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
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
a weakenes of your braine which causeth you to vtter such idle talke All Protestants not onelie I confesse that Melchisedech was a Priest that he offered sacrifice doth it follow therefore M. R. that the sacrifice was in bread wine as you pretend whome then do I forsake with whome doe I ioyne what fantasie is this that troubleth your head so much In this taking you beginne to throw out arguments Pag 63. which must needs be full simplie and miserably made Howbeit sooner may you deuise manie formall syllogismes for your facrifice then make one sound reason in diuinity for confirmation thereof Thus you haue framed your argument with your owne hands A Sillogisme of M. R. examined answered That Christ did and appointed to be done that may ought to be done But Christ at his last supper offered sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech and appointed the Apostles and priests to doe the same Ergo the Apostles priests may ought to offer sacrifice This syllogisme seemeth to be terriblye compounded and to prooue inuincibly the sacrifice of the Masse doutlesse Master Rainolds is persuaded he shall herewith fray vs all away But be not dismaied good Reader the light driueth darkenesse before it and trueth cannot be vanquished with an armie of false arguments be they neuer so cunningly framed much lesse with such slender sophismes as these Your Assumption hath two partes they both are false whereof the conclusion following cannot be hable to looke the trueth in the face For where you say I haue acknowledged the former part I acknowledge no such thing nor euer did Two graund and capitall vntrueths in the assumption of M. R. Syllogisme Christ at his last supper offered no sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech Christ appointed not the Apostles nor any els to offer the same Neither of these parts shall you prooue whilst you liue though you liue the last on the earth For what sacrifice offered Christ at his supper and what was the effect thereof was this a sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech then was it not the same he offered on the Crosse for that was not of Melchisedechs order being not in bread and wine as you will haue it but the verie bodie of Iesus Christ But your Church maintaineth that the sacrifice which Christ offered at his supper was the same that he offered on the Crosse Thus handsomelie your dreames hang togeather Againe if Christ at his supper offered such a sacrifice as was prefigured by Melchisedech which you affirme then must it followe that Christ fulfilled that figure perfectlie and so the same sacrifice nead no more to be offered whereof ensueth the desolation of your masmōgers whose occupation onelie and whollie standeth in renewing the sacrifice of the masse Then would I demaund what vertue and effect that sacrifice had which you teach to haue bene offered by Christ at his supper Did Christ thereby fullie appease the wrath of his father Did he fullie redeme mankinde Or did he these things but yet so slenderly insufficiently that there needed another sacrifice after namelie his owne death vpon the Crosse Answere plainlie as becommeth a diuine yea a Christian yea a reasonable man A true Syllogisme opposed against M. Ram. false hereticall Syllogisme And because you framed an argument for me as you say I will doe as much for you and thus I frame you another If Christ offered are all externall sacrifice of him selfe at his supper in bread wine then did Christ fully redeeme mankinde by a sacrifice made in bread and wine But Christ redeemed not the world by a sacrifice made in bread wine but by the sacrifice of his owne bodie vpon the crosse Ergo Christ offered no such sacrifice in bread and wine at his supper The partes are plaine need no further proofe And where you say that seeing Christ was prefigured by Aaron Melchisedech therefore he offered a sacrifice both in bloody maner as Aaron did and in vnbloodie as did Melchisedech I see you labour to put life into the dead carcase of your argument but all in vaine For it cannot be shewed either by scriptures or els by anie ancient fathers of the Church that Christ offered any reall sacrifice but onelie in bloody maner Heb. 10.14 Wherefore the Apostle so often repeateth the word Once excluding thereby all other maners of offering this sacrifice but one By one oblation saith the Apostle hath he made perfect for euer those that are sanctified Tell vs what maner of oblation that was bloody or vnbloodie bloodie I trust you will confesse and therefore no vnbloodie was necessary which neither could haue holpen seeing without shedding of blood there is not anie remission of sinnes Heb. 9.22 Whereby also may appeare that though the sacrifice of the masse be gainfull to such Popish Priests as M. R. his companions are yet in trueth being vnbloodie it is vtterlie vnfitte and vnhable to purchase remission of sins Such marchandize is lightlie to be valued as it deserueth But to answere a litle further concerning Melchisedech the similitude between him and Christ consisteth not in offering vnbloodie sacrifice In what respects Melchisedech was a figure of Christ as you vntruelie and wickedlie imagine but as the Apostle teacheth in that Melchisedech was both a king and a priest and is sette forth vnto vs in the scripture as eternall and more excellent then Abraham and the Leuitical priests In these respects was he a figure of Christ the eternal king and priest farre excelling al the priests of the Leuiticall order Because these thinges make nothing for your sacrifice you deuise a matter that was not to prooue a thing that is not and so build one lie vpon another the vnbloody sacrifice of Christ vpon the vnbloodie sacrifice of Melchisedech But this is the iust iudgement of the Lord vpon you that seing you haue troden vnder your feet the blood of the euerlasting Testament you should be giuē ouer to effectual illusions to embrace an vnbloodie sacrifice which is the deuise of your owne braine for the true glorius sacrifice of Christ vpō the crosse This former argument of M.R. hath begotten another like to it selfe Pag. 64. or rather more monstrous Thus it standeth An other Syllogisme of M. Rain like to the former answered They whoe may ought to offer sacrifice as did first Melch. afterward Christ are truely properlie sacerdotes But priests of the new Testament may ought to offer sacrifice in such sort ergo they are truly properly sacerdotes priests The Minor is the same with the conclusiō of your other argument as euidently false as the word of god is clearlie vndoutedlie true For if your priests offer sacrifice as Melchisedech and Christ did then are they priests of Melch. order not priests onely but kings For so was he the figure so is
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
that worketh the rewarde shal be imputed according to debt ought to be vnderstoode of the debt due to the wicked worke For that debts are called sinnes in the holie Scriptures you shall often finde Then he alledgeth sundrie places to this purpose and afterwardes proceedeth thus whereupon the same Apostle in an other place saith the wages of sinne is death and he added not and saide likewise And the wages of iustice is eternall life Vitam veró ae ternam soli gratiae consig naret I thinke it should be assignaret but he saith But eternall life is the gracious gift of God to teach vs that wages which is like to debte and rewarde is a recompence of punishment and death and to assigne eternall life to grace onelie And thus determining that rewarde according to debte belongeth to the wicked in respect of their workes but not the beleeuers he goeth on forwarde and saith To confirme as it were his former saying to him that worketh not but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the wicked his faith is imputed for righteousnes the Apostle taketh a testimonie out of the psalmes and saith Cui Deus accepto sert iusti tiam sine opers bus As Dauid doth declare the blessednes of the man whome the Lord accounteth righteous without workes This is Origenes iudgement that our ill deedes deserue of due and debte punishment and condemnation but that our good deedes cannot merite the reward of eternal life so hath he discouered the inequalitie of those balances whereof you speake S. Ambrose speaking of Dauid saith that he desired to depart out of this place of pilgrimage to the common countrie of the Saints Ambros de bono mor. Cap. 2. entreating that for the pollution of his abode here his sinnes might be forgiuen before he departed out of this life For he that receaueth not here remission of his sinnes shall not be there and he shall not be there because he can not come vnto eternal life Quia vitae aeterna remissio peccatoruÌ„ est for somuch as euerlasting life is forgiuenes of sinnes In these wordes we are taught that whosoeuer wil haue eternall life must looke to receiue it not for merit of his good workes but through forgiuenes of his euill workes and this namelie he affirmeth of Dauid the holie Prophet and seruant of god with whome in godlines and good workes our Papists maie not anie waies compare Saint Ierome hath many goodlie sentences in his bookes against the Pelagians flatlie ouerthrowing the popish doctrine of iustification by merit of our workes as when he saieth Hieron ad Cte siph aduers Pe lag that before God who seeth beholdeth all things and to whom the secrets of the hart are not vnknowen no man is iust If in the sight of God no man is iust as Ierome trulie according to the holy scriptures maintaineth against the wicked Pelagians who then can trust by his iustice to be saued or how can any man otherwise be saued then by the clemencie mercie and forgiuenes of the iudge can he that saieth and confesseth I am vniust I aske pardon of my God for my sinnes saie with the same mouth I haue deserued heauen by my good deedes Againe S. Ierome saith this is the onelie perfection of men if they knowe them selues to be vnperfect And you saith Christ when you haue done all things saie we are vnprofitable seruants we haue done that we were bound to doe If he be vnprofitable who hath done all things what shall we saie of him that coulde not fulfill all things Si inutilis est qui fecit omma quid de illo dicendum est qui explâ—re non potuit Lib. 1. aduers Pelag. and he prooueth at large that neuer anie either did or could fulfill all that of due was required of him In an other booke he saieth then are we iust when we confesse our selues to be sinners and our iustice consisteth not of our owne merite but of Gods mercie the Scripture saying the iust man is an accuser of him selfe in the beginning of his speach Our righteousnes by Saint Ieromes doctrine consisteth not in the merits of our good workes but in the confession of our sinnes and mercie of the Lord. Furthermore he saith in the same booke In Deuteronomie it is plainlie shewed that we are saued not by our workes iustice but by the mercie of God when the Lord saith by Moses say not in thine heart when the Lord shall destroie them before thy face the Lord hath brought me in for my righteousnes c. If the Israëlites could not deserue the land of Canaan to be giuen vnto them for their righteousnes who can trust to receiue the land of life for his worthines This was S. Ieromes faith and this he constantlie defended against such wicked heretikes that troubled the Church of Christ then Mare Erem as our Papistes haue longe done S. Marke the Eremite hath written a booke against those that thinke they are iustified by works wherin thus he writeth Therefore the kingdome of heauen is not a rewarde of workes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the free gift of the Lord prepared for faithfull seruants S. Gregorie came after S. Augustine the space of two hundred yeares Greg. Moral lib. 2. cap. 40. yet held he the same trueth concerning this point as by his writings appeareth As if saith he a mind that is tempted and taken in the neede of his owne infirmitie should saie Grace hath begotten me in the first faith being naked Nudam me in prima fide gratia genuit â—udum eadem gratia in assuÌ„tione saluabit and the same grace shall saue me in the last daie being naked And further addeth that though a man haue some vertues yet it is best for him to cast him selfe downe to acknowledge his owne infirmitie and wantes Ad solam misericordiae speÌ„ recurrat to fâ—â—e to the onelie hope of mercy And thus writeth the same Gregorie in an other place Euerie sinner turning to God with weeping In Ezech. lib. 1. hom 7. in sins now beginneth to be iust when he beginneth to accuse that which he hath done For why should he not be iust that now is cruel by teares against his owne iniustice Therfore our iust aduocate shall defend vs to be iust in iudgement quia nosmetip sos cognosci mus accusamus imustos because we know and accuse our selues to be vniust Let vs therefore put our confidence not in our teares not in our deeds but in the allegation of our aduocate Could anie thing be spoken more directlie against the vaine damnable persuasion of Papists that thinke they shall be saued by their doings and sufferings Now let vs descend lower to S. Bernard who liued after Saint Gregorie fiue hundred yeares and see how the same doctrine hath bene continued and beleeued of the godlie Bernard 〈◊〉 Cant. serm 23. Thus writeth
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 blood of the new testament and this blood is the new testament in my blood If it may be lawfull for you to alter and expound the words at your pleasure then can you help your selfes wel enough but your exposition must be squared according to the wordes not the words framed to your exposition Againe pag. 240. you say where Beza correcteth Saint Luke in the latter part of the sentence I raile at the first so that betweene Beza and me S. Luke hath neuer a word right wisely considered doubties The words are right your exposition is fond and wicked The cupp you make to be the blood of Christ whoe as yet was not crucified nor his blood shed If your doctrine be true Christes blood was shed alreadie and that reallie els it could not be in the cup reallie The papists teache that Christs blood was reallie in the cup before his passion But if Christs blood was shed sitting at the table whoe was he M.R. that shed it whoe made the wound whoe opened his side who thrust his weapon in his heart whoe pearced his hands and feete This must you tell if you maintaine that his blood was then reallie shed and powred forth into the cuppe But by the cuppe M.R. is ment the wine in the cuppe which is the newe testament that is a sacrament of the newe testament in Christs blood shed for vs on the crosse This is a true and plaine sense agreeable to all analogie of faith standing with the words themselues followed of the auncient fathers When at length will you make an end of this railing it is to vnseemelie to lothsome pag. 241. to odious Indeed M.R. it must needes appeare a great absurditie to all learned godly Christians whoe know rightlie esteeme the price of our redemption that to be shed for our sinnes which was in the cup. Christs blood was shed for our sinnes which neuer came in the cup but remained in his bodie vntil the time of his death And if Christs blood was in the cuppe when he gaue the cuppe to his Apostles then must it follow necessarilie that his bodie then was without blood it being shedde already and contained in the cup. In the cuppe was onelie wine a sacrament of his blood which he gaue in the same to his Apostles to drincke whereof he drancke him selfe and so the scriptures expressely call it wine If this were the thing that was shedde for your sinnes then was true and naturall wine the price of your redemption then are you saued by wine then haue you no part in Christs blood But the true Church beleeueth her sinnes to be washed away not by that which was really contained in the cuppe but by the true blood of Christ which issued out of his body nailed on the crosse and wounded with a speare Your absurditie therefore needeth not to be further discouered it is so openlie blasphemous against the blood of Iesus Christ which was shed once not in the cup but on the crosse for our redemption If you vrge S. Lukes words as they stand in grammaticall construction I answere that as the cup is called Christs blood Christs testament that is by a figure the sacrament of his blood and testament so is it also said to be shed for vs by a figure sacramentallie But all men of skill and iudgement maie soone see that in these wordes there is some change of grammaticall disposition vsuall in the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists Your discourse about Tautologies in the scriptures is altogether vaine and friuolous To S. Basils testimonie you aunswere much in words and nothing in matter pag. 244. For what cause haue you thus to reproch Beza for his translation of these words seing you cannot denie but S. Basil hath reported that text of S. Luke euen as Beza hath translated the same and you confesse that Saint Basil hath truelie deliuered the sense thereof so all that you haue said or can say spitefullie against Beza must appertaine to Saint Basil no lesse Basil in Ethic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whome yet you will not seeme to touch But the thing truelie and indifferentlie considered Beza is no more to be accused then S. Basil you tell vs of heretikes a long tale which is no better then waste paper Vse it your selfe or bestowe it at your pleasure Of such badde stuffe base account is to be made Whereas I spake a fewe words concerning figuratiue speaches pag. 251. which the aduersaries cannot abide to heare of in the sacrament I haue as it were opened at vnawares a flood-gate to M. Rainolds flowing vtterance Quâ data porta ruit The streame is so strong and runneth so violentlie carying all manner of baggage with it that vaine it were to resist it Let it therefore passe downe and doe what mischiefe it can great harme I trust it shall not doe Thus much you must confesse that in the sacrament figures are found and yet when we oppose against your monster of reall presence a most true and euident answere that the wordes were figuratiuelie spoken and must figuratiuelie be expounded you rage aboue all measure But quiet your selfe Master Rainolds and somewhat staie your intemperate affection neuer shall you prooue while papistrie hath a man liuing to speake in defense of it either by scripture or auncient writer that these words must figuratiuelie be vnderstoode This is my blood this cuppe is the new Testament in my blood more then these This cup is shed for you Leaue your babling Figuratiue speaches in the verie words of the supper by the Aduersaries confession and speake to purpose prooue this if you can Wherefore finding in the Euangelistes wordes such manifest figures what reason haue you to condemne vs for vsing the same being a moste common and familiar kinde of speach Because it standeth not with your reall presence Let your reall presence hardlie shift for it selfe we are not bound for cause and respect thereof to wrest the scriptures to forge monstrous interpretations to change the sacrament into a reall sacrifice of Christ which heathenish kinde of doctrine neuer anie but Antichrist and his ministers maintained The scriptures the olde fathers the auncient Church of Christ taught and beleeued otherwise as hath bene shewed and prooued inuinciblie to your faces Your pages following filled with rouing testimonies I pretermitt your contumelies being no lawfull arguments require no answere CHAP. 11. Concerning the translation of the English Bibles MAster Martins boke of Discouerie is aunswered long since from head to foote in euerie part pag. 262. you haue the answere amongst you saie to it what you can with truth and learning To bragge of your fellowes booke which being throughlie and soundlie disprooued you cannot with all your skill maintaine is a childish vanitie to acknowledge no Replie which you cannot but knowe or to make light account of it whereunto you cannot truelie reioine is wilfulnes and
prooued For as the Apostle reasoneth if Christes person be perpetuall as it is and if he make for vs perpetuall intercession as he doth and if by his one sacrifice offered once he hath wrought a full and perfect redemption as he hath then is it hereof in proper signification prooued that Christs priesthood also is perpetuall and then haue these malapert papists blasphemed in denying the Apostles arguments to be good in proper signification which is in effect to take from them all credit and authoritie Let Master Rainolds deuise what cunning shift he can yet in truth neuer shall he be hable to wipe out this blot of blasphemie when the Apostle hath of purpose laboured to prooue Christs eternall priesthood and prooued it indeede most inuinciblie for these Collegiates of Rhemes to come in with their censure vpon the Apostle and to set downe in plaine termes that all this prooueth not the matter in proper signification and that the Apostle hath omitted the chiefe and proper proofe thereof This is a blasphemie against Christ and against the holy spirit of God by which the Apostle in writing was directed But what can Master Rainolds saie in excuse of this so manifest blasphemie pag. 534. He asketh first Where saie we that of all those things proposed by the Apostle it followeth not that Christs priesthood is eternall Must you againe be put in minde of your owne Annotation which your selfe haue at large rehearsed Haue you not therein expreslie in writing published All this prooueth not that in proper signification his priesthood is perpetuall And what differeth this from that which I haue affirmed of you Hath the Apostle propounded any thing concerning your pretended sacrifice If he hath shew vs where in what words after what sort If any thing at all can be shewed to this purpose as nothing indeed can and without this be shewed in your opinion the eternitie of Christs priesthood is no wais sufficientlie prooued doe you not plainlie declare your iudgement to be that it followeth not of al those thinges which the Apostle hath said that Christes priesthood is eternall yea but M.R. saith that they haue auouched the cleane contrary in saying that all the fathers gather of this deepe and diuine discourse the eternitie of his Priesthood The fathers indeed haue gathered of this discourse most truelie the eternitie of Christs Priesthood and therein they confute your wicked dannotation that saith all this prooueth not Christes Priesthood to be perpetuall They vnderstood the Apostle rightlie and they expounded his meaning faithfully Shew me now one ancient father if you can M. R. that euer saide as you saie that all this alledged by the Apostle prooueth not in proper signification that Christes priesthoode is perpetuall or els that he taught as you teach that Christ must continuallie be sacrificed in forme of bread and wine This is the point this shew vs if you can For in your Annotation no such thing is shewed and all the fathers confesse with one consent that the Apostle hath prooued soundly the eternitie of Christs Priesthood and that no other sacrifice remaineth to be offered but onelie a remembrance and sacrament of that one euerlasting sacrifice to be continued in the Church to the end of the world Secondlie it is confessed by Master Rainolds that the Apostle maketh not anie expresse mention of that oblation of bread and wine pag. 536. But what reason was there why the Apostle entreating of Christes eternall preisthood omitted the principall part thereof Consider good reader into what miserable straites these men are driuen and what absurde deuises they are enforced to forge For their best excuse is that because the Iewes beleeued not the first singular and soueraigne sacrifice of the crosse therefore he would not vrge them with this secondarie and dependente sacrifice of the Church Which in trueth is nothing els but a seelie shift to salue a desperate sore For first it is euident the Apostle writ to those that were not ignorant of Christian religion seeing they had learned alreadie the principles thereof and are exhorted by the Apostle to proceed to perfection therin Hebr. 6.1 Secondlie whereas the Apostle hath discoursed so plentifullie of the principal and soueraigne sacrifice what reason was there to keepe silence of the secondarie sacrifice as you call it Might they heare of the greater and not of the lesse Might the Apostle vrge so earnestlie vnto them the sacrifice of the crosse and might he not in a word mention the sacrifice of the Altar Coulde the one be more offensiue vnto them then the other Let all men iudge what trueth there is in this deuise Of that which followeth concerning this matter nothing deserueth answere pag. 540. saue onelie that Master Rainolds asketh of me whether Melchisedech did not sacrifice I saie no doubt Melchisedech did sacrifice for otherwise he had not bene a priest But Saint Paul saith he maketh no expresse mention thereof What then I praie you Forsooth by Master Whittakers iudgement Saint Paul omitteth some principall part of Melchisedechs priesthood Whoe euer heard a more foolish collection it was sufficient for the Apostle that Melchisedech was a priest which is confirmed by plaine testimonie of scripture to rehearse anie speciall kinde of sacrifice by him offered was nothing necessarie to the purpose in hand And therefore the Apostle hath not omitted any principall part of Melchisedechs priesthood vnles you will say it cannot be prooued necessarilie that one hath bene a priest except euerie particular sacrifice that euer was offered by him be recorded and auouched This being moste absurd see how vaine a conceite of yours this was that the Apostle hath omitted some principall parte of Melchisedechs priesthood because he hath not declared expresselie what speciall sacrifice Melchisedech offered An other example I noted out of the sixt Chapter to the Romanes pag. 543. c. in that notable place where the Apostle writeth that the stipend of sin is death but life euerlasting is the gift of God Rom. 6.23 Vpon these words our Rhemists haue noted that the sequell of speach required that as he saide death or damnation is the stipend of sinne so life euerlasting is the stipend of iustice and so it is Wherein euerie man may behould their intollerable saucines and presumption in setting the holie Apostle to schoole in controling his speach in corrupting his meaning For if the case had stood so clearlie and roundlie as these men teach that euen as condemnation is the stipend of finne so is eternall life the stipend of iustice it had bene as casie for the Apostle to haue so written as to alter his wordes and hauing saide that death is the wages of sinne to affirme after an other manner of speach that life euerlasting is not the wages of iustice but the gift and free gift of God And doutles according to the doctrine of S. Paul and the holie ghost it is no other
but proude blaspemie to saie as the Rhemists saie that as death is the stipend of sinne so life euerlasting is the stipend of iustice seing the one stipend is of meere due and desert the other onelie of grace and mercie so that if God would enter into iudgement with vs according to the rigour of his iustice we could not chalenge euerlasting life for any iustice that we had wrought as all the scriptures doe moste aboundantlie and plainelie teach Their onelie excuse hangeth vpon Saint Augustine whoe in a certaine epistle writeth Epist 105. 〈◊〉 Sixtura that euerlasting life is repayed to our merites going before and yet may it well be called grace because our merites are wrought in vs by grace not gotten by our owne habilitie to like effecte he writeth in diuerse other places of his workes and treatises as euerie one knoweth that hath bene conuersant in reading his bookes What then shal we graunt Saint Augustine to be an author of this Popish and Sorbonicall doctrine of iustification by merite of workes Nothing lesse The answere is easie and no more easie then true that by merites Saint Augustine vnderstandeth good workes after the manner of speach in latine and by stipend or reward he meaneth that benefite or gifte which God repaieth to good workes to the workers of iustice What difference then is there betweene our Sorbonists and Saint Augustine with whome we also consent In wordes may seeme no difference at all in substance and truth of doctrine as great difference as is betweene heauen and earth life and death God and man We know and confesse with Saint Augustine according to the doctrine of holie scripture that life eternall is a reward of iustice and good workes but not as death is a stipend of sinne according to the Sorbonists and Rhemists religion And howsoeuer Saint Augustine pleaseth them in his exposition of this place the which notwithstanding being rightlie vnderstood maketh nothing for them yet other fathers haue obserued of the Apostles wordes set downe in this manner that eternall life is onelie a gift not deserued but freelie bestowed and that this was the cause whie the Apostle applied not the name of stipend to life euerlasting as he had done before to death Looke vpon Origen in his commentaries vpon the fourth of the Romans and the latter end of the sixt And this as it is sound and sincere doctrine so must it also of all Christians necessarilie be confessed For he that sinneth hath deserued death worthilie in respect of the sinne committed which is a transgression of Gods will and commaundement and for which without remission there is no hope to escape eternall condemnation But can he that worketh well for one or two or moe good workes claime vnto himself as a due debt the kingdome of heauen for the same For what if the Lord will examine our workes straitlie according to his lawe in euerie circumstance our inward zeale loue intention desire of Gods glorie continuance and perseuerance in well doing conformitie of our will with the rule of Gods word and shall finde in the worke and in the worker great infirmitie manie wants much imperfection manifold sins in the meane time both in thought in worde and deed shall the good workes notwithstanding being thus tried found in them-selues insufficient vnanswerable to gods iustice and also hauing manie sinnes inherent together with them in the same person stand vp before the Lorde and chalenge of right the reward of life euerlasting in his kingdome Neuer durste yet anie childe of God vpon trust and confidence of his owne iustice chalenge such debt at the handes of God or yet appeare at all in his presence The Prophet Dauid although he were a holie man and had not onelie repented hartelie for his wicked deedes but also brought forth manifold fruites of repentance and regeneration yet desireth moste humblie of the Lord that he would not enter into iudgement with him psal 143.2 for so much as if he woulde so doe neither he nor anie man liuing could escape condemnation And againe If thou saith he wilt marke our iniquities O Lorde whoe can stand before thee psal 130. â— Wherein he plainlie teacheth that for a man to trust in his workes how good or glorious soeuer they are or seeme to be and vpon this confidence of his merites to looke for heauen as a due reward at gods handes is not onelie to deceiue himselfe but to incurre that iudgemente and condemnation which the Lord for his sinnes and vnworthines that by examination he findeth in him might iustlie cast vpon him Therefore he saith in another Psalme that they are happie not which haue good workes wherein to trust psal 32. â— but whose sinnes are forgiuen and whose iniquities are couered And this haue also all the godlie fathers of Christes Church euermore confessed that their workes of due and debt deserued nothing of the Lord but punishment and therefore disclaiming all their merites and acknowledging their owne manifolde transgressions and imperfections they flie to the Lordes mercie onlie and trust to be saued by grace and remission of their sins not by desert or merite of their righteousnes that they haue wrought Yea the Romane Church it selfe which moste of all magnifieth the merites of workes yet being secretlie and as it were vnwittingly caried away with sway of this trueth hath sometimes made open confession thereof and taught all hir children to sing an other song then that which now so commonly is heard amongst them of iustification and saluation through merite of their workes For in the seruice that is prescribed for the dead this praier is set forth to be vsed of all and is oftentimes repeated Domine quando veneris iudicare terram vbi me abscondam á vultu irae tuae Quia peccaui nimis in vita mea In officis defunctoruns Commissa mea pauesco ante te erubesco dum veneris iudicare noli me condemnare Quia peccaui nimis in vitamea that is O Lord when thou shalt come to iudge the earth where shal I hide my selfe from the presence of thy wrath Because I haue siâ—ned exceading lie in my life My misdedes I am afraid of and I blush before thee when thou shalt come to iudge condemne me not For I haue sinned exceadingly in my life Thus is euerie one taught to praie and this you confesse to be a good praier and necessarie for all to vse as at other times so especially when death approcheth And verelie howsoeuer it is now for a fashion with great countenaunce and vehement disputation auouched by some that we merite heauen by our good workes yet I am perswaded that no aduersarie of conscience can otherwise thinke or dare in perill of death otherwise saie but that he hath deserued for his sinnes punishment and death euerlasting and cannot auoide the same if God will render to his workes the reward that of due belongeth vnto them and therefore casting awaie all trust in his workes will aske pardon and mercy not claime any debt or due reward of the Lord. So though in their life time many of them be obstinatlie bent and haue in their mouth nothing so much as good workes merite rewarde due debt recompense for their wel doing yet the time drawing neer when they must holde vp their handes at the barâ—e of the Lords iudgement seat and there must make answere for themselues and their workes must be tried by the lawe of God they giue ouer their former confidence they haue no ioie in them-selues yea they distrust their owne workes they tremble and quake inwardly they are in fearfull heauines and perplexitie of minde they knowe not whither to turne them-selues and if God giue such grace vnto them then they see and forsake their error of deseruing heauen then they confesse they are sinners and therfore guiltie of death and then learne that lesson in their end which afore in their life time they would not vnderstand Yet doth euerie faithfull Christian keeping as much as in him lieth the commandements of God hope for the kingdome of heauen aske eternall life yea and also in some sorte promise to his workes the crowne of glorie not for merite and worthines of his works but in respect of Gods meere mercy whoe hath promised to bestowe vpon vs and our workes greater reward then we can possiblie deserue This is the difference betweene the doctrine of Christ of the Prophets of the Apostles and of the fathers which we follow and the doctrine of the Sorbonistes and Rhemists and all Papists which whoe so holdeth shall be sure neuer to be saued Thus appeereth how vaine and childish it is that you intitle your schoole of Sorbone with the names of Salomon Dauid Esaie Ieremy Peter Paule Augustine as though they had euer bene entred into that Colledge and taken degree in your schoole whereas whosoeuer marketh the point of difference betweene their doctrine and that of Sorbone shall plainlie perceiue they were no Sorbonists nor euer alowed the Sorbonicall and pharisaicall iustice of merites How ignorantlie you obiect shamefull ignorance to me maie appeere by that which now and before hath bene aunswered it being indeed manifest that your selfe either know not the true state of the controuersie or els haue replied neuer a word aptlie to purpose Soli Deo sit gloria ERRATA Pa 37. lin 17. strange p. 86 15 there p. 143.1 meaning p. 144.17 renegates P 294 21 as well p 334.5 is as corrupt pag. 351 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in certaine copies p. 159. the last line and pag. 160. the first line read it thus before Valentinian to haue a Councell that a Councell by the Emperour c. Other errors perhaps haue escaped but the reader I trust will easilie espie correct and pardon them Imprinted by THOMAS THOMAS Printer to the Vniuersitie of Cambridge 1585.
had recourse to the Greeke copies and haue prescribed the same rule to be followed continuallie and Saint Hierome himselfe reformed the latin translations according to the Greeke then extant read in the Greeke Churches Thus then you maie perceaue that to be constant in the profession of Gods trueth and to be carefull to keepe the text of scripture from corruption are two diuerse things which you might haue soone considered if you had but looked backe to that your selfe haue written before For these are euen the same Grecians whose exemplars Saint Ierome followed in correcting the Euangelists and which he calleth waters of the moste pure fountaine and sundrie wise commendeth Hieron Marcellae For proofe that the Hebrew fountaines are by the Iewes corrupted pag. 303. c. you bring vs forth a place out of the prophet Esaie Chap. 9. First in that I say the Iewes haue not corrupted the hebrew text I say no other thing then that which the moste learned Papists of all times haue affirmed M.R. in this controuersie hath his master papists aduersaries to him namelie Isaac Clarius Valla Andradius Montanus Lucas Bellarmine and manie moe and that by the same argument which my selfe vsed that then this corruption moste certainelie would haue appeared in those places that directlie concerne our Sauiour Christ amongst the which this that you mention here is notable And although I wil not deny but that the Iewes might haue some purpose to wrest it from the sense that it might be aplied to any rather then to Christ yet the corruption is not so greate as you would haue it seeme consisting not in change of any letter but only of the pointes The letters remaining without alteration whatsoeuer is amisse in the pointes may easilie be corrected Furthermore if we reade the word with the same pointes which now it commonly hath in the Hebrew Bibles whereby the verbópassiue is turned into an actiue yet the place notwithstanding prooueth inuinciblie the Diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ For as well doth it confirme this doctrine if we read Vajikrae vocabit that is God the father shall call his name wonderfull c as if we read Vajikkare vocabitur his name shall be called wonderfull Although you that take vpon you such profound knowledge and cunning in the Hebrew language should not haue beene ignorant that this is the phrase of that tongue That the Iewes refer the last name onely which is the Prince of peace Sar-shaelom to the Childe borne all the rest going before to God him selfe this I graunt to be a malitious construction of the wordes but no corruption of the text One thing is it to expound the wordes in a wronge sense an other to falsifie the wordes You hoped no doubte to haue gained much more by this place then will any waies be yelded vnto you for that you adde of the Churches authoritie which you call the supreame grounde and stay is nothing worth being an olde worne and wasted sentence brought in rashelie without credite or countenaunce The wordes are plaine of them-selues and haue in them authoritie and stay sufficient to prooue the trueth of Christs diuinitie and to confute the enemies thereof An other such place you obiecte out of the Prophet Ieremie pag. 306. Chap. 23. v. 6. wherein that some corruption hath bene committed either in letter or poynt may be imagined but cannot by euident demonstration be prooued ijcro What mooued S. Ierome to translate thus vocabunt eum They shall call him I will not dispute The reason might be in the variety and incertentie of poynts or in the ambiguous acception of the word But because M. Rainolds chargeth the Iewes with so foule a corruption of this place only to discredite the diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ he must remember that the Seuentie interpreters translated it in the singular number according to the Hebrewe now extant In comment ad Hier. ca. 23. as S. Ierom also maketh mention yet were they neuer chalenged for partial interpretation of the scriptures being as many write wonderfullie assisted gouerned in that work and not smallie had of auncient time in regard And this was long before our sauiour Christ was come in the flesh and therefore vndoubtedlie the place was not corrupted by the Iewes for such a cause as you imagine vnlesse you will saie the Iewes in hatred of Christ corrupted the Bible diuerse hundred yeares before Christ was borne and before they had cause to conceiue any malice or displeasure against our sauiour Christ And so your Lyranes surmise is plainelie disprooued in which you rest your selfe as in a certaine veritie and vpon his worde are boulde to pronounce sentence against the poore Iewes for committing a crime which by cleare euidence of greater authoritie they are not guilty of Neither maketh it lesse for Christs diuinitie to read it vocabit He shall cal him that is God the father or euerie faithful man shal call him The Lord our righteousnes then if we reade vocabunt They shall call him the Lord our righteousnes And Saint Hierome as you might haue seene had you looked on the place your selfe translateth the text after this manner Et hoc est nomen quo vocabunt eum sine vocabit eum Dominus iustus noster wherein he sheweth plainelie there is no substance of matter more in the one then the other If this be so shameful so notable a corruption as you in countenaunce and shew pretende S. Hierome was greatly ouerseene that not onelie gaue no warning thereof in his Commentarie but vsed the same also in the text it selfe But what wil you say to those learned men whoe hauing more skill in the Hebrew tongue then you Master Rainolds or els your Lyra thoug a Iewe borne haue translated the word as it is now read in the hebrew Bibles no otherwise then your selues would haue it to be translated I meane Arias Montanus and Vatablus as in their translations you may finde whoe if they haue rightelie and well translated the worde then may you see that no such wickednesse hath bene practized in this place as you haue fathered vpō the Iewes And furthermore compare an other like place in the same Prophet Chap. 33. v. 15. Where this worde is vsed in the singular number without controuersie the Prophet speaking againe of the same matter and almoste whollie in the same wordes Thus you may vnderstand that the integritie of this place may be auouched and the Iewes deliuered from your vniust accusation many waies One example more you giue mean an other kinde Pag. 310. wherein no kinde of corruption appeereth at all In the Prophet Esay chap. 53. vers 8. the old latine translation standeth thus propter scelus populi mei percussi eum For the sinne of my people haue I smitten him The Hebrew text is something otherwise Miphshahh 〈◊〉 mi negahh lamo propter defectionem populi
mei plaga ipsi that is For the transgression of my people was he plagued Your selfe confesse there is agreement in the sense as indeed euerie one maie see yet by and by as a man without memorie or reason you saie the sense is inuerted greatlie altered Something would you gladlie saie but nothing to purpose can you saie The sense in the Hebrew now extant agreeing so fullie with the translation of S. Ierome which you hold as authenticall and consonant to the veritie of the auncient Hebrew Bibles how can you probablie charge the Iewes with corruption of this place there being no difference and therefore no corruption in the sense by your owne confession If they corrupted the text it was because they would corrupt the sense but here the sense runneth as pure and clear in the Hebrew as in the Latine therefore this text is not corrupted by the Iewes What Luther hath written of the Iewes and Rabbines endeauour in this behalfe maketh nothing for your aduantage Yet as though it had bene by plaine demonstration declared that the bibles are corrupted by them M.R. taketh vpon him now to shew the sorts and manners of their corruption And two he noteth Pag. 314. the first is by plaine alteration of points letters and syllables the second by deuiding words which by the Prophets were ioyned together And that you maie knowe he hath plentifull store and varietie of examples Sernetus is alledged neither Iewe nor Rabbine whoe by diuiding a texte of the Apostle in the Greeke corrupted the sense Thus trimlie can M. R. prooue the matter he goeth about although he speake neuer a word to the question The controuersie is whether the Iewes haue thus corrupted the Hebrew Bibles M.R. alledgeth an example wherein Seruetus of late thus corrupteth the Greek Testament No man now can saie but he hath wel performed his parte prooued inuincibly both manifest corruption in the Bibles and shewed also the manners thereof More perhaps anon will come to his hands for as yet nothing hath he found pag. 316. * M.R. saith he could note sundrie other particular errors in the Hebrew but that he wanteth a peece of that insolent vaine which manie of his aduersaries haue If he wanted nothing els he need not greatlie to complaine but doubtles much greater want hath he of truth and learning then insolencie One thing here he confesseth which the Reader maie remember M. Rain hath made a notable confession against himselfe that howsoeuer some grosse errors haue crept into the fountaines and originals yet commonlie and for the most parte the text is true and sincere Thus M.R. hath voluntarilie protested for the Hebrewe and Greeke text And are there no grosse errors in your latine translation or not so manie as in the fountaines it shall be prooued there are not onelie grosser faults in yoâ—â— translation but also moe manifest corruptions then you can imagine in the text In that you demaund pag 317. what reason I haue to thinke the Hebrew text so pure I answere the care which God hath for the truth of his worde and the diligence of them to whose custodie the same was committed Against this reason you argue but without a good argument That diuerse bookes of scripture haue perished is not denied But the Canon of scripture being after the captiuitie gathered by Ezra and other Prophets and deliuered to the Church that since that time anie parcell hath bene lost you cannot prooue And those that are lost of which you recken some in some you are deceiued they are wanting without anie losse or decaie of necessarie doctrine for the Church in those times wherein they were not extant And that the Iewes haue bene more diligent to keepe their Bibles from corruption then Christians haue bene to keepe their translations sincere who can doubt considering that in S. Ieromes daies the common translations were moste faultie as himselfe is a witnesse but the Hebrew text remained true sincere incorrupt and was a rule to follow in reforming the translations vsed in the Church And your selfe euen now confessed of your owne good accord that the Hebrewe text was for the moste parte and commonlie voide of all corruption which being true sheweth a wonderfull prouidence of the Lord watching ouer the bookes of his heauenlie word to defend them from such infections as otherwise through negligence and malice of men they were subiect vnto Now if the Iewes were either so negligent or so malitious as you imagine and the Christians so carefull for preseruation of the Bible how then came it to passe that in the Hebrew copies was found so great truth sinceritie in the common translations such notorious errors corruptions Andrad Defens Concil Trident. lib. 4. and that for so many hundred yeares after Christ Andradius a doctor of your owne schools a great master in your Romane synagogue hath tolde you alreadie that you haue herein vnaduisedlie foolishlie deemed that therfore more credit is to be giuen to the latin edition then to the Hebrewe bookes for that these were corrupted through the treacherie of the Iewes saith you cannot either note the time or describe the authors of that hainous fact or assigne the place or shew such other circumstances which might conuict the Iewes of this sacrilege that therfore the whol matter hangeth vpon bare suspicioÌ„ for which we ought not to charge in this manner the holie bookes of the hebrewes so auncient so commended by our elders so renoumed by testimonies of al ages pag. 320. The likenes of some Hebrew letters betweene themselues hath beene a cause I graunt of some corruption in the Bible but that not greate and such as hath hapned of negligence rather then purpose and may easelie both be espied and amended and nothing so grosse or common as in your latine Bibles may be seen Is it reason thinke you that for as much as some letters haue bene mistaken in the Hebrew therefore the wholl text should be condemned Is there not such mistaking of letter for letter word for word in the latine vulgare translation who knoweth not there is shall we then vse your argument against the translation which you haue deuised against the fountaine There is no reason to the contrarie For if diligence hath bene bestowed in purging and reforming such errors of the translation More reason had it bene for the Councel of Trent to haue taken order that the fountaines might be clensed if there be in them anie fault then the latine translation why may not the same be done in restoring the originall text to the naturall truth and sinceritie The errors rising vpon the similitude of letters and words may in the Hebrew as wel as any other language be corrected That in these examples by you alledged out of the Psalmes 100. v. 3. 59. v. 10. any such errour of mistaking hath bene committed in the text would haue bene by