Answer to Reynolds Book, Chapter 17
CHAP. 17.
Of certaine blaſphemies contained in the Annotations.
HEtherto hath appeered with what conſcience and ſpirit you hauehave tranſlated and expounded ſundrie places of the new Teſtament wreſting & writhing moſte violently the text of holie ſcripture to confirmation of your Popiſh errours and abſurdities.pag. 52…. Wherein I doubt not, but whoſoeuer ſhall conſider with himſelfe aduiſedlie your manner of collection, your argument, your application of ſcripture, and ſhall examine a litle how your concluſion followeth vponupon your proofes with out all coherence or conſequence of reaſon, muſt needes greatlie miſlike your wholl Religion, that is builded vponupon ſo weake, ſo tickle, ſo ruinous a foundation. For vnles it be graunted that of eueryevery thing may be concluded any thing, and that the word of God may be made appliable to all purpoſes, opinions, and doctrines, it is impoſſible that theſe and ſuch like arguments of yours, as you hauehave in your annotations gathered vponupon the wordes of ſcripture, ſhould hauehave in them ſuch ſtrength and trueth, as Diuinitie and religion requireth. But further when your blaſphemous audacitie in controlling the word of God ſhall be perceaued, it muſt of neceſſitie breede in all ſuch as feare God, and reuerence his worde, a far greater alienation of minde from you, and from all your damnable doctrine. Examples of ſuch blaſphemies ſome I alledged, whereof now Maſter Rainolds in his laſt Chapter intreateth, and with his accuſtomed boldnes of defending anie thing laboureth to iuſtifie the ſame.
The Apoſtle in his epiſtle to the Hebrewes intreating at large of Chriſtes prieſthood,pag. 529. Sec. compareth Chriſt with Melchiſedech, and by this argument prooueth that Chriſt is a prieſt for euer, becauſe he is a prieſt according to the order of Melchiſedech: which he confirmeth by teſtimonie of Moſes and Dauid. In all which treatiſe the Apoſtle although he fullie ſheweth what reſemblance was betwene Melchiſedech and Chriſt, yet he maketh not anie mention of the maſſe, nor of the vnbloodie ſacrifice of Chriſtes bodie and blood in bread and wine, nor of anie ſuch matter, as by the papiſts hath beene imagined. Which becauſe our Rhemiſts vnderſtoode to be greatlie preiudiciall to their ſacrifice of the Maſſe, they hauehave moſte ſhamefullie and blaſphemouſlie behaued themſelues in handling this ſcripture, as to anie that compareth their annotations with the text it ſelfe maie eaſily apperee. For they hauehave plainlie written in their annotations, that all that the Apoſtle hath alledged, concerning the eternitie of Chriſtes perſon, and his perpetuall interceſſion for vsus, and euerlaſting effect of his death, prooueth not that in proper ſignification his prieſthood is perpetuall. Hebr. 7.17.Whereof what other thing can poſſiblie be collected, but that the Apoſtle hath not by ſufficient reaſons prooued that thing which he tooke in hand to prooue, that Ieſus Chriſt is a prieſt for euer after the order of Melchiſedech? For theſe men boldelie affirme that all this prooueth not that in proper ſignification Chriſts prieſthood is perpetuall: then the Apoſtle in proper ſignification hath prooued nothing leſſe, then that which he went about to prooue, concerning Chriſtes euerlaſting prieſthood, wherein all our ſaluation conſiſteth, & hath but vſed a ſleight to make men beleeue a thing, which either he coulde not prooue, or at leſt hath not effectuallie prooued. Our papiſts wil hauehave the principall reſpect of reſemblance betweene Chriſt and Melchiſedech to ſtand in offering bread and wine, whereof forſooth muſt ariſe a perpetuall ſacrifice to be continued in the Church. Nowe hereof the Apoſtle hath not ſpoken ſo much as one word, nor giuen the leaſt ſignification of ſuch a matter. What other thing is it then but plaine blaſphemie for maintenance of an idolatrous ſacrifice to charge the Apoſtle that he hath not prooued Chriſts prieſthood to be perpetual, which yet he hath by moſte neceſſarie and ſubſtantiall arguments prooued? For as the Apoſtle reaſoneth, if Chriſtes perſon be perpetuall, as it is; and if he make for vsus 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 hauehave 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 vponupon 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 hauehave at large rehearſed? HaueHave 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 hauehave affirmed of you? Hath the Apoſtle propounded any thing concerning your pretended ſacrifice. If he hath, ſhew vsus 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vsus, 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 vntounto 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 vntounto 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.VponUpon theſe words our Rhemiſts hauehave 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 hauehave 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 merciemercy: ſo that if God would enter into iudgement with vsus 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 vponupon 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 vsus 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 hauehave 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 vponupon Origen in his commentaries vponupon 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 vntounto 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, louelove, 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 vponupon 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.….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 vponupon 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 vponupon him. Therefore he ſaith in another Pſalme that they are happie, not which hauehave good workes wherein to truſt,pſal. 32.…. but whoſe ſinnes are forgiuen, and whoſe iniquities are couered. And this hauehave 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 merciemercy onlie, and truſt to be ſaued by grace and remiſſion of their ſins, not by deſert or merite of their righteouſnes that they hauehave 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 defunctorunsCommiſſa 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 hauehave ſi…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 hauehave 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 bar…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 giuegive ouer their former confidence, they hauehave 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 giuegive ſuch grace vntounto 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 vponupon vsus 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 hauehave 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. foreign and in certaine copies p. 159. the laſt line, and pag. 160. the firſt line read it thus; before Valentinian to hauehave a Councell: that a Councell by the Emperour. &c. Other errors perhaps hauehave eſcaped: but the reader (I truſt) will eaſilie eſpie, correct, and pardon them.
Imprinted by THOMAS THOMAS Printer to the Ʋniuerſitie of Cambridge. 1585.
End of the text · William Whitaker, Answer to Reynolds Book (1585)