sonne of God there wee see that hee tooke our heauinesse and bare our sorrowes was wounded for our â—ffeÌ„ces and was rent and tormented for our wickednesse and in this respect the ministration of the holie communion is of the learned fathers called a sacrifice because therin wee offer vp vnto God the father thankes praise for that great sacrifice once made vpon the Crosse But for the same sacrifice that Christ offered with blood that same to be offered daily in the masse without blood or how blood shoulde bee shed there vnbloodily as they inferre noe age of the Church neuer yet knewe since Christs time but the petite deuisers of late Saint Augustine that ancient learned Father could in few and plaine words describe vnto vs the perfect signification of the sacrifices of the old law Tom. 6. contâ—… FaustuÌ„ Mani l. 20. c. 21. fine Camp rat 9. de Sophis eccum quos gyros quasrotaâ— fabricat Rhem. Annot. heb 9. v. 25. Marke S. Aug. words before he vseth none of these opposite ill fauoured tearmes to expresse the sacrifice of the Church after his ascention his sacrifice on the Crosse is frequented by a sacrameÌ„t of remembraÌ„c saith he Praeter hoc igitur ante hoc sacrificiuÌ„ mortis aliud pridie instituit fecit ipse idque nec crueÌ„tè nec paenali modo Allen l. 2. c. 10. fol. 541 Rhem. annot heb 9. v. 12. of our sacrament now and what relation they both haue to the sacrifice of Christ without any such obscure or obtuse tearmes as these men vse Huius sacrificij caro sangnis ante aduentum Christs per victimas similitudinum promittebatur The flesh blood of this sacrifice before the comming of Christ was promised by sacrifices of Resemblance the same was performed indeed in the time of Christs passion post ascensionem Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur but after Christs ascension it is frequented by a sacrament of remembrance And to this of Augustine they shal haue the whol Church of England subscribe therfore let them take home the slaunder they lay vpon vs in that wee vse circular turnings or windings in our disputs and aunsweres with them That the Rhemists are as dark and obscureas any other of them in this question it wil appeare to any that will read their notes which more at large I will nowe shewe As Christ neuer died but once nor neuer shal die againe so in that violent painfull and bloody sort hee cannot be offered againe nether needeth he so to be offered any more hauing by that one action of sacrifice vppon the Crosse made the full ransome redemption remedie for the sinns of the whol world Neuerthelesse as Christ died and was offered after a sort in all the sacrifices of the law nature since the beginning of the world al which were figures of this one oblation vppon the Crosse so he is much rather offered in the sacrifice of the altar of the new Testament incomparably more neere diuinly truly expressing his death his body broken his blood shed then any figure of the old law or other sacrifice that euer was as being indeed though in hidden sacramentall and misticall and vnbloody maner the very selfe same blessed body blood the selfe same host oblation sacrifice that was don vpon the crosse Againe they saie noe one of the sacrifices nor al the sacrifices of the old law could make that one generall price ransome redemption of al mankind and of al sinns sauing this one highest Preist Christ and the one sacrifice of his blood once offered vpon the Crosse which sacrifice of redemption cannot be often done One only sacrifice on the crosse the redeÌ„ption of the world and on only preist Christ the redeemer therof The Masse a commemotatioÌ„ of Christs sacrifice This sort because Christ could not die but once though the figures also therof in the law of nature of Moses were truly called sacrifices as especially this hie and marueilous commemoration of the same in the holy sacrament of the aultar according to the rite of the newe Testament is most truly and singularly as S. Augustine saith a sacrifice But neither this sort nor the other of the old law being often repeated and done by many Preists could bee the generall redeeming consummating sacrifice c. You would thinke that in these two verses of their annotations they had handled that text as though they had meÌ„t that Christ dying but once had need neuer to haue died againe Noe more shal he saie they for in that violent painful and bloody sort as hee died on the crosse he can neuer bee offered againe here they exclude his dying againe or often but not his offering againe or often It is maruaile they did not deuise how he might die againe so it were not in that violent painfull bloody sort as his death was on the crosse as wel as deuise such an offering as shal be neither violent painfull nor bloody so where they should lay their reasoÌ„s to proue either a reall offering or not a reall dying or not they leaue it in the halfe come in with manners respects altering cleane the nature of the thinge For nether coulde Christ himselfe much lesse any mortal man offer himselfe often without dying often as is most plaine by the Apostle in the 4 last verses of that 9. chapter so their fumbling here is with as ill successe as D. Allens before cited whoe maketh a reall offering which they stick at vnlesse they will haue it neither violent painfull nor bloody and then wherin is it reall a sacramentall shedding of blood Againe they saie that that one action on the Crosse made the ful ransome for the sinns of the world what need any more sacrifice for sinns then as their is But being the same that his was whie doth it not redeeme as his did euen as a generall price ransome or let them shew wherin the defect is that being the same Christ Heb. 10.12 it should not haue the same effect Christ saith S. Paule after hee had offered one sacrifice for sinne sitteth for euer at the right hand of God Furthermore that reall immolation which D. Allen speaketh of foundeth more then this hidden sacramentall mystical offering or immolation which they speak of here otherwise they maie speake of a reall betraying a reall crucifying a real sheding of his blood powring out of it on the ground now then qualify them with a hidden sacramentall and misticall maner But what caused them in this 12. verse as before set downe to cal their Masse a commemoration of Christs sacrifice when they haue spoken of the Iewes sacrifices of Christs But neither this sort nor the other of the law c. to cal their masse by an other name This sort Doe they take their masse to bee a different sacrifice from that of the crosse a
ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt And by reason of this similitude they vsually take the names of the things themselues This is without glose or ambiguitie Christ saith S. Augustine was once offered in himselfe And is offered daily in a sacrament for that the speech should be vnderstood how once how daily it is added in a sacrament and in himselfe And why when it is done now but in a sacrament may it yet be truly said Christ is offered because sacraments haue the names of the thinges them selues for a certaine resemblance that is betweene theÌ„ This doth the words immediatly following shew Sieut ergo secundum quendam medum Therfore after a certaine manner of speech the sacrament of Christs body is Christs body the sacrament of Christs blood is Christs blood the sacrament of faith is faith this he illustrateth afteriby the sacrameÌ„t of Baptisme out of S. Paule Rom. 6. whoe saith by Baptisme wee bee buried with Christ into death he saith not we signifie buriall but he saith plainly wee bee buried so that the sacrament of so great a thinge is not called but by the name of the thing it self Cip. tom 2. de vnct Chris mat fere fine Thus far Augustine S. Cyprian was before S. Augustine certaine huÌ„dreds of yeares hee telleth vs without any scruple or bone cast in of doubt both what Christ did at his last supper and what on the crosse in sound words few Dedit dominus noster in mensa Our Lord at the table wherat hee receaued his last supper with his disciples with his own hands gaue bread wine But vpon the crosse he gaue his own body with the souldiers hands to be wounded This is by S. Cyprian the sacrifice of the table the sacrifice of the crosse at the one he gaue bread wine vpon the other he gaue his body Here is noe vailing of him vnder formes and shewes of bread and wine nospeaking of quantitieâ— qualities without substaÌ„ce nor offering vp of him to God his father In an other place he saith in most plaine words Tom. 2. de bap tism Christi manif trinit fine Nec sacerdotij eius paenituit deuÌ„ It neuer repented God saith he of Christs preisthood For the sacrifice that he offered vpoÌ„ the crosse is so acceptable in the goodwil of God so standeth in continuall strength virtue that the same oblatioÌ„ is noe lesse acceptable this day in the sight of God the Father then it was that daie when blood water ranne out of his wounded side semper reseruatae in corpore plaga salutis humana exigant pretium obedieutiae donatiuum requirant And the skarrs teserued stil in his body doe suffice for the redemption of man and doe require a fauour because of the obedience This is plaine according to the scriptures Heb 7.23.27 10. v. 12. 9 v. 28. that once Preist by one sacrifice once offered that is our sauiour by giuing himselfe to death vpoÌ„ the Crosse hath reconciled vs to God sanctified vs for euer cuteth of their many Preists to offer ofteÌ„ as though there were left now after the death of Christ an offering for sin or his pretious blood were of noe greater value then the blood of Bull Goates which were offered often because they coulde not purge sinne There is a Master amongst them called the Master of the esnteÌ„ces Vide Genebr Chron l. 4. an 1159. fol. 932. P. Lumbard or Longobardus who collected a breife of doctrine out of the Greeke latine Fathers ancienter by far then the counsel of Trent Allen Canus or the Rhemists and before any Protestant if they saie true that are accustomed to lie who liued in the yeare of our Lord Bishop of Paris anno Paris 1160. vpon whose bookes suruey hath bin made although they haue gathered noe Index vpon him as they haue done vpon others yet they haue noted him in manie places where they mislâ—ke him with a non tenetur the master is not allowed here Magister hic non tenetur This Catholike Doctor much renowned amongst them taught euen as the ProtestaÌ„ts doe in this quaeâ—stioÌ„ of the sacrifice of Christ in the Masse yet hath escaped froÌ„ amongst them without so much as an item for it which manifestly sheweth that though they haue vs offenders in that matter they haue their cheife Master also a ringleader therin themselues or brethreÌ„ accessary therto because they haue not taxed him therfore And howsoeuer we maie be faultie the case standing as it doth our aunswere is the same with the womans in the poet Nam si ego digna hac contumelia sum maximè Terenc in Eunueh act 5. scen 2. Senec. in Medea act 3. at tu indignus qui faceres tamen For although I be neuer so wel worthy to be so spitfully handled yet were you no meete man to doe it saith shee And as Medea saith to IasoÌ„ Omnes coniugem infamem arguant solus tuere solus insontem voca Tibi innocens sit quisquis est pro te nocens Let others defame me with infamie yet doe thou only take my part doe thou call me iust vndefiled let him be an innocent to thee who for thee doth transgresie The words of Lumbard are these Sent l. 4. dis 12 parag 7. Christ is not now really offered but the memorie of his sacrifice is celebrated Post heac quaeritur si quod gerit sacerdos propriè dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio si Christus quotidie immolatur vel semel tantum immolatus sit I demand saith he whether that which the preist doth be properly called a sacrifice an oblation or not and whether Christ bee daily offered or else were offered only once To this saith he our answere in breif is that that which is offered consecrated by the Preist is called a sacrifice oblation because it is a memory representation of the true sacrifice holy oblation which was made on the aultar of the crosse Et semel Christus mortuus in cruce est ibique immolatus est in semetipse Christ also died once on the Crosse there was he offered himselfe quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento but hee is offered daily in a sacrament because in the sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was once don on the Crosse And this is not Peter Lumbardes opinion only but his strong proofe collection out of all the Fathers Greeke and Latine noe one of theÌ„ euer dreaming of sacrificing the sonne of God to his father or of making the same sacrifice vnbloody which Christ made bloody or to haue the sacrament both the thing it selfe and a remembrance of it selfe al at one time Wherfore although the sacrifice be a true proper soueraigne propitiatorie sacrifice as it is defined by the Trent Fathers yet
Ibid. fol. 187. this to be done without mutation or change of place or any strange creation which they doe so much abiure If since the mysterie of our redemption wrought and finished Christ as man bee ascended into heauen and thither in soule and minde we ought to mount and goe after and that it be good for vs that he ascended and bee there as agreeing to the scripture which saith seek those things which are abous where Christ sitteth one the right hand of his father they doe teach Is it not earthly and grosse to seeke him in the earth and substantially and fleshly to haue him And is it not a great hinderance to the spirits of our minds and bringeth it vs not into earthly cogitations which are euer to be shunned If they say true in the one assertion Omnis contradictio est ad idem they erre in the other for both cannot be true At one the same time they make the same Christ sitting in heauen at the right hand of his father according to the dimensions parts and proportions of a true body the same Christ at the same time in the sacrament without dimeÌ„sions parts or proportions of a true bodie which is wholy to ouerthrow the truth of his body and vtterly to disanull our beleife therof a part wherof is that he is in heaueÌ„ with those dimensions and distinction of parts wherwith hee liued on earth and wherwith he was crucified and so died was buried and ascended The Rhemists in their testament followe the same stepps They say it is plaine by the scripture Rhem. Heb. 9. v. 20. 10. v. 11 that the blessed chalice of the aultar at their Masse hath the verie sacrifical blood in it that was shed vpon the Crosse the like they affirme in other places of the body Now as the Trent fathers Catechisme Rhemists are found to speake impieties and contradictions in this first question of the presence of Christ in the Eucharists vsing some tearmes As. 1. Really 2. SubstaÌ„tially 3. SacrameÌ„tally 4. Spiritually Of the Sacrifice of the Masse as may be easily yeilded vnto as be fore is shewed And some others which repunge their owne grounds and be altogether different from them so before I goe to others of them I wil shew how these goe about indeed it is about to make their Masse a sacrifice that is to say to offer the reall fleshly substantial body of Christ to god his father the same which he offered on the Crosse for the sinnes of the world They cannot tell in this what tearmes to vse but veile their meanings with such words that furthereth neither their cause nor hindreth ours Conc. Trid. sess 22. in pref de sac missae On the Crosse on sacrifice that was bloody Cap. 1. The counsell pretendeth to intreat of the sacrifice of the Masse quatenus verum singulare sacrificium est so far forth as it is a true and soueraigne sacrifice Christ therfore our Lord although hee was to offer himselfe once on the aultar of the Crosse that with death to work there our eternall redemptioÌ„ yet because the preâ—sthood by his death was not to be extinguished he did leaue to the Church his most beloued spouse at his last supper the verie night hee was betrayed a visible sacrifice wher in that bloody sacrifice which was to bee donne but once on the Crosse might bee represented and that the memory of him should be continued to the worlds ende and therfore he being a Preist after the order of Melchisedech offered his body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine to God his Father And further they saie because in this holy sacrifice which is performed in the Masse idem ille Christus continetur incruente immolatur the same Christ is contained Cap. 2. The saÌ„e Christ offered vnbloodily Apropitiatory sacrifice Can. 1. offered vnbloodily whoe did offer himselfe once one the aulter of the Crosse bloodily the holy synode teacheth that this sacrifice is trulie propitious that whosoeuer shal say that in the Masse is not offered to God verum proprium sacrificium a true and proper sacrifice let him be accursed So by the Trent Fathers we must beleiue the Masse to be a true soueraigne propitiatory sacrifice the same which Christ offered on the Crosse But marke their tearmes In the sacrifice of their Masse is represented the sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse there is he offered vnbloodily these tearmes they shal haue of vs we say the Lords supper is a sacrifice as it is the passioÌ„ of Christ that is a thankful rememberance of Christs passioÌ„ and that Christs blood is shed in a mysterie But with them how is Christs sacrifice represented if the same Christ be really offered who offered himselfe on the Crosse What need the same thing to be a remembrance of it selfe and in the one to offer himselfe painfully bloodily and in the other-same-sacrifice to be offered nether painfullie nor bloodily If hee be offered but vnbloodily in the Masse Nec cruentè nec paenali mo do AlleÌ„ de euc sac l. 2. c 10. fol. 541 Rhem. annot heb 9. v 20. The very blud in the Chalice Allen de sac euch l. 2 c. 11. realis imm ola tio Rhem. annot heb 9.1 v. 25 Christ offered vnboodily Rhe. Mat. 26. v 28.2 mystically â— In a sacrament annot Luc. 22.19 fol 205. Camp 2. rat Sacramentalis mactatio c. 14. fine how agreeth it with a reall offering and reall presence how saie the Rhemists that the very blood which Christ shed on the aultar of the crosse is in the Challice at the time of the Masse Or D. Allen that there iâ— a reall offering of the body of Christ as there is a real presence so that I see not if they meane as they speake whie they mince the word vnbloodily as they doe Would they say that blood is shed let it be shed let not blood be shed vnbloodily they knowe not how If the Trent Fathers Rhemists by their tearme vnbloodily doe meane mysticallie as they saie in an other place wee agree with them they shal haue vs reasonable It is shed in a mysterie not executed indeed and that is rightly tearmed a mysterie not as they saie in a mysterie that is really Or he is now immolated or offered as they are driuen to saie in a sacrament which wee saie also but not in a sacrament that is really and substantially Omne aenigmaticum omne offusum caligine loquendi Al this is darke couered with mists D. Allen stil ouerthroweth himselfe and them too for hee saith againe that in their Masse there is onlie a sacramentall killing or sheding of blood which we also wil neuer denie for in the Lords supper we haue the death of Christ in a mysterie in a figure or sacrament Christ is there killed sacramentally for there we see the death of the
as the nature of the word soundeth or said it was the thinge it selfe not a figure sampler similitude since Gregorie Nazianzene as D. Tonstall quoteth him vnto vs In sanctuÌ„ pase l. 2. fol 66. Figura figurae speaking of things done in the old law The arke or the Pascall Lamb saith Pascha legale audenter dicâ— figurae figura erat obscurior the Easter Lamb in the law I speak boldly was an obscure figure of a figure that is a figure of the Eucharist So that touching any substance of matter the Eucharist is noe more the body then the sacrifices sacrameÌ„ts in the law all both theirs ours being referred to Christ on the Crosse To proceed to the obiection made our of Saint Paule Heb. 9.16.25 That the host which is sacrificed by offering must of necessity be reall offered and slaine Canus ibid. ob fol. 404. ex Cal ui Instit l. 4. c. 18. par 5. f. 475 if then in euerie of their Masses Christ be offered in sacrifice in euerie of their Masses he is also slaine therfore ether S. Paules argument is frustrat where he saith Otherwise he ought to suffer ofteÌ„ from the beginning of the world or if Christ be offered in sacrifice he dieth verily and indeed but they al confesse they offer Christs liuing body impassible Can us ibid. fo 421. hee doth well to set the obiection and answere so far a sunder At corpus viuuÌ„ spirans non offerimus ideÌ„ enim in Eucharistia est at que in coelo so at the most they find an oblation they cannot finde a sacrifice To this obiection he seoffingly saith that wee haue found out wherwith to maintaine our counterfeit opinion but hee cannot finde how to ouerthrow so weake an argumer We wil grant saith hee to those that argue against vs that to the perfect offering of the eye ature there must be the death and end of it if it bee truly sacrificed But we offer not a liuely ond breathing bodie such a bodie is in the Euchâ—rist in heauen yet although the body of Christ in the Eucharist be a liuing body the blood bee in the body yet wee doe uether offer the body because it is aliue or the blood because it is in the body but the body in regard it is slaine the blood because it was shed on the Crosse Thus by this answer of his wher before the distinctioÌ„ stood with them of offering the same body which was offered on the crosse and that that body was in the Eucharist but after an other manner then on the Crosse vnbloodily or in a mystery now he confesseth they offer not a liuing body but because it is slaine then there must needs followe death nor the blood as it is in the body but because it was shed on the crosse whie then are they afraid to call their sacrifice bloody but vnbloody if the host be slaine and this argumeÌ„t of Canus haue the Rhemists borowed as they did the former for in their first conflict about this sacrament they professe That they consecrate the seuerall elements Rhem. 26. mat v. 26. shew the sence or meaÌ„ing of this note in anie writer ancient take the whole Dicth in a sacrament iâ— preseÌ„t indeed not into Christs whole person as it was borne of the Virgin or is now in heauen but the brâ—ad into his body a part as betrayed broken and giueÌ„ for vs the wine into his blood apart as shed out of his body for remission of sinnes in which mysticall and vnspeakable manner he would haue the Church to offer and sacrifice him daily he in mistery sacrament dieth though now not only in heauen but also in the sacrament he bee indeed by sequel of al his parts to each other whole aliue immortall Thus monstrously doe they teach now they thinke they haue gotten a sacrifice into their hands But how they offer without blood or with blood whether aliue or dead whether ther same that Christ did either at his supper or on the Crosse that they cannot tel nor with any wordes explaine Their descriptions in these are like that of Syrus in the Poet when he sent one brother to finde an other Teren in Adel. act 4. Scen. 2. Perplexa descriptio but by the derection taken he neuer knewe where to finde him Prâ—terito haÌ„c rectâ plateâ sursum vbs eo veneris cliuus deâ—rsum vorsum est Passe right through this street to the ouer part when you come there there is a steepe place towards the lower ende therof run downe this way after that there iâ— on this hand a Chappell and there fast by in a narrow corner A speech ful of perplexitie That they should violate or alter the holy ordinance of God touching Christs sacrifice which was as they say themselues violent The sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse The sacrifice of their Masse painfull bloody into a sacrifice reall true yea and propitiatory which shall bee neither violent painful nor bloody and yet sacrifice his body as betraied broken giuen for vs the blood as shed out of his body that very blood which was in the vaines of his body and yet for him to die in a mystery in a sacrament all to bee done vnbloodily so change the nature substance of that sacrifice which was the purchase redeÌ„ption of the whol world as it is blasphemous for them to teach so haue they brought such phrases and wordes as none can vnderstand vpheld by none but themselues God neuer intended that his sonne should offer himselfe anie more but once and that was with shedding of blood death so must hee be offered or not at all offered Reâ—d 7. 8. 9. 10 cap. to the Hebrewes if we wil speake of a reall offering and areal sacrifice a reall presence and a reall offering a real death caÌ„not be seuered If the ancieÌ„t Church of God had deliuered their doctrine opinions Aug. Epist 23. fere finè Christ is nowe offered not in substance but in asacrament or representatioÌ„ of his death D. Allen is out with his owne Catholikes be cause they caÌ„not bring this place of Aug handsomly to Ierue their turne de sac Euch. l. 2. ca. 11 in such confused tearmes as these men doe wee had bin as much to seeke what had bin their mindes in this case as wee are of these men nowe But they were expedite cleare as by their discourses appeareth Nonne semelimmolatus est Christus in scipso Was not Christ saith S. Augustine once offered in himselfe And yet in a sacrament hee is offered for the benefite of the people not every Easter only but euery day Nether doth hee lie when the question is asked answereth Christ is offered daily vnto the people For if sacrameÌ„ts had not a certaine similitude of the things wherof they be sacraments they should bee noe sacraments at al
matter of faith as other men do if in examination it happen to be an error yet shal it be none in the Pope but must be one in al men else For trial of this let any man read the 1. 2. chapt de sanct beat where he proueth it an error vpon whom soeuer shall thinke that the soules of the blessed doe not see God vntill the last day Bellar. de Sanctor beatit l. 1 c. 1. 2 This error is put vpon Iohn 22. Bellarmine confesseth as much Ioannem hunc reverâ sensisse animas non visuras Deum nisi post resurrectionem That Iohn 22. did verily beleeue Bell. de Rom. pont l. 4. c. 14. fol 549. c. 12. fol. 531. he saueth Pope Nicholas by the like that the soules see not God vntil the last day But this he thought saith he when he might so thinke without danger of heresie nulla enim adhuc praecesserat Ecclesiae definitio for there had no determinatioÌ„ of the church gone before Why The determinatioÌ„ of himselfe is the determination of the church aswel as you said before his telling of a thing to himselfe was the telling of it to the church And why excuseth he the Pope by the not determination of the Church When hee telleth vs himselfe De conc auth l. 2. c. 2 5. That neither generall counsels nor particular which otherwise are subiect to erre can erre if the Pope confirme them And yet see the man be telleth vs De Rom. pont l. 4. c. 14 f. 551 that Iohn need not to reuoke the error cum in errorem nullum incidisset for he fel into no error If hee fel into no error neither did they fal into any error on whoÌ„ Bellarmine laieth the same error nor must he cal it an error to say The soules of the righteous see not God vntil the last day seeing he himselfe saith that Iohn so held and yet held no error FroÌ„ absurd and grosse coÌ„clusions they fal to flat blasphemies Rom. 6.23 Rhem annot on that Text. Blasphemies ContradictioÌ„s The reward of sin is death but everlasting life is the gift of God saith S. Paul the Rhemists say in their annotations that The sequele of the speech required that as he said deathor damnation is the stipend of sin so life everlasting is the stipend of iustice so it is What indignity is this to the holy Ghost to crosse him so manifestly S. Paule maketh opposition betweene eternal life eternal death touching the cause of either The proper working cause of death is sin so saith the Apostie The reward wages or stipend of sin is death but everlasting life is what the stipende of good workes as the Rhemists say no but the free gift of God The Apostle might as easilie haue said so as they if it had bin so Annot 2. Cor. 5. vers 10. Wil Reinolds cont Whiâ—…k fol. 105â— Why did S. Paule invert and turne the sentence if as the one had deserued hel so the other had deserued heaven but only to exclude what the Rhemists bring in They iterate this in an other place where they say Heaven is as well the reward of good works as hell is the stipend of ill workes This is also seconded by one from Rhemes who saith that the Apostle Saint Paule laieth in indifferent ballance good works and euil maketh the one the cause of heauen as the other is the cause of hel But if it be so that good works be the cause purchase merit of eternall life as these men tell vs as trulie as euill works are the purchase and merit of hel what saie they to their owne note Rhem. Annot. Rom c 9. v. 11. 16. vpon another text where they tel vs that by the example of the two two twinns Iacoh Esaw it is euident that nether nations nor particular persons bee elected eternallie or called temporallie or preferred to Gods fauour before other by their owne merits but of theÌ„ two vvhere iustlie hee might haue reprobated both hee saued of mercie one What is this as S Paul said before eternal life is the gift of God excluding merits Yet they stand not alwaie to this last For they saie againe Man hath free will to make himselfe a vessell of saluation or damnation Rhem. Annot 2. Tim. 2. v. 21. though saluation be attributed to gods mercy principally the other to his iust iudgment Hâ—w hath man free wil to make himselfe a vessel of saluation or damnation wheÌ„ saluation is principallie of Gods mercie and the other of his iudgment Whie explaine they not that darke speech that wee maie vnderstand it Interpres eget interprete They neede more Interpreters then the text They told vs before that Gods meere mercie is seene in the elect and iustice in the reprobat And that they that are saued Annot. Rhem. Rom 9. v. 6.11 14. 16. must hold of gods eternal purpose mercy and election And this election and mercy dependeth on his owne purpose will determination that all are worthie of damnation before they bee first called to mercie Make good this doctrine which they haue last set downe and agreed vpon the former will proue blasphemous and deregatorie to the mâ—iestie of God That good workes are the cause of beauen as evill are the cause of hell Or that man hath free will to make himself a vessell of saluation or damnation I doubt not if the Rhemists be followed but that a man might take vp moe contradictions then those before which they haue heaped amongst their notes in that testament 2. Tim 2.25 God giueth repentance Where S. Paul writing to Tymothy willeth him to instruct with meeknesse those that resist or vvithstand the truth prouing if at anie time God will giue them repentance that they maie acknowledge the truth they note That conversion from sin and heresie is the gift of god and of his special grace Annot. vppon that place in the margent pag. 589. I might aske them first how this agreeth with their owne note one the other side of their owne leafe so oft mentioned before Man hath free wil to make him selfe a vessel of saluation or damnation But I wil leaue that now and demand of them howe it agreeth with this The grace of god woorketh not in man against his will nor forceth anie thing without his acceptation and consent Annot. 2. cor 6. v. 1. Annot. Ioh. 6. v. 44. Annot Luc. 14. v. 23. Conuersion from sin heresie is the gift of God For whosoeuer are lead by the spirit of God Rhem. Rom. 8. v 14. in marg Hee meaneth not that the children of god be violently compelled against their wills but that they bee sweetly dâ—awn moued or induced to doe good ex Aug. Ench c. 64. de verbis domin Serm. 43. c 7 deverb Apost ser 13. c. 11 1â— Acts â— and therfore it lieth in a mans will to