then the argument to be so sure and necessarie that is drawen from authoritie of a martyr will you graunt this reason to be inuincible A marttr hath saide it therefore it is true what say you then of Cyprian the martyr of Iustinus the martyr of Irenaeus the martyr who notwitstanding their blessed martyrdome are knowne to haue maintained opinions against the trueth If martyrs then may haue their errours how may the testimonie of martyrs be alwaies irrefragable you see good readers how pithie a disputer this man doth shewe him-selfe to be If his loose rhetorike helped him not a litle better then his logike he were in verie weake and miserable case Lastlie concerning wholl Churches reformed pag. 32. what can you Master Rainolds conclude against vs In matter of discipline greate difference heretofore hath bene amongst the Churches East and West Greeke and Latine If then some such be in our reformed Churches can you thereof truelie gather that therefore they are not the Churches of Christ Tell vs what you meane if you haue any trueth or certaintie in your meaning Next Master R. reckeneth vp sundrie Popes that are amongst the Protestants in stead of one true Pope pag. 33. which I know not whereto it serueth but onelie to shewe that the protestants haue so great detestation of the Pope and his tyrannie that they cannot endure in anie professour of the Gospell anie small shadowe of such Lordelines as the Pope vsurpeth ouer the Church Your true Pope whereof you speake is as much as a true Antichrist of whome the scriptures haue foretolde The name the person the authoritie all Protestants abhorre and accurse to the prince of darknes from whence it came Againe he is in hand with generall Councels and saith it is impossible pag. 34. that euer we should once imagine how anie Councell amongest vs should be gathered His methode is according to his matter confused and disordered leaping and iumping from one pointe to another like a wilde bucke vpon the mountaines Although we haue not a Pope as you haue yet by Gods grace generall Councels maie wee haue if Christian princes that professe the gospell will iointlie take vpon them the care thereof And generall Councels haue bene assembled and helde many hundred yeares before your Pope by such a name was euer knowne or heard of in the world and so may they againe both Christianlie and generallie be held allthough your Pope with all his proude cleargie were returned from whence they came That hitherto no such Christian Councels haue bene gathered it maie be imputed to the generall troubles in all Christian countries and to the aduersaries that haue bene raised vp by your Pope and his Cardinall satrapes to hinder as much as in them laie all meanes whereby a Christian generall Councell might be gathered Howbeit if a generall Councell cannot be procured to be celebrated with quietnes there is no doubt notwithstanding but that the Lordes cause maie without it daylie more and more preuaile as it hath done heretofore in times moste persecutions To the section that followeth containing onelie a recapitulation of these former discourses pag. 34. c. I haue no nede to make any further answere Your complainte against vs for refusing all grounds of disputation pag. 38. how vaine and vntrue it is hath bene shewed The onelie true and certaine grounde of religion and of all disputation about the same which is the authoritie of God reuealed vnto vs in his holie worde we imbrace we holde we rest vpon it which forsomuch as you haue fullie tried to be against you so that you cannot thereby approoue one article of your popish faith nor disprooue anie doctrine that we maintaine against you therfore desperation driueth you indeede to refuse this grounde as insufficient and to seeke other grounds of which we haue noe warrant in Gods worde And although it please you for this cause to raile at vs and saie we are worse then the heretikes of olde time yet we know that rhe auncient godlie fathers in confuting all heretikes vsed onelie arguments drawen out of the scriptures and plainelie taught that by no other weapons an heretike can be put to flight I knowe they charge them oftentimes with the iudgement of Churches successions of Bishops determination of Councels name of Catholikes not as though this were a necessarie conuiction of it selfe but thereby the rather to induce them to beleeue the doctrine to be true which they see from the first planting thereof in the Church to haue remained Your case is nothing like seeing you haue onely the bare title without the thing and as it were the emptie casket without the treasure But for so much as you accuse â—s for casting awaie the grounds of Diuinitie I desire euerie Christian man to weigh with himselfe what ground it is wheron al your religion and Church standeth First the scripture must not be scripture in any other sense then as the Pope will expound it so that the scripture being the meaning of the scripture and the meaning of the scripture being the Popes exposition hereof it followeth that the scripture is nothing els but the Popes interpretation So likewise in Traditions Doctors Councels Churches if any thing dissent from the Popes vnderstanding and determination it is reiected abolished condemned and finally all faith all religion all Diuinitie of Papists is onelie the Popes sacred will and pleasure Now then this being their owne certaine resolution I would gladlie be enformed how by the same a man may be assured of any faith it being further also agreed and confessed among themselues that the Pope maie fall into heresie Then who seeth not that their ground being shaken their staie failing all that is builded and vpholden thereon is clean ouerthrowne If they saie the Pope falling into heresy forthwith ceaseth to be a Pope I demaund whoe they are that must iudge the Popes cause and giue sentence against him And if the Pope be obstinate and teaching heresie and therewith infecting the world will notwithstanding stoutly stand in defense of his doctrine and will keepe his chaire what shift haue you then or what can you doe against him seing he is your Pope your head your author and founder of all your faith Thus a man going with you along and comming to the end of all findeth no staie but must wander still as in an endles Labyrinth wherein he shall at last languish and perish euerlastingly That you wish we would be content to yealde to the verie scriptures themselues pag. 40. doubt you not Master Rainolds thereof but we are most redie to yealde vnto them if ye would be as willing the controuersy might haue thereby and by other good meanes an end But your conscience telleth you scripture will not serue you and therfore in a word you deny the wholl bodie of the scriptures Thinke not good reader that herein I haue spoken rashly without reason I know what I
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
as I can possiblie The wordes are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in latine worde for worde quem oportet quidem coelum recipere the wordes both in Greeke and latine are ambiguous as any man may see in which respecte Beza thought better to translate them thus quem oporter quidem coe locapi which in effect and true meaning is al one with the other but yet some thing plainer This worthie matter you handle by seuerall pointes as becommeth a man of such discretion First you say it is saucy and malapert for any man of purpose to restraine that pag. 172. which the holy ghost hath left at large If this be so then hath your vulgare interpreter bene ouer saucy and malapert often times Examples of such saucines I might alledge many in his translation if cause required I graunt a man cannot be too precise and religious in translating the wordes of holy scripture and that it ought to be the especiall care of a godly translator neither to restraine nor enlarge any thing as farre forth as he may performe by skill and diligence for so much as the text may afford a doctrine sometime in his original and naturall wordes which by altering in the translation is soone marred But these admitt no other sense then one therefore no matter whether a man say that heauen must receiue Christ or Christ must be receiued in heauen the meaning is all one For as for the conceite of some which you affirme may perhappes be true that Christ should receiue heauen it passeth al compasse of reason or diuinitie Howe I pray you doth Christ receiue heauen by his diuine power but the Apostle speaketh of Christs ascension as in the text appeareth and all interpreters vnderstande the wordes how then doth Christ receiue heauen in his humanitie wherein he ascended and whereof the Apostle speaketh tell vs if you can Againe why saith the Apostle vntill the time that all things are restored if he meane that Christs diuinitie receiued heauen which then receiued it no otherwise then it hath euer and shall euer receiue it for that by taking heauen should be meant the rule and gouerment of heauen which Christ at his ascension receiued this interpretation I know seemeth but absurd to your selfe and therefore you may leaue it for others to defend whome for this matter Beza hath fully answered Your second third points where in you vrge and prosecute M. Martins reprehension I omit as vn worthie of answere Beza transtated the place trulie in sense as your selfe cannot deny the cause that mooued him a litle to alter the wordes was to auoide doubtfull and ambiguous construction That Illyricus is not contented with this translation what maruel seeing he wil haue Christs body contayned in no place If you be of his iudgement you may vse his authoritie against Beza herein But where hath Caluine reprooued Bezaes translation of these wordes why haue neither you nor Gregorie Martine noted the place or set downe the reprehension you haue good cause to be ashamed of such egregious trifling pag. 175. Beza hath sufficientlie cleared his translation from charge of corruption in sense by S. Nazianzens authoritie Nazianz. de filio Conc. 2. whoe reporteth in Greeke these wordes of S. Peter euen altogether in such sorte as Beza hath expressed them in his latine translation So all you haue to say against Beza or me in this matter is for rendering a verbe deponent by a verbe passiue keeping threrein the sense moste trulie and exactly Your friuolus inuectiue against our translations and translatours I passe ouer pag. 176. M. Martine hath written of this matter so much already as your wholl Colledge of Rhemes could vtter vnto whose vnlearned and weake discourse which he calleth a discouerie a learned Doctor hath made answere long agoe Martins discouerie The answere you haue amongst you confute it if you can Otherwise in this behalfe thinke your selues fullie satisfied Here are we entred into a large treatise of Reall presence pag. 178. c. for which M. Rainolds seemeth to be verie zealous and carefull lest it should receiue some discountenaunce by the former words of S. Peter as needes it must translate them how you list so you translate them trulie For Saint Peter speaking of Christs humanitie saith that heauen must receiue him vntill the time that all things are restored Hereof it followeth Act. 3.21 that Christ as touching his humanity is not receiued or contained in the sacrament or els in any other place then heauen This is a plaine a certaine Christ ascending in his humanity into heauen hath left no place for Reall presence in the sacrament an inuincible trueth so not we haue taken from you Christs Reall presence but Christ in carying vp his bodie out of this world into heauen hath himselfe actuallie ouerthrowne your fantasticall imaginations of his bodelie and carnall presence on the earth Before you come to answere this argument according to your olde wont you speake and spend much idle talke wherein nothing asketh answere but that by conference of other places you would weaken the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Sainct Luke vseth in reporting S. Peters wordes For you saie that this prooueth Christs bodie to be contained in heauen no more then Saint Luke writing that Samaria receiued the word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 8.14 affirmeth the word of God was contained in Samaria An obiection doubtles that came from a deepe vnderstanding to make the word of God which was to be preached ouer the wholl world of like nature with a bodie which must be contained in one place If you can see anie thing you may soone see that the word receiue is otherwise taken here as also in the two other places which you alledge of receiuing children and Apostles in Christs name Saint Peter speaketh of locall receiuing or containing the other places vnderstand a receiuing of reliefe or entertainement Your reproches as they well become your person so being vsuall require no answere but are to be contemned Being come to the matter in hand pag. 183. you shewe your selfe more hotte and hastie in words then discrete or pithie in your arguments For that I said it is a contradiction to maintaine that one and the same bodie should together both be visible inuisible circumscriptible and incircumscriptible as you do moste fondlie imagine and teach of Christs body you charge me with infidelitie for denying gods omnipotency which euerie Christian professeth in the first article of the Creede Of Atheisme and infidelitie take heede your selfe M. R you haue alreadie made a dangerous step The papists to prooue their Reall presence are faine to flee to Gods omnipotencie and thus to argue god is able to make his body Reallie present in the sacrament therefore so he doth God forbid I should be guiltie of that sin wherof you do without all conscience or
of his flesh is absent from vs. Which though it be contrary to your Reall presence yet you say you beleeue as your Creede your beliefe perhaps is according to some new Creede for of this beliefe one parte cannot stand in the same Creede with another First the true auncient and Catholike creede teacheth that Christ is ascended into heauen touching his humanitie whereunto Cyril agreeablie writeth The true Catholike Creed is contraie to the Popish Creed that he is absent in flesh your new-fangled Popish Creede would haue vs beleeue that Christ touching the presence of his flesh is in the sacrament If his flesh be in the sacrament then is not his flesh absent but the scriptures and fathers and al Catholicke Creeds doe set it downe as a ground of faith that Christs flesh is onelie in heauen and there remaineth vntill he come againe in carnall presence to iudge the world What haue you to answere now forsooth now must you fal into your former contradiction that Christs flesh is visible in heauen and inuisible in the sacrament which doctrine is repugnant to diuinitie to reason to sense to all principles of truth as you haue hearde already or els must you say that Christ hath two bodies one visible and an other inuisible which though it be heretical yet is it lesse absurde and vnreasonable then the other But answere what you list this is sufficient to ouerthrow your reall presence before God and all his saints that Christs flesh is absent from vs the sacrament is with vs and therefore Christs flesh is not in the sacrament Your assertions are to grosse your answeres are absurd your Reall presence is a reall contradiction Cyrill you say was no sacramentarie No verely for your sacramentary heresie was vnhathced in Cyrills time But did Cyrill euer teach your reall presence a place you bring that maketh nothing to this purpose Cyrill speaketh not a word of the sacrament Cyrill in Ioh. lib. 4. c. 13. but generally that Christ giueth vs his flesh which is true of those also that neuer receiued the sacrament Wherefore Cyrill meant not any reall presence as you full ignorantly alledge him He onely disputeth against the infidelity or curiosity of such as enquire A popish ignorant argument Christ geueth vs his fleshe to eate Ergo we eate Christs flesh Really in the sacrament How it is possible that Christ should giue vs his flesh to eate we know that Christ can giue and doth giue his flesh to all faithfull and make no doubt nor question thereof But thinke you all meanes of eating his flesh is remooued if reall presence be denied Consider this point a litle better M. Rainolds and I doubt not but you shall easilie espie your owne ouersight That you bring out of Peter Martyr is idle That which he saith if Cyril should auouch it were not to be graunted your selues will not maintaine namelie that Christ doth dwell in vs corporallie and mingleth his flesh with our flesh Then to what vse serueth your reall presence tell vs if you can but prooue by scripture that which you tell els we shall not greatly regard what you tell vs. Damascen you are content to handle as lightly Damasâ—le orthod fide lib. 3. cap. 3. He teacheth against your reall presence that the nature of Christs bodie remaineth circumscript and visible as it was So your fantasie of Christs body being present in the sacrament reallie but incircumscriptly and inuisiblie is prooued to be vainer then any dreame Al you alledge at large for the reall presence out of him in an other place Lib. 4. c. 14. may shortlie be dispatched That Christ can make the bread his body we graunt For Christ being god can doe whatsoeuer he wil. Onelie shew that Christ wil make of real bread his real flesh and then this controuersie is brought to an ende The Catholike faith teacheth that Christs body was made of the virgine once the Popish faith that it is made of bread daily Christ indeede maketh the breade his body not really but sacramentallie For Christ hath not a body made of bread his body was made once of the pure substance of his blessed mother and other body then this or oftner made then once hath he none Whereof all doctrine that teacheth Christs bodie is made of bread is impious and hereticall the popish doctrine of Reall presence teacheth that Christs body in the sacrament is made of breade by changing the bread into his bodie through force of consecration wherefore we may boldlie and trulie conclude that the popish doctrine of Reall presence which Master Rainolds holdeth but miserablie defendeth is both wicked and hereticall CHAP. 9. Of certeine places of S. Chrysostome touching the Reall presence Two places out of S Chrysostome were alledged by M. Martin pag. 20â— c. to prooue thereall presence The first out of his second homilie to the people of Antioch Chryst hom 2. ad pop Antio wherein by an excellent and fit allegorie he compareth our sauiour Christ to the Prophet Elias For as Elias ascending bodelie into heauen left his cloake with Elizeus his scholler so Christ the sonne of God asâ—ending vp left his flesh with vs. S. Chrysostomes meaning to anie that readeth the place is euident ynough M. R. though he multiplie wordes after his simple manner yet my former answere he cannot disprooue That Christ left vnto vs his flesh in the holie sacrament who euer doubted that therein we receiue his true and natural flesh we beleeue we teach and alwaies did But the Real presence of his flesh such as you maintaine S. Chrysostome neuer knew and we vtterlie denie Christ left vs his flesh therefore he left it Really A false popish argument For can you reason thus and reason trulie that if Christ left vs his flesh he left it in reall presence this is the point this prooue if you can els you talke to no purpose Christ left his flesh that is a sacrament of his flesh wherein is most truelie and effectuallie but spiritually offered vnto vs and of vs receiued the very flesh of Christ Hauing spent manie vnprofitable and superfluous speaches at length you force the comparison and shew a threefold difference betweene Elias leauing his mantel and Christ leauing his flesh And are you indeed in your right vnderstanding who I praie you M. R. denieth this you migh alledge not three onley but three and three points of difference betweene Elias and Christs leauing the one his mantel the other his flesh This then being wholy graunted what is your argument will you reason thus There is great difference between Elias leauing his cloake Christ leauing his flesh Straunge arguments that M.R. hath learned of late to make therefore Christ left his flesh vnto vs reallie If this be not your argument frame an other your selfe as you can The first difference is that Elias left his cloake Christ his flesh Flesh indeed differeth
l. 3. wherein first of all priuate masse vsed in the Popish synagogues â—eceaueth a blowe For Chrâ—sostome saith Christ is handled witâ— all mâ—ns hands 〈◊〉 the Popish masse the priest onelie hâ— adlâ—h all that is handled 〈◊〉 whoe is so â—imple not to see 〈◊〉 mâ—â—niâ—g of that godlie and eloquent father in this kinde of speach Doe all men handle Christ with their handes indeed doth Saint Chrysostome meane a reall handling as a man handleth bread The papistes will have Christs flesh â—andled Really do yourselues thinke thus groslie â—r els for a shew pretend you to maintaine the same That Christ may thus be handled taken vp laid downe broken eaten swallowed remoued from place to place tossed to and fro and all this as you speake really is monstrous and lothsome doctrine in the eares and harts of all godlie and reasonable men This S. Chrisostome once to haue imagined neuer shall you shew in this world Chrisostome meaneth the sacrament of Christ which we handle indeede and which in some sense in called Christ himselfe This to be moste true is plaine by Chrysostome in the same place S. Chrysostome expouâ—deth his owne meaning For he saith We see the Lord sacrificed and the people are sprinkled and made red with his blood and this done plainly without deceit in the sight of all men If Chrysostome may be allowed to expound himselfe your glosse of real handling Christ in the sacrament must giue place For if he meant as you meane that Christ is handled indeed then meant he also that Christ is sacrificed indeede in our sight that the people are dyed and embrued with blood indeed that all men see the same indeed For these speaches are all of one stampe all after one sorte to be vnderstood as one parte is true so is another Then tel vs M.R. if Christ be sacrificed indeede if the people be embrued with his blood indeede if this be euident to all men indede you maie not vrge vs so extreamlie in one and giue vs the slip in all the rest Let vs then consider what replie you make to this answere which to be true and sufficient you can not denie pag. 220.217 The papistes saie they see Christ Really sacrificed in their Church First you saie I am ignorant of the catholike faith For in the Church catholike we see Christ offered Then you maintaine that S. Chrysostome in saying we see Christ sacrificed speaketh properlie for this you saie is seene in the catholike Church The godly I graunt see in spirit this sacrifice of Christ thus the oblation of Christ is seene in the catholike Church But we speake of a real sacrifice of Christ which no man seeth nor euer shal see For a reall sacrifice prooueth a real death so Christ when he was sacrificed reallie died also reallie But no man seeth Christ dying who died but once now liueth for euer And they that really sacrificed our sauiour Christ did in that acte really wickedly murther him so your Priests if they be reall sacrificers of Christ are in the same action also reall murtherers of Christ Take both or refuse both if you take vppon you the one you must not nor cannot denie the other Murtherers of Christ you wil not be accounted yet you professe your selues to be sacrificers of Christ that openly which is al one as if the Iewes should confesse that they crucified Christ but yet they murthered him not wherefore it is in a word an heresie blasphemie to saie Christ is sacrificed in the Church otherwise then in a sacrament remembrance of that one sacrifice as both Chrysostome the fathers write commonlie in which manner and no other he is seene to be sacrificed in the Church That you adde of seeing god is poore diuinitie being admitted that we see Christ in the Catholik Church how followeth your reason therefore we see him sacrificed if you haue either wit or religion your selfe may see you speake without al wit and religion Secondlie you answere 〈…〉 that I am ignorant of the Lutheranes doctrine and then as you are wont you rehearse certaine places out of Luther wherunto I haue no nede to answere How cunning you your selfe are of that doctrine let others iudge when you saie Vntruthes boldlie set downe by M. Rainolds they acknowledge bread to be the bodie of Christ Doth Luther or anie Lutheran teach that bread is the bodie of Christ Do they adore it as you also affirme This to be false whoe knoweth not They neither acknowledge the bread to be God nor giue any godlie honour to it And that might Kemuitius haue taught you in the same place that your selfe alledge He saith we adore in spirit truth Kemnit exam pars 2. de Euchar cap. 6. not the bread but Christ in the action of the Lordes supper And so doe we also acknowledge teach that Christ in the supper is to be worshipped adored in spirit truth of all Christians That you alledge out of Master Caluine for your third answere pag. 223. as it is of vs entirelie allowed so it notably detecteth the falshood of your slaunder when you write and beare your reader in hand that we make the sacrament a bare signe and figure For we teach and euer did Caluin de coena Domini as Caluine doth in this place that it is ioyned to his truth and substance and not onelie representeth but also exhibiteth vnto vs the bodie of Christ Now then this being our doctrine touching the sacrament as your selfe may see in these wordes of Caluine plainly declared cease for shame hereafter contrary to your owne knowledge and conscience to charge vs for making the sacrament a naked and onelie figure But now Master Rainolds draw these things to the point and match them with your conclusion and then see what agreement there is betweene them Can you gather of that Caluine saith we see the body of Christ in a sacrament that therefore we see Christ visiblie sacrificed in the Church such reasons are too lamentable as here and euerie where you bring vs. Then Master Rainolds admitting this to be indeede a phrase of speach pag. 224. asketh whether it follow that therefore it is a phrase of speach also to say that Christs body is there at all I answere expounding Chrysostome by Chrysostome and that in the same place and words as Christ is handled with all mens hands S. Chrysostome rightly expounded so is he visiblie sacrificed and so are the people made red with his blood that is by way of a sacrament Therefore set your heart at rest M. R. out of this place shall you neuer prooue your reall presence That you adde of figuratiue expositions is superfluous Of Saint Chrysostomes vehemencie in amplifications pag. 226. knowen to all that knowe Chrysostome this place hath a liuely example peruse it your selfe Master Rainolds compare one speach with an
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