The sum of the conference between John Rainoldes and John Hart touching the head…The summe of the conference betwene Iohn Rainoldes and Iohn Hart touching the head…
The sum of the conference between John Rainoldes and John Hart touching the head and the faith of the Church. Wherein by the way are handled sundry points, of the sufficiency and right expounding of the Scriptures, the ministry of the Church, the function of priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, with other controversies of religion: but chiefly and purposely the point of Church-government ... Penned by John Rainoldes, according to the notes set down in writing by them both: perused by John Hart, and (after things supplied, & altered, as he thought good) allowed for the faithful report of that which past in conference between them. Whereunto is annexed a treatise entitled, Six conclusions touching the Holy Scripture and the Church, written by John Rainoldes. With a defence of such things as Thomas Stapleton and Gregory Martin have carped at therein.The summe of the conference betwene Iohn Rainoldes and Iohn Hart touching the head and the faith of the Church. Wherein by the way are handled sundrie points, of the sufficiencie and right expounding of the Scriptures, the ministerie of the Church, the function of priesthood, the sacrifice of the masse, with other controuerises of religion: but chiefly and purposely the point of Church-gouernment ... Penned by Iohn Rainoldes, according to the notes set downe in writing by them both: perused by Iohn Hart, and (after things supplied, & altered, as he thought good) allowed for the faithfull report of that which past in conference betwene them. Whereunto is annexed a treatise intitled, Six conclusions touching the Holie Scripture and the Church, writen by Iohn Rainoldes. With a defence of such thinges as Thomas Stapleton and Gregorie Martin haue carped at therein.
John Rainolds 1549–1607Londini: printed by John Wolfe, 1584Londini: printed by Iohn Wolfe, 1584
475, [1], 479-674, 659-750 p. · 304k words · STC 20626 · ESTC S115546
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Rainoldes. These testimonies, M. Hart, of Greek, and Latin Fathers, with the rest quoted by your Apology-writer either at dDouai, or at eRhemes: do some of them mention offering, and not sacrificing; some speak of sacrificing, but not the sacrificing of Christ. Between the which points what difference there is: for the one, fhimself is a sufficient witness, in that he declareth that sundry things are offered which are not sacrificed; for the other, they, who show that the faithful did offer sundry sacrifices, as namely, of galms, of hpraise, of ithem selves, even at the celebration of the Lords supper. But admit they meant by offering, and sacrificing, the sacrificing of Christ, as some of them did: yet nether was their sacrificing, ⟨p. 616⟩that, which your Massing is; nor they who sacrificed, Mass-priests. For you will have kthe sacrifice offered in the Mass to be a 1very, sovereign, 2true, and proper sacrifice: whereby you mean lthat Christ is killed there indeed, and sacrificed to God. But the Fathers named their offering, a sacrifice, not properly, but by a figure: meaning the death of Christ (our only very, sovereign, true, and proper sacrifice,) to be represented there, in a mystery, not executed in deed. For as in the Scripture sacraments are noted by the names of things whereof they are sacraments, that men may lift their eyes from the outward signs to the things signified: so because we are willed
is sacrificed every day to Christian folk in a sacrament or mystery:
Rainoldes. These testimonies, M. Hart, of Greeke, and Latin Fathers, with the rest quoted by your Apologie-writer either at dDoway, or at eRhemes: doo some of them mention offering, and not sacrificing; some speake of sacrificing, but not the sacrificing of Christ. Betweene the which pointes what difference there is: for the one, fhimselfe is a sufficient witnesse, in that he declareth that sundry things are offered which are not sacrificed; for the other, they, who shew that the faithfull did offer sundry sacrifices, as namely, of galmes, of hpraise, of ithem selues, euen at the celebration of the Lords supper. But admit they meant by offering, and sacrificing, the sacrificing of Christ, as some of them did: yet nether was their sacrificing, ⟨p. 616⟩that, which your Massing is; nor they who sacrificed, Masse-priests. For you will haue kthe sacrifice offered in the Masse to be a 1very, soueraine, 2true, and proper sacrifice: wherby you meane lthat Christ is killed there indeede, and sacrificed to God. But the Fathers named their offering, a sacrifice, not properly, but by a figure: meaning the death of Christ (our onely very, soueraigne, true, and proper sacrifice,) to be represented there, in a mysterie, not exequuted in deede. For as in the Scripture sacraments are noted by the names of thinges whereof they are sacraments, that men may lift their eyes from the outward signes to the things signified: so because we are willed mto celebrate the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in his remembrance, and nto shew his death; that shewing of his death, and remembring of his sacrifice, is called by the Fathers his sacrifice, and death. So doth oCyprian treate of the offering of Christ. For teaching that 1we mention his death in all sacrifices, he geueth this as a reason of it, 2for the death of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer. So doth Chrysostome open his meaning of the sacrifice. For he affirmeth it to be pa signe of Christes death: and hauing said that qwe offer the very sacrifice that Christ did, he correcteth his spéech thus, 3or rather we worke a remembrance of that sacrifice. So the same rAmbrose who speaketh of sacrificing to God in Christes steede, dooth expound it too, 4euen with Chrysostomes words. So sAustin saith that Christ, although he were sacrificed but once in himselfe, 5is sacrificed euery day to Christian folke in a sacrament or mysterie:
dIn his treatise of the sacrifice of the mass, (cap. 14.) out of his lectures read at Douai.In his treat•se of the sacrifice of the masse, (cap. 14.) out of his lectures read at Doway.
eIn his Apology: and the Annotations on the Rhemish Testament, Heb. 10.11.In his Apologie: and the Annotations on the Rhemish Testament, Heb. 10.11.
fAlan. d• eucharist. sacrif. cap. 16.
gCyprian. de opere & eleem.
hAugust. contr. aduersa•. leg. l. 1. c. 18. & 20.
iDe civitat. Dei lib. 10. cap. 6. & l. 22. c. ••De ciuitat. Dei lib. 10. cap. 6. & l. 22. c. ••
nether is he falsely said to be sacrificed. For sacraments have 6a certain resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments; and for that resemblance they take the names commonly of the things themselves: as the sacrament of the body of Christ is Christs body 7after a certain sort, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ is Christs blood. Finally, Eusebius (who may serve also to declare the judgement of the Council of Nice, whereof he was a part) doth by the very name of unbloody sacrifices witness his agreement therein with the rest. For he calleth our remembrances and representations of the death of Christ in celebrating the sacrament of his body and blood, though sacrifices, for the likeness; yet unbloody, ⟨p. 617⟩for the difference: to show that Christ is not sacrificed in them truly, and properly, (for then must his blood be shed, as it was, when he suffered death,) but only by the way of a sacrament, & mystery, wherein the true sacrifice is set forth before us, and remembered by us. And this he maketh plainer tother where by saying, that Christ having offered him self for a sovereign sacrifice unto his •ather, ordained that we should 8offer a remembrance thereof unto God in steed of a sacrifice. Which remembrance we celebrate 9by the signs of his body and blood, upon his table: and, pleasing God well, we offer unbloody sacrifices, and reasonable, and acceptable to him.
nether is he falsly said to be sacrificed. For sacraments haue 6a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments; and for that resemblance they take the names commonly of the things themselues: as the sacrament of the body of Christ is Christs body 7after a certaine sort, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ is Christs blood. Finally, Eusebius (who may serue also to declare the iudgement of the Councell of Nice, whereof he was a part) doth by the very name of vnblooddy sacrifices witnesse his agréement therein with the rest. For he calleth our remembrances and representations of the death of Christ in celebrating the sacrament of his body and blood, though sacrifices, for the lykenes; yet vnbloody, ⟨p. 617⟩for the difference: to shew that Christ is not sacrificed in them truly, and properly, (for then must his blood be shed, as it was, when he suffered death,) but onely by the way of a sacrament, & mystery, wherein the true sacrifice is set foorth before vs, and remembred by vs. And this he maketh plainer tother where by saying, that Christ hauing offered him selfe for a soueraine sacrifice vnto his •ather, ordeined that we should 8offer a remembrance thereof vnto God in steed of a sacrifice. Which remembrance we celebrate 9by the signes of his body and blood, vpon his table: and, pleasing God well, we offer vnbloody sacrifices, and reasonable, and acceptable to him.
Hart. Nay, Eusebius calleth our sacrifices, unbloody, in respect of the manner, and not of the thing. For they are true sacrifices of Christ, and therefore bloody: but Christ who was offered upon the cross bloodily, is offered in the Mass unblooddily.
Hart. Nay, Eusebius calleth our sacrifices, vnbloody, in respect of the maner, and not of the thing. For they are true sacrifices of Christ, and therefore bloody: but Christ who was offered vpon the crosse blooddily, is offered in the Masse vnblooddily.
Rainoldes. That is your uTrent-doctrine: but it will not cleave with the words of Eusebius. For he calleth them 1unbloody sacrifices: not bloody sacrifices offered unblooddily, but unbloody sacrifices. And adding that we celebrate the remembrance therein of the sacrifice of Christ by the signs of his body, and blood: he showeth that they are not in deed bloody sacrifices, but mysteries of the bloody.
Rainoldes. That is your uTrent-doctrine: but it will not cleaue with the wordes of Eusebius. For he calleth them 1vnblooddy sacrifices: not bloody sacrifices offered vnblooddily, but vnbloody sacrifices. And adding that we celebrate the remembrance therein of the sacrifice of Christ by the signes of his body, and blood: he sheweth that they are not in déede bloody sacrifices, but mysteries of the bloody.
uConcil. Trid•t. Sess. 22. cap. 2.
1[Greek or Hebrew]. De vit. Constantin. lib. 4. cap. 45. [Greek or Hebrew]. Demonstrat. Evang. lib. 1.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. De vit. Constantin. lib. 4. cap. 45. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Demonstrat. Euang. lib. 1.
Hart. Nay, the blood of Christ, the very sacrificial blood (as xwe term it) which Christ did shed upon the cross, is in the blessed chalice of the altar at the sacrifice of the Mass. For yChrysostom (in that notable work of the Priesthood) saith that Christ is seen there by all the faithful, and mentioneth his blood too.
Hart. Nay, the blood of Christ, the very sacrificall blood (as xwe terme it) which Christ did shed vpon the crosse, is in the blessed chalice of the altar at the sacrifice of the Masse. For yChrysostome (in that notable worke of the Priesthood) saith that Christ is seene there by all the faithfull, and mentioneth his blood too.
Rainoldes. Yea, and (that is more) he saith that Christ is held there in all their hands, and all are *made read with that precious blood. The Fathers delight much in such effectual speeches: which need wiser readers, then many be who light on them. But if your self know that the whole people which cometh to your Mass, is not made read with the sacrificial blood: you may learn thereby that Chrysostom, speaking of blood in the sacrifice, doth consider of it as bloody in a mystery, but in deed unbloody.
Rainoldes. Yea, and (that is more) he saith that Christ is held there in all their handes, and all are *made redde with that pretious blood. The Fathers delite much in such effectuall spéeches: which néede wiser readers, then many bee who light on them. But if your selfe know that the whole people which cometh to your Masse, is not made redde with the sacrificall blood: you may learne thereby that Chrysostome, speaking of blood in the sacrifice, doth consider of it as bloody in a mystery, but in déede vnbloody.
*[Greek or Hebrew], made read like crimse• or scarlet.〈non-Latin alphabet〉, made redde like crimse• or sc•rlet.
Hart. Nay: it is called unbloody by the Fathers, as D. ⟨p. 618⟩zAllen noteth, not because the blood in deed is not in it, but to distinguish it from the same sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, which was made and offered 2not without blood shed.
Hart. Nay: it is called vnbloody by the Fathers, as D. ⟨p. 618⟩zAllen noteth, not because the blood in deed is not in it, but to distinguish it frō the same sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse, which was made and offered 2not without blood shedde.
Rainoldes. The blood is not shed then in this sacrifice. And therefore it is neither propitiatory; for asins are not remitted without shedding of blood: nor the true and sovereign sacrifice of Christ; for 3that is the only true, and sovereign sacrifice, wherein his blood was shed for us.
Rainoldes. The blood is not shed then in this sacrifice. And therefore it is neither propiciatorie; for asinnes are not remitted without shedding of blood: nor the true and soueraine sacrifice of Christ; for 3that is the onely true, and soueraine sacrifice, wherein his blood was shed for vs.
Rainoldes. Blood, unblooddily shed? You speak monsters, M. Hart, unless you mean by [unblooddily] not truly, and in deed, but sacramentally. For then you say well, that his blood is shed, when we show his death, and remember the shedding of it. But as S. bAustin writeth, that the flesh and blood of the sacrifice of Christ was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before he came, was performed 4in truth and in deed when he suffered, is celebrated 5by a sacrament of remembrance since he ascended: so, when the blood of Christ is shed in this sort by the sacrament of remembrance, it is not shed in deed, for that was done at his death only. And this is the most that you can make of the Fathers, although it be granted that they called their celebrating of the Lords supper an unbloody sacrifice in respect of the bloody sacrifice of Christ which he offered on the cross. Much less make they for you, if they called it not so in respect of his sacrifice, but of the sacrifices of the Jews. Which it is the more likely that they did, because they called their cprayers and their very dworship of God unbloody too: no doubt to distinguish it from the Jewish worship, which offered bloody sacrifices. For as S. ePaul, treating of our serving of God, calleth it 6reasonable, because we do sacrifice our selves spiritually; not brute beasts and senseless things with carnal ceremonies, as the Jews did▪ so fthe Fathers called it 7reasonable, and unbloody, to the same effect. And gEusebius namely saith that we offer 8unbloody and reasonable sacrifices to God as long as we live, meaning all hspiritual sacrifices thereby, which every Christian offereth as a Priest to God. Yea, even in ithat place which D. Allen chose as making ⟨p. 619⟩most for his Apology, the prayers, which 9the Ministers (for so Eusebius termeth them) did offer unto God, may well be understood by those sacrifices too. But if he meant only their offerings of the remembrance of Christs death in the sacrament, as that which ensueth of mystical consecrations may seem to import: yet himself declareth by the word [unbloody] that he called them sacrifices, not properly, but by a figure; as meaning not that Christ is put to death there in deed, but in a mystery. To be short, he, and all the other Fathers, both Greek, and Latin, are so fully and plainly of one mind in this point:
Rainoldes. Blood, vnblooddily shedde? You speake monsters, M. Hart, vnlesse you meane by [vnblooddily] not truly, and in déede, but sacramentally. For then you say well, that his blood is shedde, when we shew his death, and remember the shedding of it. But as S. bAustin writeth, that the flesh and blood of the sacrifice of Christ was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before he came, was performed 4in truth and in deede when he suffered, is celebrated 5by a sacrament of remembrance since he ascended: so, when the blood of Christ is shedde in this sort by the sacrament of remembrance, it is not shedde in deed, for that was doon at his death onely. And this is the most that you can make of the Fathers, although it be graunted that they called their celebrating of the Lordes supper an vnbloody sacrifice in respect of the blooddy sacrifice of Christ which hee offered on the crosse. Much lesse make they for you, if they called it not so in respect of his sacrifice, but of the sacrifices of the Iewes. Which it is the more likely that they did, because they called their cprayers and their very dworship of God vnblooddy too: no doubt to distinguish it from the Iewish worship, which offered bloody sacrifices. For as S. ePaul, treating of our seruing of God, calleth it 6reasonable, because we do sacrifice our selues spiritually; not bruite beastes and senselesse thinges with carnall ceremonies, as the Iewes did▪ so fthe Fathers called it 7reasonable, and vnblooddy, to the same effect. And gEusebius namely saith that we offer 8vnblooddy and reasonable sacrifices to God as long as we liue, meaning all
bCont. Faust. Manich. l. 20. cap. 21.
4Per ipsam verit•tem reddebatur.
5Pe• sacramentum memo•iae celebratur.
cCyril. lib. de t•cta fid. ad Reginas. Oecumen. in epist. ad Hebr. c. 13.
dConcil. Ephesin. epist. ad Nestor. Liturg. Basil. & Chrysost.Concil. Ephesin. epist. ad Nestor. Liturg. Ba•il. & Chrysost.
that the kMaster of the Sentences (in his abridgement of Divinity gathered out of them) proposing this question, 1whether that which the Priest doth execute be called a sacrifice properly, resolveth that it is not. But that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice (saith he) and an offering, 2because it is a remembrance and representation of the true sacrifice and the holy offering made on the altar of the cross, as he proveth by the Fathers. Wherefore sith the sacrifice offered in the Mass is 3a true and proper sacrifice, as you define it; and that of the Fathers is not a true sacrifice, but called so improperly: it remaineth to be concluded that the Fathers nether said Mass, lnor were Mass-priests. And so, to make an end with that which you began with, the cause is just, and holy, why we call presbyteros, not Priests, but Elders. For sith the name of Priest hath relation to sacrifice, & men by the sacrifice understand your Mass, and your Mass is a monster of abomination, profaning the blood of Christ, condemned by the Scriptures, unknown to the Fathers, detestable in the sight of God and of the godly: the charge of the Lord, mnot to lay a stumbling block before the blind, might have removed *that name from Ministers of the gospel, yea, although they had been ordained to sacrifice, much more sith they are not, but as other Christians. The name of Elders therefore expressing that word whereby the Scripture calleth them, as it is confessed by nyour own authentical, translating it so: we could not but allow it. Chiefly sith the very necessity of opening our meaning unto others (which is the end of languages) required different words for the different things of presbyter, and sacerdos. For how will you translate that saying ⟨p. 620⟩of S. oAustin, that S. Johns words [p they shall be Priests of God, & of Christ] are meant of all Christians; non de solis episcopis, & presbyteris, qui propriè jam vocantur in ecclesia sacerdotes; that is, as we translate, not of Bishops and Elders only, which now are called peculiarly Priests in the Church. But how would you translate it?
that the kMaster of the Sentences (in his abridgement of Diuinitie gathered out of them) proposing this question, 1whether that which the Priest doth exequute be called a sacrifice properly, resolueth that it is not. But that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice (saith he) and an offering, 2because it is a remembrance and representation of the true sacrifice and the holy offering made on the altar of the crosse, as he prooueth by the Fathers. Wherefore sith the sacrifice offered in the Masse is 3a true and proper sacrifice, as you define it; and that of the Fathers is not a true sacrifice, but called so improperly: it remayneth to be concluded that the Fathers nether said Masse, lnor were Masse-priests. And so, to make an end with that which you began with, the cause is iust, and holy, why we call presbyteros, not Priests, but Elders. For sith the name of Priest hath relation to sacrifice, & men by the sacrifice vnderstand your Masse, and your Masse is a monster of abomination, prophaning the blood of Christ, condemned by the Scriptures, vnknowen to the Fathers, detestable in the sight of God and of the godly: the charge of the Lord, mnot to lay a stumbling block before the blind, might haue remoued *that name from Ministers of the gospel, yea, although they had bene ordeined to sacrifice, much more sith they are not, but as other Christians. The name of Elders therefore expressing that word whereby the Scripture calleth them, as it is confessed by nyour owne authentical, translating it so: we could not but allow it. Chiefly sith the very necessitie of opening our meaning vnto others (which is the end of languages) required different words for the different thinges of presbyter, and sacerdos. For how will you translate that saying ⟨p. 620⟩of S. o
kLib. 4. dist. 12.
1Si, quod. gerit sacerdos, propriē dicatursacrisicium vel immolatio.Si, quod. gerit sacerdos, propriē dicatursacrisicium vel immolatio.
2Quia memoria est & representatio ver• sacrificij & sanctae immolationis fact•m ara crucis.
Hart. There is a defect in our English tongue, that we can not translate it so perspicuously as it is in Latin, because we have but one word for presbyter, and sacerdos.
Hart. There is a defect in our English tounge, that we can not translate it so perspicuously as it is in Latin, because we haue but one word for presbyter, and sacerdos.
Rainoldes. Then you should not play the dog in the manger, nether your selves mending the defects of our tongue, nor suffering us to mend them. For if a man translate it as your qRhemists do, not of Bishops and Priests only, which are 2properly now in the Church called Priests: how shall the English reader understand his meaning which Priests be called Priests, and whether Bishops be Priests too? Nay, to come to that which must needs enforce you to translate sacerdos otherwise, then presbyter: S. rAustin having brought (against Julian, an heretic,) the testimonies of the Fathers, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Reticius, Olympius, Hilary, Ambrose, Innocentius, Nazianzene, Basil, & Chrysostom, doth name them sacerdotes, that is (as you translate it) Priests: is it not?
Rainoldes. Then you should not play the dog in the manger, nether your selues mending the defectes of our tounge, nor suffering vs to mend them. For if a man translate it as your qRhemists doo, not of Bishops and Priests only, which are 2properly now in the Church called Priests: how shal the English reader vnderstand his meaning which Priests be called Priests, and whether Bishops be Priests too? Nay, to come to that which must néedes enforce you to translate sacerdos otherwise, then presbyter: S. rAustin hauing brought (against Iulian, an heretike,) the testimonies of the Fathers, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Reticius, Olympius, Hilarie, Ambrose, Innocentius, Nazianzene, Basil, & Chrysostome, doth name them sacerdotes, that is (as you translate it) Priests: is it not?
2So they translate the wor• propri• deceitfully: for advantage of their error, that Ministers of the gospel are properly called Priests. Whereas S. Austin meaneth that generally, by Scripture, all Christians have that name: though peculiarly Bishop• & Priests, by the Church, in his time: both called so unproperly, and by a figure: not as the Levitical Priests, and Christ, properly.So they translate the wor• propri• deceitfully: for aduantage of their errour, that Ministers of the gospel are properly called Priests. Whereas S. Austin meaneth that generally, by Scripture, all Christians haue that name: though peculiarly Bishop• & Priests, by the Church, in his time: both called so vnproperly, and by a figure: not as the Leuiticall Priests, and Christ, properly.
rContr. Julian. Pelag. l. 1. c. 7. & l. 2. c. 10.Contr. Iulian. Pelag. l. 1. c. 7. & l. 2. c. 10.
Rainoldes. Where S. Austin addeth then touching Jerome, that nether he must be contemned because he was presbyter: what here shall presbyter be? Will you make S. Austins speech so unsavoury, as to tell the heretic, that he ought to reverence Irenaeus, Cyprian, Ambrose, and the rest, because they were Priests; and not contemn Jerome because he was a Priest?
Rainoldes. Where S. Austin addeth then touching Ierom, that nether he must be contemned because he was presbyter: what here shal presbyter be? Wil you make S. Austins spéech so vnsauory, as to tell the heretike, that he ought to reuerence Irenaeus, Cyprian, Ambrose, and the rest, because they were Priests; and not contemne Ierom because he was a Priest?
Hart. Nay, I would translate here, presbyter, a Priest: but, for sacerdotes, I would say Bishops. For that is S. Austins meaning in these places where he doth name them sacerdotes.
the Ministers (for so Eusebius termeth them) did offer vnto God, may well be vnderstoode by those sacrifices too. But if hee meant onely their offerings of the remembrance of Christes death in the sacrament, as that which ensueth of mysticall consecrations may séeme to import: yet himselfe declareth by the word [vnblooddy] that he called them sacrifices, not properly, but by a figure; as meaning not that Christ is put to death there in deede, but in a mysterie. To be short, he, and all the other Fathers, both Gréeke, and Latin, are so fully and plainly of one mind in this point:
they shalbe Priests of God, & of Christ] are meant of all Christians; non de solis episcopis, & presbyteris, qui propriè iam vocantur in ecclesia sacerdotes; that is, as we translate, not of Bishops and Elders only, which now are called peculiarly Priests in the Church. But how would you translate it?
