies alledged That through negligence or ignorance of the writers printers some faultes may be found in the Hebrew Bibles I thinke there be none that wil denie but what makeh al this to purpose seeing there be a thousand times moe such faults in your translations then can be found in the fountaines your long speaches and discourses either in other mens words or in your owne when they come to scanning are short enough and therefore may in a short answere be discharged Your comparison of Iewes and Protestants in rayling at the Pope and Romane Church I passe ouer Two examples Master Rainolds willeth me to consider pag. 332. One the greate diuersitie of reading That in the text is such diuersity I deny The Iewes may perhaps in their Commentaries be of diuerse opinions touching the reading but in the text litle or no diuersitie shall you finde in so much that Ioannes Isaac affirmeth Lib. 2 pag. 69. there is soe great consent and agreement in the Bibles that no booke of the bible can be shewed written with the hand of a Iewe which either hath any thing that others want or wanteth any thing that others haue This may plainelie argue an exceading care to keepe their Bibles from all manner of corruption althoughe this that he writeth may almoste seeme incredible An other experiment is that the Hebrewe printes want something now which certainelie was in the first originals Example hereof you bring the psalme 144. Which being made according to the Hebrew Alphabete as diuerse other are one verse is wanting wholly therein the 14. in number which should beginne with Nun. What cause there was of omitting this Acrostiche I will not take vpon me to vnderstand It is not of later times corrupted seeing the Chaldee hath not that verse And as it is now in the Hebrewe so was it in Saint Ieromes time and before when the Hebrewe Bibles were accounted most pure and yet then in the Latine psalter a verse was supplied So that howsoeuer the matter stande this prooueth not the translation to be of greater puritie and credit then the fountaine Cause there was doubtles why the Prophet left out the order of the letter but whether such as the Rabbines and Talmudâ—sts haue deuised I cannot affirme The like example haue you in the. 36. Psalme of your edition which being made after the same manner of the Hebrew Alphabet you haue not in it the letter Am. Reasons thereof are alledged both by Iewes and learned Papists but the place for all that they thinke not to be corrupted as you peraduenture will rashlie pronounce As for that in the Greeke and Latine of this Psalme there is a verse answerable the first word whereof in Hebrew beginneth with Nun Nasman Fidelis Dominus c. this prooueth not the fountaine to be corrupte or vnperfecte but the Septuagintes finding no verse for the letter Nun and thinking perhaps there was some want repeated the. 17. verse following the first onely being changed For this verse supplied by them and the other following is al one excepting onely the first worde It seemeth not that the Prophet was altogeather so curious to keepe the order of letters that if any be wanting in a Psalme of that kinde we ought therefore to suspecte corruption in the Hebrew In the Psalme 25. no verse beginneth with Vau and two beginne with Resh
taken to binde a contentious heretike Thus it appeereth that although we had the verie same Autographall and authenticall copies which Moses and the other Prophets did write with their owne handes yet would this Seminary papist and his fellowes make lesse account of them then of their translation as being lesse hable to binde heretikes then it The reason is first the diuerse significations of euerie worde almoste which may seeme perhapes to some simple bodie to make for their translation against the Hebrew Whereunto I answere first that although the Hebrew were so vncertaine in respect of the manifold and diuerse significations of wordes as they would haue it yet were there noe cause whie the latine translation should more be allowed for the vndoubted word of God then the Greek or any other in the world They are all noe better then translations and what warrrant is there for one more then an oother but onelie in commendation of greater sinceritie and that in respecte of faithfully expressing the Hebrew Secondlie this variety of significations is not latelie begonne but was alwaies from the beginning which notwithstanding the Hebrewes could speake and write their mindes as plainlie and certainlie as anie other people and the scriptures were read and expounded in that language manie hundred yeares before anie parte of them was translated into Latine So that this reason maketh them now no lesse hable to binde heretikes then they haue euermore bene from the beginning And what tongue I praie you were the scriptures written in which the Apostle exhorteth Timothie to read that he might stoppe the mouthes of heretikes and which he saith are profitable to conuince the Aduersaries but in the Hebrewe and Greeke your latine translator was then vnborne when yet the scriptures in their original tongues were able to binde and confute all heretikes Your example out of the Psalme 55. ver 21. sheweth a plaine corruption in your translation For that Hebrew worde with these letters and prickes cannot signifie to reward as your translation hath but vpon those that haue peace with him as our translations for the moste haue according to the Hebrewe The second reason is pag. 433. that manie substantiues maie haue diuerse deriuations from diuerse verbes and one example is brought out of the 60. Psalme v. 6. To this maie be answered as to the former that if this diuersitie of deriuation cause a diuersitie of expositions it maketh no more against the Hebrew text now then euer since the hebrew was first written Thirdlie pag. 434. touching the literal sense of the hebrew words you demaund what masters we shall followe If a controuersie be about the signification of a word whome should we followe rather then the moste learned masters of that tongue they can best resolue vs that know the tongue best and as this for wordes in all other languages is the onelie waie so likewise if we doubt of some worde in hebrewe what meanes maie we vse to be instructed and satisfied but to learne of those that are moste skilful in the tongue and best know the naturall force of the words Who can denie that this is much better then as your translator oftentimes doth to call blacke white and to giue a signification of a worde which all Hebricians can tell is cleane amisse Examples hereof are in your translation plentifull as if before you knew not now by that which I haue alreadie alledged you maie vnderstand That which followeth of Caluine Beza and the rest hath nothing but a poore bragge not worth the mentioning To your question pag. 437. whether I thinke it flat Atheisme and Turkery to denie that Christ was borne of a virgine I answere no Christian can thinke otherwise but that it is indeed plaine Atheisme to denie this so principall an article of our faith Then you require what scripture I haue to prooue this veritie I answere I prooue this veritie by a plaine text of scripture in Matt. 1. v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beholde a virgine shall conceaue c. But this you saie prooueth nothing by mine owne rule by Bezaes common kinde of scanning such citations and by the protestants interpretation of this place What rule what scanning what interpretation of ours can you alledge against this moste sufficient and euident proofe Did euer Beza or I or anie other protestant speake anie thing against this trueth If you can charge anie of vs we desire no fauour at your hands But what cause or reason haue you thus to saie Because this texte is not according to the Hebrewe but the seauentie as you affirme Which to be a foule vntrueth and tending to Atheisme and Turcisme whoe seeth not For if the Angels wordes rehearsed in Saint Matthew be not agreeable to the veritie of the Prophets wordes then may Turkes Iewes Atheists and wicked heretikes indede at their pleasure not onelie dispute against this article of our faith but also condemne it and we shall not be hable to conuince them This aduantage giueth M. Rainolds vnto them when he saieth Saint Matthewes text is not framed according to the Hebrwe but the Greeke translation M. R. denieth the text of S. Matthewe touching Christ borne of a virgine to be according to the Hebrewe Thus while you labour to prooue that we in cleauing to the Hebrewe text doe open a gappe to Atheisme your selfe in denying S. Matthewes text to be fully agreeable to the Hebrewe haue opened a broade gate to all Atheists and Turkes in the world God forbidde that we should euer vtter word so much seruing for defense of Atheisme as you haue here done or els set downe in word or writing that S. Matthewes place is not according to the Hebrew If you take part with the Iewes and openlie maintaine that the Hebrew worde signifieth not a virgine but a young wench then will I answere you as the godlie fathers haue answered those wicked enemies of Christ that 〈◊〉 signifieth a young wench indeed but one that is a virgine being deriued of the roote that signifieth to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Saint Ieâ—â—â—â— writeth that this worde not onelie signifieth a young maide or virgine but more also a virgine kept hidâ— and secret by greate diligence of hee parents and further also a young virginus of tender age not an olde virgine as some be And although the word in Hebrew had signified onelie a wench yet the Angell and Euangelists expounding it of such a wench as was a virgine also this maie suffice all Christians to beleeue and holde that our sauiour Christ was borne of a true virgine let Iewes Turkes Atheists and heretikes say what they can to the contrarie Master R. is affraid lest men should thinke he studied to disgrace the Greeke Hebrew tongues pag. 435. c. which he confesseth to be great helps to the attaining of the true sense in sundrie places of scripture and sheweth what paines the Catholikes haue taken in