Answer to Reynolds Book, Chapter 10
CHAP. 10.
Of the place in S. Lukes Gospell, which Beza is charged to hauehave corrupted.
BEfore you come to the matter,pag. 23…. it pleaſeth you a litle to whet your eloquence in rayling at Beza, a man though much hated of Papiſts, who louelove none that loueth not their Pope, be he neuer ſo learned or godly, yet knowen to all men, euen his enemies, to be indued with excellent graces of Gods ſpirit, which hauehave ſhined in him notablie to the glorie of God, and profit of the Church. Your ſpitefull reproches caſt againſt him & others are now of all eſteemed, as they are in truth, fained & ſlaunderous, vnworthie of anie regard or credit. His skill in the bible hath ſufficiently appeered, to your griefe: and if you, Maſter Rainolds, would herein compare your ſelfe with him, it were a token of your ſingular boldnes and arrogancie. His skill in murthering men, you ſaie, was better, which argueth you hauehave no conſcience to deuiſe to ſpeake, to write, moſte vntrulie. But ſay your pleaſure, your reward with God and men is certaine. Many I knowe hauehave written againſt him much: & you may knowe that he hath fully anſwered them al. But of your Remiſh or Romiſh colledge of Engliſh ſtudents, I knowe not anie that hath written ought againſt him in that tongue, which he could read and vnderſtand.
The words are in Luke. 22. v. 20. which in the Greeke that Beza tranſlated, by conſtruction indeed require, tha the cuppe, which is called the new Teſtament, ſhould be ſhed for vsus. In which reſpect Beza tranſlateth them otherwiſe. For further knowledge hereof, you referre your reader to M. Martin: and ſo doe I for anſwere, to M.D. Fulke. And here you might as well hauehave cut of this long taile of your treatiſe which hath not in it one drop of learning or profit: you rayle at me, you raile at Beza, you rayle at the holie communion,pag. 235. which you cal profane & bakerlie: but reaſon, ſcripture, or proofe, you bring not anie for your ſayings. I ſee you are a reſolute man: continew thus a while, and I nothing doubt, but he whoſe ordinance and ſacrament you hauehave thus boldelie and wickedly blaſphemed, wilbe auenged vponupon that profane heart and tongue of yours. But let vsus heare what you ſaie.
Firſt,pag. 239. whereas I ſaid if they vnderſtand by the cuppe, the bloode in the cuppe, as they doe, then is there mention made of double bloode; you tell me, I lie groſlie and intollerablie: ſuch curteous ſpeaches I hauehave no cauſe to thanke you for: but let all men of wiſdome be iudges, whether I hauehave not ſaied the truth. Thus you make S. Luke to ſpeake, this cup, that is, this bloode, is the new Teſtament in my blood, which is ſhed for you. Is not here by your conſtruction mentioned firſt one blood, then an other? your reply is pitifull M. R. For to ſay, This Chriſt is Chriſt the ſonne of God, this God is God of heauen and earth, as it ſignifieth not a double Chriſt or God: ſo is it nothing like this ſaying of yours concerning the blood in the ſacrament. For you cannot make the conſtruction, as you pretend, this blood is the blood of the new Teſtament: the wordsſtand otherwiſe: vnles you wil commit a greater fault, then that wherewith you charge Beza ſo hainouſly. S. Luke ſpeaketh not, as you make him, this blood is the blood of the new teſtament: but, this cup is the new teſtament in my blood. If by cup, he meant blood, as you affirme, then our ſauiour Chriſt his blood was the new Teſtament in his blood. And is it all one to ſay, This blood is 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 vsus 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 hauehave 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 vsus, 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 hauehave 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 hauehave ſaid or can ſay ſpitefullie againſt Beza, muſt appertaine to Saint Baſil no leſſe,Baſil in Ethic. foreign. 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 vsus 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 hauehave (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 hauehave you to condemne vsus 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.