a huÌ„dred yeares proclamed through the eares of Christendome that the Romane Church resists the known truth and the euident testimonies of the written word of God a heauy accusation I demand in the poursuit of this discours that these testimonies be cited and euidenced out of the authenticall editions and originall languages of the holy Bible In place of these they presse the words of theyr own late translations These I proue to be dissonant dissagreeing from the originall and soe not the words of true Scripture but of a false translation will make against vs. They tell me that whatsoeuer the words are in the originall yet the sense is euideÌ„tly against the Roman Church I demaÌ„d how shall the sense at least in theyr principle of sole Scripture euer euidently appeare but by the words of the originall They tell me whatsoeuer the words be yet the sense is euident I reply that I am nothing mouued with theyr saing without theyr prouuing They bid me proue that it is not euident I tell them that it belongs to him who affirmes to proue his own assertion which if they refuse the whol world will discouer that they haue nothing euident in the whol Bible against the Tenets of the Roman Church Yet to comply beyond all obligation I vndertake to proue that the texts which they most presse against vs are neyther euideÌ„t not soe much as probable but euidently insufficient and not soe much as capable of that sense which they draw from them to make them sound against vs and consequently nothing but pure mistakes And yet farther that nothing may be vvanting to a full victory I presse against them clere vvords eyther out of theyr own TraÌ„slations or out of the originall the force whereof they cannot possibly auoyd but eyther by denijng the plaine and proper sense of the vvords and flying to tropes and figures improprieties shadows and abscurities and that vvithout any necessity saue only of mainteyning theyr own assertions or translating the vvords in a secondary signification leauing the primary and most proper vvhen it makes against them vvhich notvvithstanding they put in other places vvhere it makes not against them or by translating the words quite contrary to the originall eueÌ„ by theyr own acknowledgemeÌ„t or vvhen they are soe troughly prest that theyr is noe way of escaping to reject the expresse words of the neuer questioned originall and affirme that they crept out the margent into the text The discouery of these and such like particulars is the maine drift and summe of this Treatis vvhich I haue intiteled Scripture mistaken the ground of Protestants c. The occasion of my falling vppon which vvas as follows This Treatis vvas at first a priuate controuersie in answer to a long Cathalogue of texts taken and mistaken out of the Protestants Bible and sent to a Persone of quality to diuert him from the Romane faith Through importunity of friends I condescended that it might passe the print hoping that some might reape profit from it and therefore couched it in a plaine easy stile that not only the learned but the vulgar also might vnderstand it I keepe my selfe close to Scripture in the vvhol processe and connexion of my proofes eyther against my Aduersary or in my own cause scarce affirming any thing vvhich I confirme not by one clere texr or other and those such as I haue read and diligeÌ„tly examined my selfe in vvhat language foeuer I cite them and therefore if any false dealing be found in the citations I am content as in that case I should vvell deserue to bere the shame of it The texts whieh I answer are those vvhich are commonly and cheefly stood vppon by Protestants and indeede vvhich mainly vvithhold them from imbracing the Romane faith and the points of controuersie such as are the most pressed against vs and maintayned by our Aduersaries soe that I haue noe reason to doubt if the Readers be once conuinced that they haue noe ground against vs euen in theyr own Bible in these maine and radicall controuersies as I am in greate hope they vvil be that they vvill at least beginne to suspect the vveakenesse of theyr own and to diseouer the strength of our cause and soe put themselues in a fare vvay of returning to the bosome of that mother-mother-church from vvhich the late mistakers and misusers of holy Scripture haue seduced them Some controuerfies of lesser moment set down in the paper I haue here omitted which I reserre to an other occasion being now pressed for vvant of time to content my selfe vvith these Wherein that I may proceed vppon a suer foote I obserue this methode first I set down plainly and vnquestionably the Doctrine of the present Romane Church deliuered as such in the expresse vvords of the Council of Trent in each controuersy vvhich I treat there by stating aright the question disabusing the Protestant Readers vvho are commonly vvholy missin formed of our doctrine by a vvrong conceipt of it in stilled into them preserued in them by eyther the malice or ignorance of theyr Teachers Secondly I set down the Protestant positions eyther as I finde them in the paper or in the nine-and thirty Articles of the English Protestant church Thirdly I cite and answer the texts of the Aduersary by discouuering clerely the seuerall mistakes coÌ„teyned in them and lastly I alleadge some plaine passages of Scripture as they stand in the Protestant Bible in confirmation of our doctrine The greatest fauour therefore that I expect from you deare contrymen is that you spare me not neyther in troughly examining what I alleadge nor in demanding satisfaction in matters which you cannot fully examine of persones abler and learneder then your selues Please therefore to ponder vvhat you read noe lesse impartially then seriously to disingage your selues from that vvithdrawing bias vvhich education custome contry friends selfe loue will and iudgement haue insensibly instilled into your harts labour with a strong humble desire to be informed aright with a loue of truth aboue all transitory interests of this short and miserable life lastly haue your earnest recourse to Allm. God both to discouer what is best for your etetnal welfare and to imbrace it when you haue discouered it preferre God before creatures your soul before your body heauen before earth and before time eternity SCRIPTVRE MISTAKEN THE GROVND OF PROTESTANTS c. THE FIRST CONTROVERSIE Concerning the vvorship of Saints and Angells The doctrine taught beleeued and professed in this point as matter of faith by the Romain Church And dliuered in the Concil of Trent as Such Sessione 24. MAndat sancta Synodus omnibus Episcopis caeteris docendi munus curamque sustinentibus vt Fideles diligenter instruant docentes eos Sanctos vnà cum Christo regnantes orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offerre bonum atque vtile esse suppliciter eosinuocare ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per Filiâ—m
eius Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum qui solus noster Redemptor Saluator est ad eorum orationes opem auxiliumque confugere THe holy Synode commands all Bishops and the rest which haue the office and care of teaching that they diligently instruct faithfull people teaching them that the Saints which raigne togeather with Christ offer vp theyr praires to God for men that it is good and profitable humbly to inuoke them and to haue recourse to theyr praires helpe and assistance to obteyne benefits of God through his Sone Iesus Christ our Lord who alone is our Redeemer and Sauiour Whence it is cleare that according to the Council of Trent to whose doctrine all those of the Romain Church hold themselues obliged to subscribe first that wee pray not the Saints That they Should procure any blessings by theyr sole force and vertu independant of God but only that they present theyr praires to God to obteyne them of him for vs orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offerre which plainely cleares vs from all idolatry in this particular both they and wee praying to the same one only God And secondly we haue not recourse to theyr praires to God as if they were to be granted for the worth and dignity of the Saints imdepedently of Christs merits but only through and for his merits ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per Filium eius Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum to obteyne benefits of God through his Sone Iesus Christ our Lord excluding the Saints from being eyther our Redeemers or Sauiours which we all acknwledge to be christ alone qui solus noster Redemptor Saluator est as this holy Council here teaches vs which makes vs vndeniably free from the least shaddow of injury done to our Sauiour and his infinite merits when we inuoke the Saints Thirdly we are here taught to giue reâ—ence and worship to the Saints in heauen suppliciter eos inuocare to inuocque them humbly deuoutly suppliantly neyther as Gods nor as sauiours but as pure creatures reigning with Christ and as dependent of God and Christ as we are our selues as appeares by the former words of the Council now cited Lastly we are here taught that this humble inuocation of the Saints and the same is of Angels is good profitable but the Council teaches not neyther giues any generall commaÌ„d to inuoke them nor that the actual practice of it is absolutly necessary to Saluation or that noe man can be saued who has not thus humbly inuoked the Saints for theyr praires are only furthering helpes not necessary meanes to Saluation soe that noe man is bound to beleeue any absolute necessity of it but in rigour it is sufficient not to reiect it as bad or hurtfull but to allow of it as good and profitable leauing the practice or not practice the greater or lesse use of it to euery ones particular piety and deuotioÌ„ This I say not to induce any one to thinke that it were eyther laudable or allowable in such as beleeue the goodnesse and profit of this inuocation as all Romain Catholicques must doe neuer or very seldome to practice it for this were to be supinely negligent in vsing the helpes which wee beleeue to be profitable for our spirituall good as the same appeares in desiring the praires of Gods seruants whilst they liue here on earth which is nor absolutly necessary but yet good and profitable but I say it only that all may know distinctly what the Council here teaches as necessary and what only as good and profitable and to dissabuse vulgar Protestants who thinke that the Romain church teaches that it is as necessary to saluation to inuoke and worship the Saints as to inuoke and worship Christ himselfe Hauing thus declared the doctrine of the Romain church deliuered in the Council of Trent let us now see what Protestants alleadge aganist it out of Scripture mistaken The first Protestant Position Thus framed by the opponent God only to be worshipped therefore neyther Saint nor Angell This is proued by Scripture mistaken Mat. 4.10 It is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue saith Christ. The first mistake The words of this text affirme not that God only is to be worshipped THe text saith thus thou shalt worship the Lord thy God from which cannot be proued thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only that word only being not ioyned in this text to the worship of God as no Protestant can or does proue that God only is to be feared from the like text of Scripture Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God seeing that à wife is commanded to feare her husband Ephes. 5.25 And subiects to feare theyr Magistrates and Gouernours Rom. 13.4 Neyther is any one soe senslesse to affirme that God only is to be loued because Dauid saies O loue the Lord all yee his Saints for if God only that is none saue God were to be loued then noe man were to loue his neighbour which not with standing is most strictly commanded as all know nor husbands to loue theyr wiues which S. Paul commands Ephes. 5. v. 25. and how come they then to proue that God only is to be worshipped because the Scripture here cited commands vs to worship God but commands noe more to worship him only then the former texts to feare and loue him only How come they I say to vrge such à text as this without the least appearance of proose but by à pure mistake of the words of Scripture especially seeing that the Scripture in an other place commaÌ„ds vs as clearly to worship something beside God as it commands to feare and loue others beside God Psalme 99.5 worship his foorstole where the very same Hebrew and Greeke phrase and words are vsed which are in this text cited Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God howsoeuer that text Psal. 99. is mistranslated by Protestants as I shall shew here after Ande the Prophete Isay foretels that the enimies of Hierusalem should worship the steps of her feete Isay 60.14 but what soeuer be meant by those steps certainly it cannot be God therefore the text of Scripture cited Mat. 4. commands not that God only should be worshipped If any Protestant shoud say that though the word only be not ioyned to worship yet it is ioyned to serue in the text cited Mat. 4. and him only shalt thou serue which seemes to be of as much force as if it were ioyned to worship I answer that if the Opponent had framed the Protestant position thus God only to be serued therefore neyther Sainct nor Angell the latter part of the text hauing and him only shalt thou serue there might haue beene some shew of proofe in alledging these words Mat. 4. But seeing the position runs thus God only to be worshipped and the text saith not thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only but thou shalt worship the Lord
Readers memory least the contrary misconceipt amongst Protestants of our doctrine in this poinct might alienate his affection from our Religion If any one desire to haue the inuocation of Saints and Angels thus explicated prouued by Scripture he may please to examine Iob. 5.1 Call if there be any which will answer the and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne where the seauenty Interpreters haue it in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is turne the to some of the holy Angels And Gen. 48. v. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all 〈◊〉 blesse these Laddes which is a plaine inuocation of an Angel as in the former verse 15. the like speech was an inuocation of God And lastly the first of Samuel 28. v. 7. to the 22. where the Scripture affirmes expresly 1. thrice ouer that Samuel himselfe appeared v. 15.16.20 2. that Saul worshipped him and Samuel did not forbid him and soe accepted of it v. 14. 3. that Saul desired Samuel to assist him and soe inuoked him v. 15. 4. that Samuel prophesied truly what should become of Saul and the Israelites army under him as apprares in the next chapter which was a manifest signe that he who appeared was not the diuel but a true Prophete of God both because the diuel hath noe certaine knowledge of accidentall and casuall things to come as those which Samuel foretold were and because the Prophete Ierem. c. 28. v. 9. giues this for the signc of a true Prophete sent from God The Prophete which prophesieth of peace when the word of the Prophete shall come to passe then shall the Prophete be known that the Lord hath truly sent him That he who here appeared to Saul was Samuel hemselfe and that he truly prophesied is witnessed by Ecclesiasticus c. 46. v. 20. And after his death he prophesied and shewed the king his ende and lift vp his voyce from the earth in prophesie to blot out the wickednesse of the people which booke though it be not accounted canonicall by Protestants yet they must acknowledge it to be of greater authority then any they can alleadge of theyr party to proue that it was not Samuel neyther concluds the reason brought commonly by Protestants any thing against this for though Saul had recourse to that witch to raise him vp Samuel and she had consented to doe it yet the text sayes not that her conjuring raised him or that he was inforced to come by force of her witchcraft for first Samuel attributes his coming vp not to her but to Saul v. 15. why hast thou disquieted me secondly it seemes that soe soone as the woman had consented to Sauls petition that Samuel by the power of God preuenting her wicked conjurings came vp unexpectedly and suddainly and in a terrible and unusuall maner and therefore the text saies v. 12. And when the woman saw Samuel she cried out with a lowd voyce Thirdly That woman said not I raised but I saw Gods ascending from the earth where the Hebrew word Elohim Gods is vety ordinarily taken for good Spirits or Angels in the old testament These three texts may suffice for the present it being not my intention to proue but to defend THE SECOND CONTROVERSIE Concerning the making and worshipping of holy Images The Doctrine of the Romain Chruch concerning the use and veneration of holy Images deliuered in the Council of Trent sess 24. MAndat sancta Synodus omnibus Episcopis caeteris docendi munus curamque sustinentibus vt fideles diligenter instruant docentes eos Imagines Christi Deiparae Virginis aliorum Sanctorum in templis praesertim habendas retinendas eisque debitum honorem venerationem impertiendam non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis diuinitas vel virtus propter quam sint colendae vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum vel quod fiducia in Imaginibus sit figenda veluti olim fiebat à Gentibus quae in Idolis spem suam collocabant sed quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur referrur ad Prototypa quae illae repraesentant ita vt per imagines quas osculamur coram quibus caput aperimus procumbimus Christum adoremus Sanctos quorum illae similitudinem gerunt veneremur Id quod conciliorum praesertim verò secundae Nicenae Synodi decretis contra imaginum oppugnatores est sancitum THe holy Council commands all Bishops and all others who haue the office and care of teaching that they diligently instruct faithfull people teaching them that the Images of Christ of the Virgin Mother of God and of other Saincts are to be had and reteyned especially in churches and that due honour and veneration is to be giuen to them not that one beleeues that there is any diuinity in them or power for which they are to be worshipped or that one is to asck any thing of them or that confidence is to be put in them as anciently the gentiles did who placed theyr hope in Idoles but because the honour which is done to them is referred to those whom they represent Soe that through the Images which we kisse and before which we uncouer our heades and prostrate our selues we worship Christ and his Saints whose similitudes they are which doctrine is established by the decrees of Councils especially of the second Council of Nice Seeing therefore here the Council of Trent expresly commands that all Bishops and Paslours c. teach this doctrine to all faithfull Christians noe Aduersary of the Romain Church can eyther doubt in prudēce whether this be her doctrine nor in charity iudge or affirme vppon a mere coniecturall supposition without any certaine and particular information or proof that Romain Catholicques commonly and ordinarily pray to pictures and put theyr confidence and hope in them beleeuing that there is power life and diuinity in those carued or panited Images which they haue before them and soe hoping to be heard and helped by them as the heathens did by theyr Idoles this I say noe man can say or iudge in charity because he must eyther iudge that the Prelates and Pastours of our church are generally neglecting to teach the faithfull vnder theyr charge what they are here commanded which would be to accuse them of a high and hainous neglect or he must iudge that faithfull people beeing sufficiently taught this doctrine by theyr respectiue Pastours are proudly dissobedient to theyr Pastours and the whol church in doing the quite contrary to what thy are taught which were to condemne them of a greeuous sinne and that without any sufficient reason vppon a mere coniecture or voluntary and rash iudgement contrary to the expresse command of our Sauiour Luc. 6.37 Nolite iudicare non iudicabimini Iudge not and you shall not be iudged And as contrary to that of S. Paul Rom. 14.4 Tu quis es qui iudicas alienum seruum domino suo stat aut cadit VVho art thou who iudges an others seruant he stands or
forbid one capitall sin nor one two sinnes This our diuision strictly obserues but that of our aducrsaryes not so for their two first commandements forbid only the sin of Idolatry as being the capitall sin forbidden in them both and so can be but one commandement as we put them and their last prohibites two maine distinct sinnes the desire of adultery thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife and the desire of theft thou shalt not couet thy neighbours goods c. which are as different in thought as adultery and stealing are in act if therefore as they acknowledge there be two commandements to forbid them in all reason there must be two to forbid the desires of them and this reason is pressed by S. Augustin in the place alleadged It is further most manifest that these which are made two commandements by the Protestants can be noe more then one and the same commandement for in the 2. of Kings 17. v. 35. the whole substance of that which Protestants call the second commandement is put in one single senteÌ„ce togeather with the first in these words you shall not feare strange Gods neyther shal you worship them neyther shall you serue them neyther shall sacrifize to them now what is meant by those strange Gods is declared v. 40. and the 41. How be it they did not harken but they did after theyr former maner soe these nations feared the Lord and serued theyr grauen Images whence it is euident that that which is called strange Gods v. 35. is called grauen Images v. 41. and soe to forbid the seruice and worship of strange Gods which is in the Protestants first commandement and to forbid the seruice and worship of grauen Images is the same command as forbidding the same thing Hence also appeares that the word Phesel vsed Exod. 20.4 and is also vsed here v. 41. signifies an Idol or a strange God as I haue often said and noe lesse is manifest from these words thâ—t the seruice which is here mentioned to those grauen Images Pheselim v. 41. was to feare them and sacrifice to them as strange Gods v. 35. And moreouer thus these which are here called strange Gods v. 35. were materiall Idoles or as Protestants terme them grauen Images is most cleare v. 33. They feared the Lord and serued theyr own Gods after the maner of the nations whom they carried away from thence for they could not carry with them any other Gods saue such as these from one place to an other That nothing may me wanting to the full satisfaction of the Reader I haue here adioyned the hebrew words as they stand in the originall of this text which is so violently and frequently pressed against vs. Exod. 20. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 5. v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which words out of what I haue allready alleadged may be thus translated Thou shalt not make to thy sâ—lfe an Idoâ— any figure which is in heauen aboue or in the earth beneath or in the water vnder the earth thou shalt not bow down to them nor serue them or thus· Thou shalt not make to thy selfe an Idol of any figure which is in heauen aboue for the Protestants themselues giue the like translation to the like phrase Deut. 4. v. 16. and Pagninus giues for the first signification of Moun or Temounach figuram a figure not only artificiall but naturall or apparent as when angels appeare in the figures of men Deut. 4.15 Psal. 17.15 I shal be satified when I awake with thy likenesse Temounacb which is nothing but the substance and essence of God conceiued clearly in our vnderstanding as we commonly say in our language let him appeare in his likenesse that is in his own shape figure or persone Soe that the meaning of these words as they ly in the 20. of Exod. and 5. of Deutronomy compared with the 2. of Kings 17. where a strange God a grauen Image are the same thing as I shewed iust now can only haue this sence that Allmighty God here forbids that we should haue any strange Gods before him that is that we should not make an Idol according to any visible figure whieh wee see eyther in the materiall heauens or in the earth or in the waters worshipping and seruing that is fearing those very Idoles and sacrifizing to them as to things indewed with life power vnderstanding diuinity which horrible Idolatry is as farre from the doctrine of the Romain Church which in the beginning of this controuersie I cited out of the cleare words of the Council of Trent as darckenesse is from light To correspond to the desire of other Readers I haue also thought it conuenient to cite the Greeke text of the 70. Interpreres Exodus 20. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where they doe not only translate it serue but shew that it is a seruice proper to God which is here forbidden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thou shalt not serue them with a diuine or highest seruice as I shewed in the begining out of Scripture to be vnderstood by the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. Augustin q. 61. vppon Genesis confirmes the same Now that the difference betwixt worshipping and seruing may be better vnderstood and that worship may in some true sence be attributed to things inanimate and without knowledge but not seruice the Protestants themselues grant that ciuill worship may be giuen to te chayre of state or picture of a temporall King but seruice only to his Royall person not to his picture so that no man can be rightly sayd to serue the Kings chayre of state or his picture but to serue the Kinge and yet they may be and are sayd truly to worship or honour by some externall signe his chayre of state c. In the very same manner with proportion one may truly be sayd to worship or reuerence the picture of our Sauiour or his Saints as things known and esteemed to be as indeed they are wholy dead and inanimate without any power att all in themselues to heare vs or helpe vs merely because they represent those holy persons whose pictures they are but we cannot be sayd in any true or proper sence to serue them so long as we make only this esteeme of them And hence it is that the reuerence or worship wich we yeeld to holy Images is not intended to them or to begge any fauour of them or thinke that any help can be conferred vppon vs by any power in them and no Romain Catholike is to doe otherwise But we pray before them that we hauing them before our eyes may better and more attentiuely thinke of those whom they represent and the reuerence and honour which we giue to them is in a double respect first we giue them that reuerence which is due to holy things dedicated and consecrated or tending to the worship of God as are altars holy vessells and
likenesse of our Sauiours Passion with them and so giuing the reuerence of kneeling to it they properly worship an Image or similitude or remembrance of our Sauiours death And if any should answer that they worship not the bread and wine in the Lords supper nor kneele to them but only to God when they receiue them I demand presently whether they exhibite any kind of reuerence to the bread and wine as a representation of our Lords Passion or no if they answer that they giue none at all to them why then doe they make an exteriour shew and that by way of command and obligation of exhibiting reuerence and respect to those signes seeing that in the exteriour none who see them can iudge that they giue not some reuerence euen to them againe if they giue no reuerence at all to them what greater respect doe they beare to the Lords supper then they doe to their own in their houses so that if a zealous brother would kneele to God at the same tyme when he eates his supper he whould shew as much respect to a brown loafe as he does to the Lords supper when he kneeles only to God in receiuing it And yet further if one who goes to their communion had no maw to adore God at that tyme but should put it of to some other when he found himselfe more moued by the spirit why could not he receiue sitting or standing and that without any externall reuerence at all to what he receiues visibly Nay how could he in conscience receiue kneeling ' or shewing any externall reuerence If they answer that they exhibit some reuerence to the externall signes as representations of our Lords death I demand whether it be a ciuill or a religious reuerence to say it is a ciuil reuerence were absurd for that is in matters of state and ciuill authority only and this is in matter of Religion If they say that it is a religious reuerence then I haue my intent that euen Protestants doe exhibite Religious reuerence to signes figures and representations of our Sauiour no lesse then Catholikes and then I demand further by what externall signe they make profession of such a reuerence to the signes of their communion certainly they will find no other which shewes it more clearly and fully then their kneeling or whatsoeuer they name it is an externall exhibition of religious reuerence which is nothing but worship in a true and Christian sense whence appeares that Protestants themselues are guilty of what they accuse vs that is of giuing woiship to an Image or figure of our Sauiour dying vppon the crosse for vs. That which I haue answered to the 20. of Exodus is in like manner applyable to the 26. of Leuiticus v. 1. and to the 6. v. 73. for they speak only of Idols and false Gods from which all Roman Catholikes abhorre far more then Protestants It is not my intention here to enter into any schoole questions which can neyther easily be made plaine enough to be rightly conceiued by all those whom I intend to informe in this treatis nor are they necessary to be known by all Catholicques nor if they were known is it necessary to beleeue them So long therefore as the doctrine of the Council of Trent cited in the beginning of this controuersie is beleeued and obserued noe more will or can be required for soe much as belongs to this point of any one who eyther is or intends to be a Child of the Roman Church which doctrine is not only without all danger but euen without all possibility of Idolatrie for seeing an Idolatrous worship must acknowledge a diuine power and vertu in that which it worships and the Council expressely theaches that noe such diuine power is to be acknowledged in any Image it is impossible to follow this doctrine and to commit Idolatrie in the worship we giue to any Image all therefore which is required to vnite a Protestant in this particular to the doctrine of the Roman Church is only this that he beleeue noe more that there is eyher life vertu or diuinity in any Image then he now beleeues there is in the name of IESVS spoaken or written that he put noe more confidence nor hope in the picture then he now puts in the name that he pray noe more to the picture then he now prayes to that name if kneeling before the name of IESVS grauen vppon some stone he pray to our Sauiour but as he now puts of his hat and boweth his knee or body when he sees or heares that name he hold it lawfull to exhibit the same reuerence when one sees the picture of our Sauiour and as he may now kisse that sacred name in deuotion to our Sauiour soe he hold it lawfull to kisse our Sauiours picture in deuotion to him or in his regard If a Protestant should demande whether there be as cleare proofs of Scripture for the worship of Images as there are for the worshipping the name of IESVS I answer there are That some Images may be lawfully made is cleare in the Brrazon serpent Num. 21.8.9 That they may lawfully be put in places dedicated to the seruice of God is euident in the two cherubins of gould Exod. 25.18 That they may haue a reference to diuine seruice and be ordinances helonging to it is manifest Hebr. 9.1.5 That it is lawfull to exhibite some worship to them is all ready proued Ps. 99.5 Adore his footstoole That the worship which is done to the Image of another tends as much to his honour whose Image it is as the worship done to his name tends to the honour of him-whose name it is is vndeniably prouued Reu. 13. v. 15.16.17 And he had power to giue life to the Image of the beast that the Image of the beast should both speake and cause that as many as would not worship the Image of the beast should be killed and he causeth all both small and greate rich and pore free and bond to receiue a marke in theyr right hand or in theyr foreheads and that noe man might buy or sall saue he who had the marke or the name of the beast or the number of his name whence is manifest that the worship of the Image of this accursed creature tended to his honour otherwise he would neuer haue compelled men to worship it and that he was honored noe lese in this if not more then in carijng his marke and his name which can be deduced from no other principle then this that all worship done proportionally to the Image is an honour to him who is represented by it and consequently that in this our Sauiour and the Saints are honoured as truly as any other in theyr Images If any Protestant demand farther whether there be any expresse command in the new Testament to worship holy Images I answer there is noe expresse command If it should be replied that nothing is to be held or practized by Christians
which is not set down in expresse words in the new Testament I answer that that is manifestly vntrue and must be confessed to be soe euen by Protestants themselues for they can neuer find any expresse mention in the new Testament that nothing is to be beleeued or practized lawfully by Christians saue that which is expressed in the new Testament 2. that any churches were made or to be made amongst Christians distinct from dwelling houses 3. that fonts for baptisme were put in those churches 4. that childeren were euer actually baptised in those fonts 5. that God-fathers and God-mothers were to be vsed in Baptisme of childeren 6. that any spirituall kindred arises by vertu of Baptisme betwixt those God-fathers and God-mothers on the one side and the childeren Baptized theyr Parents respectiuely on the other If therefore none of those can be found mentioned expressely in the new Testament with what shew of reason can Protestants demand that the worship of Images should be mentioned in the new Testament seeing they practice these particulars noe lesse then we the worship of Images But in these and such like religious practices it is sufficient euen according to the Protestant Principle of sole Sctipture that eyther there be expresse mention made of them eyther commanding or allowing them in the old Testament which is neuer reuoked or dissallowed in the new as is that of the worship of Images or at least that the lawfullnesse of them can be deduced from the old or new Testament by a good consequence drawn according to the rules of right reason as the worship of Images is manifestly from the 13. of the Reuel now cited for if the worship of the Image tend to the honour of him who is represented by it as is there euident and that it is lawfull to doe all that which tends to the honour of our Sauiour then it follows ineuitably that the worship of his Image is lawfull and the like is of the Images of Saints Thus haue I indeauored to discouer the different mistakes of Protestants in the texts of Scripture cited by them against the vse of holy Images taught and peactized in the Romane Church and with all the strange mistranslations inuented by them to make holy Scripture speake to the vulgar against the doctrine and practice of the Romane Church in this particular and this may sfuffice for the second Controuersie THE THIRD CONTROVERSIE Concerning Iustification The Doctrine of the Roman Church deliuered in the Council of Trent touching this Point Sess. 6. can 1. SI quis dixerit hominem suis operibus quae vel per humanae naturae vires vel per legis doctrinam fiunt absque diuina per Iesum Christum gratiâ posse iustificari coram Deo Anathema sit It any one shall say that a man can be iustified by his workes which are done by the force of humaine nature or by the doctrine of the law without diuine grace through our Lord Iesus Christ let him be accursed Ibidem can 2. Si quis dixerit ad hoc solùm diuinam gratiam per Iesum Christum dari vt facilius homo iustè viuere ac vitam aeternam promereri possit quasi per liberum arbitrium vtrumque sed aegrè tamen difficulter possit anathema sit If any one shall say that diuine grace through Iesus Christ is giuen only to this end that a man may more easily liue iustly and deserue eternal life as if he could doe both though with labour and difficulty by his freewill let him be accursed Ibidem can 3. Si quis dixerit sine praeuenienâ—e Spiritus sancti inspiratione atque eius adiutorio hominem credere sperare diligere aut poenitere posse sicut oportet vt ei iustificationis gratiâ conferatur anathema sit If any one shall say that without the preuenting inspiration of the holy Ghost and his assistance a man can beleeue hope loue and repent as he should doe to haue the grace of iustification bestowd vppon him let him be accursed Here I demand vppon what ground the 13 of the 39 English Protestant Articles speakes thus of the scoole men of the Roman Church Workes done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his spirit are not pleasant to God for as much as they spring not of faith in Iesu Christ neyther doe they make men meet to recriue grace or as the schoole Authors say deserue grace of Congruity I would gladly haue those schoole Authours named and cited who affirme contrary to the expresse words of the Council of Trent so great a semi-Pelagian Heresie as this is whereof they are here accused And if none attall can be produced how great an vntruth is conteyned in this article where it is said not as some of the schoole Authours but as the schoole Authours say that is eyther vniuersally or commonly affirme whence may clearly be collected that those new Prelates and Doctours who composed those 39 articles which haue been euer since they were composed esteemed the summe and substance of the Protestant Religion and faith in England were eyther grosly ignorant in the doctrine of the schoole Authours and exceeding temerarious in affirming that of them which they neuer vnderstood or insufferably deceiptfull and malitious in accusing them against theyr own knowledge and conscience of holding generally an errour which not soe much as any one of them euer held but the quite contrary Conc. Trid. ibidem cap. 8. Cùm verò Apostolus dicit iustificari hominem per fidem gratis ea verba in eo sensu intelligenda sunt quem perpetuus Ecclesiae Catholicae consensus tenuit expressit vt scilicet per fidem ideo iustificari dicamur quia fides est humanae salutis initium fundamentum radix omnis iustificationis sine quâ impossibile est placere Deo ad filiorum eius consortium peruenire gratis autem iustificari ideo dicamur quia nihil eorum quae iustificationem praecedunt siue fides siue opera ipsam iustificationis gratiam promeretur si enim gratia est iam non ex operibus alioquin vt idem Apostolus inquit gratia iam non est gratia When the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by fayth and gratis or freely those words are to be vnderstood in that sence which the perpetuall consent of the Catholicque Church allwayes held and expressed to wit that we are said to be iustified by faith because faith is the beginÌ„ing of mans saluation the foundation and roote of all iustifieation without which it is impossible to please God and to come into the number of his childeren But we are said to be iustified gratis because none of these things which goe before iustification whether it be faith or workes deserue the grace of iustification for if it be grace it is not of workes otherwise as the same Apostle says grace would not be grace Conc. Trid. ibidem cap. 10. Sic ergo iustificati
liuing spiritually by faith hinders not his liuing by good vvorks for as breath meate and drinke concurre to his temporall so faith an good works concurre to his spirituall life and euen Protestants themselues must confesse that this text the iust man liueth by fatih cannot possibly inferre that he liueth by faith only for S. Paul saith Rom. 3.24 being iustifyed freely by his grace and v. 18. euen so by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came vppon all men to the iustification of life So that according to S. Paul the iust liues by grace and by the righteousnsse of Christ as well as by faith and so not by faith only Neyther can it bee answeared that faith it self is that grace where of the Apostle speakes and consequently this objection of myne is to noe purpose for though faith be a gift and grace of God yet there are many more gifts and graces besides it signified by the word grace and particularly that preuentinge grace or diuine light and inspiration which the holy Ghost infuses into mans hart as the principles and causes of diuine faith in vs which is bestowed vppon vs purely gratis and out of mere mercy The 4. text Gal. 2. v. 11. Knowing that a man is not iustifyed by the vvorks of the law but by the faith of Iesus Christ that vvee might be iustifyed by the faith of Christ and not by the vvorkes of the law for by the vvorks of the law shall no flesh be iustifyed This text is mistaken These words prooue as little as any of the former that is nothing at all for iustification by faith only For as it is most manifest by the whol precedent context in the chapter the whol matter there handled is about Circumcision and obseruation of the ceremoniall law of the Iewes as different from the life and practice of the Gentills see v. 2.3.5.7.8.12.14 and chap. 4. v. 10. Yee obserue dayes and monthes and tymes and yeares saith S. Paul reprehending the Christians for returning to those empty elements of the ceremoniall law v. 6. and the like chap. 5. v. 1.2.3 about circumcision stand and be not held in againe vvith the yoke of seruitude behold I Paul tell you that if yee be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing and I testify again to euery man circumcising himselfe that he is a debtour to the whol law Now neither Romane Catholike nor English Protestant beleeue that they are iustifyed by the ceremoniall law of the Iewes which only is touched in this chapter And it is no lesse cleare that there mention is made of the first iustification wherby a sinner becoms a child of God v. 10. VVe sinners by nature Iewes and not of the Gentiles Nay the text it selfe obiected Gal. 2. v. 16. speakes clearly of the first iustification of a sinner to the state of grace for by the workes of the law shall no flesh be iustified the word flesh signifijng most familiarly in S. Pauls Epistles that which is not yet spirituall but carnall vnder the guilt of sin and corruption of nature For though such as are already iustified retayne the concupiscenses of the flesh in them yet because they resist and subdue them so long as they remaine iustified they are not called flesh by S. Paul but rather spirituall men And that he speakes of the law as known by its own force light and doctrine is euident also v. 16. For if by the law be righteousnesse then Christ is dead in vayne which is most true if we speake of the law as known to vs and working in vs by its owne force wholy independent of the grace and illumination of Christ but can haue no true sense if we speake of the law as iustifying by the grace of Christ for then Christ will not haue dyed in vaine because by his death he merited that grace and light by vertu of which only the law iustifyes And chapter 3. v. 2. Haue yee receaued the Spirit by the vvorks of the law or by the hearing of faith wherby is manifest both that he speakes of the workes of the law as working before the receiuing the holy Ghost and of the first iustification or receiuing of the Spirit by the faith of Christ. and v. 18. For if a lavv vvere giuen vvich could viuificate righteousnesse vvere truly from the lavv which shewes euidently that the Apostle speakes of the law as considered in it selfe and its proper force for if we consider it as illuminated by faith and the grace of Christ it is able to viuificate and consequently to iustify as the Apostle here plainly affirmes And that he speakes of the law as preceding the faith of Christ is out of all question v. 23. Before faith came we were concluded vnder the law into that faith which was to be reuealed Therefore the law was our schoolmaster in Christ that we might be iustifyed from faith THE FOVRTH CONTROVERSIE Of the merit of Good workes The Doctrine of the Roman Church deliuered by the Council of Trent in this Point Sessione 6. THe Couneil of Trent hauing deliuered as appeares in the former Controuersie that noe worke truly pleasing to God which only we vnderstand by good workes esteemed by vs meritorious can possibly be done eyther by the force of nature or of the law without the inspiration of the holy Ghost nor that any good motion of the will assisted by such Inspirations can merit the grace of our first Iustification the Council supposes that none can produce any good worke truly meritorious of heauenly blessings but such as are allready iustified and in state of grace and soe deliuers the insuing doctrine Sessione 6. c. 16. Bene operantibus vsque in finem in Deo sperantibus proponenda est vita aeterna tanquam gratia filiis per Christum Iesum misericorditer promissa tanquam merces ex ipsius Dei promissione bonis ipsorum operibus ac meritis fideliter reddenda Eternall life is to be propounded to those who doe well and hope in God both as a grace mercifully promised through IESVS Christ to childeren and as a reward faithfully to be rendered through the promesse of God to theyr good workes and merits And yet the Council giues an other ground of Christian merits Ibidem c. 26. Si quis dixerit iustos non debere pro bonis operibus quae in Deo fuerint facta expectare sperare aeternam retributionem à Deo per eius misericordiam IESV Christi meritum â—i bene agendo diuina mandata custodiendo vsque in finem perseuerauerint anatheme sit If any one shall say that iust men are not to expect and hope for an eternall recompence for theyr good workes which were done in God through the mercy of God and the merits of Christ if they perseuer to the ende in doing well and keeping Gods commandements let him be accursed And the full reason of this doctrine is giâ—en Sess. 6. c. 16. Cùm enim ille
reape life euerlasting So that life euerlasting is a proper fruit of a spirituall and godly life and so such a life is the true cause of saluation Reuel 3. v. 4. Speaking of the elect saith They shall vvalke vvâ—ith me in vvhyte garments because they are worthy Therefore the true seruants of God haue something in this world which makes them worthy of eternall life and that is theyr innocent and vnspotted liues as the Euangelist declares in the next precedent words but thou hast some in Sardis who haue not defiled their garment R. 3. v. 8. Behold I haue giuen thee a dore open which noman can shut because thou hast some smal vertue and hast kept my word and hast not denyed my name where the vertuous life and good works of that person are affirmed to be the cause why eternall happinesse was to be bestowed vppon him Hebr. 6.9 for God is not vnrighteous to forget your worke and labour of loue which yee haue shewed towards his name in that yee haue ministred to the Saints and doe minister and v. 12. That yee be not flothfull but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promisses where it is said both that it belongs to the iustice of God to remember our good workes and that not only by faith but by patience allso and the same is of all other vertues wee inherit the promises as Abraham did v. 13.14 Reuel 3. v. 10. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience I will preserue the from the hower of temptation which is to come through the whole world to tempt the inhabitants vppon earth where the desert of good workes is most clearly deliuered The Protestant argument against merit of Good workes The blessed saints were euer ready to acknowledge theyr vnworthynesse with humility Mistake This tutches not the merit of good workes THey are humble and euer will be and must be according to our doctrine both because they are neuer fully certain that they haue any one worke that is truly pleasing to God and if they were fully certain they must attribute all the glory to him seeing it is only his grace which workes all good in them And all theyr merits are his gifts as S. Augustin says and rewarded through the free acceptation of them for the merits of Christ according to the Concill of Trent sess 25. c. 16. But if by this title be vnderstood that noe iust man hath any workes truly good and pleasing to God through the working of Gods grace in them as the mistaken proofes seeme to insinuate it will be a false humility because it stands vppon a false ground and soe no humility of Saints This Protestant argument is proued by Scripture mistaken The first proofe O Lord righteousnesse belongs vnto thee and vnto vs confusion of face saith Daniel The first mistake The Persons here mentioned vvere not Saints These words were spoken by great sinners Therefore Daniel ascribes confusion of face to the Izraelites of his tyme because from the highest to the lowest they and theyr Predecessours had greeuously sinned against the law of God As appeares through the whole prayer of Daniel in that chapter and he puts his own sinnes to the rest v. 20. as hauing transgressed with the rest But how proues this that neyther he nor any other Saint had done any good workes The second proofe And Dauid If thou Lord shouldest be extreame to marke vvhat is done amisse O Lord vvho may abide it The second mistake This text proues that all Saints haue some sinnes but not that they haue no merits How proues this that noe Saint can haue any good wotkes or merits for they doe many things a misse yet through the grace of Christ they may doe some things aright The third proofe Speake not thou in thy hart saing for my righteousnesse the Lord hath brought me in to possesse the Land but for the wickednesse of this nation the Lord doth driue them out from before thee was the counsell of Moyses to the Israelites The third mistake This tutches sinners but not Saints The reason of this counsel was because the Israelites had greeuously offended god in the wildernesse as appeares v. 7.8.9 c. where Moyses reekons vp the haynous Idolatrie and other great sinnes which they committed THE FIFT CONTROVERSIE Of Purgatory The Romane Doctrine declared in the Council of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 30. SI quis post acceptam iustificationis gratiam cuilibet peecatori poenitenti ita culpam remitti reatum aeternae poenae deleri dixerit vt nullus remaneat rearus poenae temporalis exolueudae vel in hoc saeculo vel in futuro in Purgatorio antequam ad Regna caelorum aditus patere possit anathema sit If any one shall say that after the grace of iustification is receiued the falt and guilt of eternall punishment is soe remitted to euery penitent person that there remaines noe guilt or liablenesse to some temporall punishment to be payed eyther in this world or in the world to come in Purgatory before the enterance into the Kingdome of heauen can be opened to them let him be accursed Conc. Trid. sess 25. Decreto de Purgatorio Praecipit sancta Synodus vt sanam de Purgatorio doctrinam à sanctis Patribus sacris Coneiliis traditam à Christi fidelibus credi teneri doceri vbique praedicari diligenter studeant Apud rudem verò plebem difficiliores ac subtiliores quaestiones quaeque ad aedificationem non faciunt ex quibus plerumque nulla fit pietatis accessio à popularibus concionibus secludantur Incerta item vel quae specie falsi laborant euulgari ac tractari non permittant Ea verò quae ad curiositatem quandam aut superstitionem spectant vel turpe lucrum sapiunt tanquam scandala fidelium offendicula prohibeant The holy Synode commands the Bishops that they take diligent care that the sound doctrine of Purgatory deliuered by the holy Fathers and the sacred Councils be beleeued held taught and preached by the faithfull of Christ. But that amongst the common sort of people all difficult and subtile questions which make not for edification by which commonly there is noe accesse to piety be secluded from popular sermons But those things which tend to curiosity or which tast of base lucre as being scandalls and offenses of the faithfull they are to prohibite In these two places we see 1. That none but iust persones suffer in Purgatory 2. That those paines are only the remainder of such temporall paines dew after the remission of sinne and eternall punishment which they deserued in this life 3. That the Church of Rome forbids all temporall gaines to be made of the doctrine of Purgatory where by it appeares how injurious the aspersion of some of our Aduersaries is to the Church of Rome in accusing her to haue inuented Purgatory not to gaine soules but mony 4. All difficult questions
haue had no punishment at all after this life and consequently he should not haue been rewarded according to his workes not suffering the condigne punishment which he truly deserued and God should haue proceeded vnequally in inflicting his punishments and haue had respect to his persone more then to that of Dauid neyther is Purgatory any way injurious to the iustice of God because though he forgiue the guilt of the sinne and the eternall punishment for which man is not able to satistisfie yet he reteynes a parte of the punishment which being finite and temporall may eyther by workes of penance and patience be remitted in this world or payed in the world to come or released by the prayers and penances of other faithfull Christians And this may satisfye for the point of Purgatory THE SIXT CONTROVERSIE Of the Reall Presence of the Body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist The Doctrine of the Church of Rome deliuered in the Council of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 1. SI quis negauerit in Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri verè realiter substantialiter Corpus Sanguinem vnâ cum animâ diuinitate Domini nostri IESV Christi ac proinde totum Christum sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo vt in signo vel figurâ aut virtute anathema sit If any one shall denie that in the most holy Eucharist is conteyned truly really and substantially the body and blood togeather with the soul diuinity of our Lord IESVS Christ and consequently whol Christ but shall say that he is in it only as in â— signe or figure or vertu let him be accursed Ibidem Can. 2. Si quis dixerit in Sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento remanere substantiam panis vini vnâ cum corpore Domini IESV Christi c. anathema sit If any one shall say that in the holy Sacrament of the Eucherist remaines the substance of bread and wine togeather with the body and blood of our Lord IESVS Christ c. let him be accursed Ibidem Can. 4. Si quis dixerit peractâ consecratione in admirabili Eucharistiae Sacramento non esse corpus sanguinem Domini nostri IESV Christi sed tantùm in vsu dum sumitur non autem ante vel post c. anathema sit If any one shall say that the consecration being done in the admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the body and blood of our Lord IESVS Christ but only in the vse whilst it is receiued and neyther before nor after c. let him be accursed Ibidem C. 6. Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum vnigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum c. anathema sit If any one shall say that Christ the only Sone of God in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is not to be worshipped with the worship of latria or diuine worship euen externall c. let him be accursed This is part of the doctrine of the Council of Trent in this point the rest may be seen in the Council as drawn from this To dispose the Reader to a right conceipt of this high mystery and to informe him vppon what ground the Church of Rome teaches this doctrine I thought it necssary to cite those texts of the new Testament which deliuer the institution of this SacrameÌ„t that the Reader may with one vew see how largely and clearly the holy Scripture if it be vnderstood according to the proper signification of the words speakes for this doctrine of the Reall presence And that I may not be thought to haue cited the words otherwise then Protestants admit of them I will cite the texts as I finde them in the Protestant English bible Mat. 26. v. 26.27.28.29 And as they were eating Iesus tooke bread and blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and said take eate this is my body And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and gaue it to them saying drinke ye all of it For this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes S. Marke c. 14. v. 22.23.24.25 And as they did eate Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake it and gaue to them and said take eate this is my body And he â—ooke the cup and when he had giuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all drank of it and he said vnto them this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many Luc c. 22. v. 19.20 And he tooke bread and gaue thankes and brake it and gaue vnto them saying this is my body which is giuen for you this doe in rememberance of me Likewise the cup after supper saying this cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. v. 23.24.25 For I haue receiued of the Lord that which also I deliuer vnto you that the Lord Iesus the same night in which he was betrayed tooke bread And when he had giuen thankes he brake it and said take eate this in my body which is broken for you doe this in remembrance of me After the same maner also he tooke the cup when he had supped saying this cup is the new Testament in my blood doe this as often as yee drinke in remembrance of me The Protestant discourse of the Eucharist begins thus Obiection 1. THe institution of this Sacrament is expressed in the 3 first EuaÌ„gelists S. Mathew Mark and Luke and also by S. Paul in all which they agree in these 4 thinges that IESVS tooke blessed brake and gaue bread for he that saith IESVS tooke bread blessed brake and gaue it saith plainely enough that he brake and gaue bread and not the species of bread as they hold Answer If this objection intend to proue as certainly it doth thar our Sauiour tooke blessed brake and gaue bread to his disciples so that that which he gaue them was bread remaining in the same substance of naturall bread which it had when he tooke it I deny that our Sauiour gaue bread to his disciples or that the three Euangelists and S. Paul cited agree in this the proofe that our Sauiour gaue naturall bread to his disciples because saith the objection he that saith Iesus tooke bread brake and gaue it saith plainly enough that he brake and gaue bread is grounded in a false translation or addition to the text of holy Scripture in the English Protestant Bibles for neither hath the greeke nor latin the word it and though the Protestant Bible of the yeare 1630. and 1632. haue these words Iesus tooke bread and blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his disciples all in the same letter and print as if the word it were no lesse in the originall then the others adioyned yet the latter Bibles and namely that of the yeare 1646. put the word it in a different letter to signify that it is nor in the originall but
contrary â—eeing therefore I haue clearly demonstrated that in the instaÌ„ces alleadged none of the figuratiue speeches can be vnderstood in a proper sense without the violation of some article of our faith proceeding according to true discours euen confessed by our aduersarios I conuince also that they haue no force to proue that these sacramentall words are to be vnderstood figuratiuely THE SEAVENTH CONTROVERSIE Concerning Communion vnder one kinde The Doctrine of the Church of Rome deliuered in the Council of Trent Sess. 13. cap. 3. SEmper haec fides in Ecclesiâ Dei fuit Statim post consecrationem verum Domini nostri corpus verumque eius sanguinem sub panis vini specie vna cum ipsius animâ diuinitate existere sed corpus quidem sub specie panis sanguinem sub vini specie ex vi verborum ipsum corpus sub specie vini sanguinem sub specie panis animamque sub vtraque vi naturalis illius connexionis concomitantiae quâ partes Christi Domini qui iam ex mortuis resurrexit non ampliùs moriturus inter se copulantur Diuinitatem porrò propter admirabilem illam eius cum corpore animâ hypostaticam vnionem Quapropter verissimum est tantumdem sub altetutrâ specie atque sub vtrâque contineri totus enim integer Christus sub panis specie sub quauis ipsius speciei parte totus item sub vini specie sub eius partibus existit This faith hath been alwayes in the church of God that presently after consecration the true body and blood of Christ did exist vnder the species of bread and wine togeather with his soul and diuinity But his body vnder the species of bread and his blood vnder the species of wine by force of the words but his body vnder the species of wine and his blood vndet the species of bread and his soul vndeâ— both by force of that naturall connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord who is now risen from the dead not to dy any more are ioyned togeather moreouer also his diuinity both with his body and soul by reason of that admirable hypostaticall vnion with them wherefore it is most true that as much is conteyned vnder eyther kinde as vnder both togeather for whol and intire Christ exists vnder the species or kinde of bread and each part of it and whol Christ exists vnder the species of wine and vnder each part of it The same doctrine is confirmed sess 13. can 3. Item sess 21. cap. 3. Insuper declarat quamuis Redemptor noâ—ter vt anteà dictum est in supremâ illâ coenaÌ„â—oc Sacramentum in duabus speciebus instiâ—uerit Apostolis tradiderit tamen fatendum esse etiam sub alterâ tantùm specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentum suâ—â—i ac propâ—ereà quod ad fructum attinet nulâ—a gratia necessariâ ad salutem eos defraudari qui vnam speciem solam accipiunt Moreouer the Council declares that allthough our Redeemer as is aboue said instituted this Sacrament in his last supper vnder both kindes yet it is to be confessed that vnder one only kinde whol Christ and a true Sacrament is receiued and therefore for soe much as belongs to the ftuict that those who receiue it only vnder one kinde are not defrauded of any grace necessary to saluation Ibidem cap. 2. Praetereà declarat hanc potestatem pepetuò in Ecclesiâ fuisse vt in Sacramentorum dispensatione saluâ illorum substantiâ ea statueret vel mutaret quae susâ—ipientium vtilitati seu ipsorum Sacramentorum venerationi pro rerum temporum ac locorum varietate magis expedire iudicaret Id autem Apostolus non obscurè visus est inuisse cùm ait Sic nos existimet homo vt ministrâ—s Christi dispensatores mysteriorum Dei atque quidem hac potestate vsum esse satis constat cùm in multis aliis tum in hoc ipso Sacramento cum ordinatis non nullis circa eius vsum caetera inquit cùm venero disponam Quare agnoscens sancta mater Ecclesia hanc suam in administratione Sacramentorum authoritatem licèt ab initio Christianae Religionis non infrequens vtriusque speciei vsus fuisset tamen progressu temporis latissimèiam mutatâ illâ consuetudine grauibus iustis de causis adducta hanc consuetudinem sub alterâ specie communicandi approbauit pro lege habendam decreuit quam reprobare aut sine ipsius Ecclesiae authoritate pro libito mutare non licèt Further the CouÌ„cil declares that this power hath allwayes been in the church that in the dispensation of the Sacraments the substance being kept inuiolated and intire she might appoint and change such things as she iudged to be expedient for the profit of the receiuers or the veneration of the Sacraments according to the variety of things times and places And this the Apostle seemes not obscurely to haue insinuated when he sayes Let a man soe esteeme vs as Ministers of Christ and dispsnsers of the mysteries os God and that he made vse of this power is clere enough both in many other things and particularly in this Sacrament when ordayning some things concerning the vse of this Sacrament he said I will dispose the rest when I come wherefore our holy mother the church taking notice of this her power in the administration of Sacraments though in the beginning of the church the vse os both kindes was frequent yet in processe of time that custome being now notably changed being induced by iust and important reasons she hath approuued this custome of communicating vnder one kinde and hath decreed that it be held for a law which it is not lawfull to change or reproue at ones pleasure without the authority of the church The like doctrine is deliuered in the first chap. of this session From these texts it is manifest that the Council was induced to command this practice first because whol Christ is vnder both kindes 2. because in each kinde is the whole essence and substance of this Sacrament 3. because noe sacramentall grace necessary to saluation is lost by communicating vnder one kinde 4. because many important reasons toutching the honour and respect dew to soe diuine a SacrameÌ„t mouued her to it 5. because there is noe diuine command to the contrary as appearrs sess 21. cap. 1. 6 because the church hath power to dispence the Sacraments as she finds most eoÌ„uenient soe long as Gods commands and theyr substance are not violated 7. That it is not in any ones power saue only of the church to change this costome The Protestant Position Deliuered in the 39. Articles of the English Church Art 30. THc cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people For both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs ordenance ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike This is proued by Scripture mistaken
amici Dei ac domestici facti euntes de virtute in virtutem renouantur vt Apostolus inquit de die in diem exhibendo ea arma iustitiae in sanctificationem per obseruantiam mandatorum Dei Ecclesiae in ipsâ iustitiâ per Christi gratiam acceptâ cooperante fide bonis operibus crescunt atque magis iustificantur sicut scriptum est Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc Being therefore thus iustified and made the friends and of the houshold of God going on from vertu to vertu they are renewed as the Apostle saith from day to day and vsing those armes of iustice to sanctification by the obseruance of the commandements of God and the Church theyr faith cooperating with theyr good workes they increace through the grace of Christ in the iustice which they haue receiued and are iustified more and more as is it written he who is iust let him be iustified still Conc. Trid. ibidem can 9. Si quis dixerit solâ fide impium iustificari ita vt intelligat nihil aliud requiri quod ad iusticationis gratiam consequendam cooperetur nullâ ex parte necesse esse eum suae voluntatis motu praeparari atque disponi anathema sit If any one shall say that a wicked man is iustified by faith only soe that he meanes that nothing els is required which may cooperate to the obtayning the grace of Iustification and that it is noe way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his will let him be accâ—rsed From these authorities of the Council it is manifest that in this matter of Iustification the Church of Rome theaches 1. that noe workes done by the mere naturall force of our freewill 2. nor by the sole doctrine or knowledge of the diuine law can iustifie a sinner in the sight of God Can. 1. 3. That noe vniust persone can without the preuenting inspiration of the holy Ghost doe any thing as it should be done to obteyne the grace of iustification can 3. 4. That neyther faith nor workes done by the inspiration of the holy Ghost before Iustification can merit Iustification for it is a free grace of God giuen not of workes but by the sole mercy of God and for the sole merits of Christ. cap. 8. 5. That though the iustification of a sinner cannot be merited yet a soul may be disposed prepared to instification by acts inspired by the holy Ghost c. 6. 6. That we are not thus disposed by faith only but also by other good motions of our will preuented and assisted by the grace of God can 9. 7. That being thus freely iustified become the childeren of God through the assistance of Gods grace in Christ we may doe good workes and by them accepted through Christ's merits become more and more iust in the sight of God cap. 10. where in cheefly consists the Roman doctrine of Iustification by good workes This doctrine supposed we will now take a vew of those texts which Protestants vsually presse out of Scripture mistaken against it hauing first proued the Roman doctrine The Catholicke Position Faith only iustifyeth not YOu see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only which must needs be vnderstood of a true and internall iustification before Allmighty God for it must be that iustification which comes by faith but that is true and internall iustification as appeares by all the texts cited hereafter in the paper for proofe of iustification by faith only that the iustification which S. Iames speakes of here is the very same with that which comes by faith is most cleare out of the words themselues Yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only For it would be quite contrary to common sense to vnderstand a iustification before men in the first part of this sentence yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and a true internall iustification in the sight of God in the latter part and not by faith only For the word only clearly demonstrates that the same iustification is to be vnderstood in both parts of the sentence Now that the iustification common to both members of this place must necessarily be meant of a true iustification only in the sight of God is out of all question to such as ponder what is deliuered in it for it would be most false were it vnderstood of a iustification only before menâ— no lesse then this manner of speech yee see that this man is vnderstood by his words and not by his thoughts only would be wholly false were there only mention made of a man's being vnderstood amongst men for amongst them he is not vnderstood at all by his thoughts and so the latter part of this proposition would not be true and therefore to verify this manner of speech it must of necessity be meant of a man's being vnderstood by Allmighty God who only by his own power vnderstands both thoughts and words and so it is truly sayd yee see that a man is vnderstood to wit by Allmighty God by his words and not by his thoughts only And for the very same reason this proposition of S. Iames wee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only cannot be vnderstood of a iustification before men for we are no more iustifyed by saith before men then we are vnderstood amongst them by our thoughts and therefore it must be interpreted of a iustification before Allmighty God who only vnderstands our faith as he does our thoughts by his own power and knowledge and can only see whether our faith be true sincere and iustifying or no faith being nothing else but a thought assent or iudgement of the soul. And as all Protestants in the ensuing texts vrged for iustification by faith only vnderstand an internall iustification in the sight of God so must they will they not be vnreasonably and willsully partiall vnderstand the same by iustification by faith in this place of S. Iames which is cleared v. 2. was not Abraham our father iustifyed by worket when he had offered Isaac his sone vppon the altar for this hauing beene done priuatly in the desert could not when it was done iustifie him before men and yet more clere v. 22. seest thou not how faith wrought with his workes and by workes was faith made perfect what is here spoken of but the operation of faith and workes in the soule iustifying in God's sight For faith cannot be truly made perfect but declared to be perfect by workes soe farre as they iustifie only before men And it is further demonstrated v. 23. And the Scripture was fulfilled which sayth Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse and he was called the friend of God Can any Protestant deny this to be meant of an imputation of righteousnesse as they terme it or a iustification before Allmighty God seeing it is the very
and formes of bread in the Sacrament how shall wormes be generated from the hoast corrupted or putrifyed seeing they must consist of matter and forme and so be produced of some materiall substance Answer If there were nothing but humaine nature in Christ as man without humaine personality how could it performe the actions of a person seeing all other actions of men proceed from theyr persons and not from theyr natures as the compleate principle of them You will say the diuine personality supplyed the place of humaine personality in Christ and I say that diuine power supplies the place of nature in this Sacrament in producing a matter after the species of bread be corrupted and the body of our Sauiout ceases to be vnder them Obiection But how can an accident performe the office of a substance Answer But how can the personality of one persone performe the office of the personality of an other Obiection God vnited the diuine personality to humane nature and so it subsists by it as supplying the want of its own Answer God vnites a matter produced at the exigency of nature to thé accidents which were of bread which in the production of wormes from a putrifyed hoast supplyes the want of theyr own These to my best remembrance are the cheefe difficulties which according to the principles of naturall reason our Aduersaries commonly presse against vs in this mistery in answer wherof I haue playnly shewed that they themselues must answer as great or greater difficultyes which may be opposed by heathens and Infidells against other articles of our faith which they beleeue let them therefore eyther desist to moue any such heathnish objections as these against the reall presence or acknowledge that whilst they presse these against it they giue iust occasion to an Infidell to presse the like against themselues which when they haue solued in other mysteries they will haue solu'd theyr own against this Before I end this controuersie I will summe vp briefly what I haue said at large in this treatis that the Reader may haue a full sight of it at one Vew first I haue according to my former methode cited the doctrine of the Concil of Trent whence clearly appeares that it conteynes nothing grosse and Capernaiticall as Protestants commonly are made beleeue but a most heauenly pure mysticall liuing and ineffable presence Secondly I haue cited the words of the Euangelists and S. Paul touching the Institution which are not only most clere in themselues as I haue proued but are iudged soe to be both by Martin Luther in his first Tome printed at Iena an 1589. Concione 3. de Confessione Sacramento Eucharistiae parte 2. pag. 329. where after he had cited the words of the Euangelists he saith thus Haec sunt verba quae neque ipsi neque etiam Sathan negare poterit in quae figendus pes est vt firmiter in iis consistamus Sunt autem nuda planissima quae nullis interpretationibus eludi possunt Quòd panis sit Christi corpus pro nobis traditum calix Christi sanguis pro nobis effusus iubemur illa facere in commemoratione ipsius These are words which neyther they he meanes Romane Catholicques nor Sathan can denie vppon which wee are to fix our foote that we may stand immouuable in them For they are naked and most plaine which cannot be shifted of by any Interpretations That bread is the body of Christ which is giuen for vs and the cup the blood of Christ which is shed for vs and that we are commanded to doe them in remembrance of him Thus Luther which though he here affirmes to proue his errours of Consubstantiation and Communion in both kindes against vs yet withall he clearely confesses that the words are most plaine for the reall presence of Christs true body and blood in this holy Sacrament which he allwayes held These texts also are so vndeniably clere for the reall Presence that Zuinglius the first authour of the Sacramentaries changed the word in all the Euangelists and S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke est in Latin in these words This is my Body this is my blood into significat thus this signisies my body this signifies my blood and so printed them in his Bible dedicated to Francis King of France and printed at Tiguris anno 1525. as witnesses Conradus Sclussenburgh a learned Protestant in Theologiâ Caluinistarum Ie. 2. ar 3. fol. 43. And Zuinglius himselfe approuues of this his translation to 2. de verâ falsâ religione c. 5. fol. 210. And Beza Translating those words of S. Luke qui pro vobis effunditur which is powred out for you puts them thus in greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc poculum quod pro vobis effunditur this chalice which is powred out for you and in his Latin translation he puts them thus hoc poculum c. in sanguine meo qui pro vobis effunditur which blood is powred out for you referring the word this to blood and not to chalice quite contrary to the Greeke construction which not withstanding he confesses to haue found in all the ancient Greeke copies which he had read and hauing noe other shift to auoyd the force of these words as they stand in all these Greeke copies acknowledging that they make quite against him he is put to that desperate insolensie as to say that these words which chalice is powred out for you haue crept out of the margent into the text by negligēce of writers and soe are not the word of God soe Bezaes translation Greeke and Latin printed by Henry Steenen anno 1565. Thirdly I haue discouered clerely the sundry grosse mistakes of Scripture in the words it take eate this doe this in remembrance c. Fourtly I haue shewed the mistakes in the parities brought of I am a dore a vine a way c. Fiftly I haue layd open the mistakes in the instances of other Sacraments and figuratiue speeches alleadged by the opponent in the old Testament and many such like misapplications The maine things where in I stand are that the words of S. Luke are soe clere that Beza hath noe way to auoyd the force of them then by saing that they crept out of the Margent into the text though he confesses to haue found them as he cites them in all the Greeke Copies which he had seene And secondly that seeing these words This is my Body which is giuen for you may most easily and connaturally be vnderstood in a most proper sense without violating any other article of our faith or plaine place of holy Scripture that they must be soe vnderstood onlesse wee will take away all force from Scripture to proue any thing and destroy the fundamētall rule not only of Interpretation of Scripture but of all humaine conuersation which is that euery one is so be vnderstood to speake properly when nothing constraynes to the
SCRIPTVRE MISTAKEN THE GROVND OF PROTESTANTS AND COMMON PLEA OF ALL NEW REFORMERS AGAINST THE ANCIENT CATHOLICKE RELIGION OF ENGLAND Many texts quite mistaken by Nouelists are layd open and redressed in this treatis by restoring them to theyr proper sense according to which it is made manifest that none of them are of force against the ancient Catholicke Religion By IOHN SPENSER of the Society of IESVS Videtis id vos agere vt oninis de medio Scripturarum auferatur auctoritas S. Aug. li. 32. contra Faust. c. 19. PRINTED AT ANTWERPE By IAMES MEVRSIVS ANNO M.DC.LV. The points of Controuersie conteyned in this Treatis I. Of vvorship of Saincts and Angles pag. 1. II. Of the making and vvorshipping of holy Images pag. 69. III. Of Iustification by faith only pag. 137. IV. Of the merit of good vvorkes pag. 161. V. Of Purgatory pag. 179. VI. Of the reall Presence pag. 189. VII Of Communion vnder one kinde pag. 317. THE PREFACE THose victories are deseruedly inroled amongst the most noble and memorable in the monumeÌ„ts of Antiquity wherein an Enemy is ouercâ—m me with his own weapen Thus Dauids beating down that Tower of the Philistines seemed to the Israelites to haue been a conquest ouer ten thowsand Enemies Saul percussit mille Dauid decem millia because he cut of Golias head with Golias sword Thus the sone of God our dearest Sauiour purchast the noblest of all victories against the strongest of all Enimies vt qui in ligno vincebat in ligno quoque vinceretur because he who ouercame vs by a tree was through him by a tree ouercome And thus our deare Redeemer hauing been furiously attacked by the Tempter in the desert with the authority of his own word put to flight and vanquished the same Tempter by the authority of the same word which he had pressed against him Hence it is that not the sling of Dauid werewith he begunne but the sword of Golias was reserued and wrapt vp in a holy Ephod in the Tabernacle as an eternall trophe and monument of his victory Hence that anciently most ignominious hatefull of creatures the crosse is now erected in triumphal maner not only vppon the highest towers of Christian temples but vppon the most sacred and soueraigne heads of Christian Emperours And hence it also is that the Catholicque Church hath soe carefully conserued soe religiously honored and gloriously triuÌ„phed in those breathes of diuinity the holy Scriptures because that as her spouse stopt the fontaine soe she by the heat of his spirit hath dried vp the troubled and diuided streames of all errours and heresies trough theyr heauenly light and authority This is the victoty which I represent in triumph in this present treatis as the most heroicke amongst all others of the Romane Church because it conquers heresie by the weapen of heresie vt qui in verbo pugnabant in verbo quoque vincerentur that those vvbo haue hitherto fought vvith the sole vvord might be ouercome vvith the sole vvord The Romane Church euen from the first Challenge of her aduersaries in these last ages hath giuen them the foile nay quite defeated them at the weapens of Antiquity vniuersalâ—â—y vnity succession visibility sanctity miracles Fathers Councils reason authority but these were soe farre and clearly her weapens that they scarce euer dirst lay clayme to any of them and soe the victory glassed in theyr eyes seemes eyther none or small because not gayned with a weapen of theyr chusing now therefore to accomplish what she hath soe prosperously attempted she accepts the combat euen with that weapen which they take by mistaking to be theyr own It is the vvritâ—en vvord of God the sole vvritten vvord to which all appeall here they boast and glory here they exult and triumph not only before the victory but befote the fight this and this alone they take for theyr bucklar of defense for theyr armour of proofe for theyr deepe piercing dart theyr swift flying arrow and theyr sharp edged sword this they brandish before the eyes of innoceÌ„ts with this they florish in theyr bookes and Pulpits in theyr publicque meetings and priuate conuenticles nay in the very streetes and tauernes and that soe seemingly with a glosse as false as it is faire that they dazle the eyes of the vulgar and strike them with admiration in each motion of it Here they fully perswade themselues that those of the Roman Church dare not medle with them and take for granted that whatsoeuer wee haue gained vppon them by other weapens yet wee yeeld our selues clerely conquered by this So confideÌ„t are our Aduersaries in theyr own conceipts where as the Roman Church neuer as yet acknowledged to haue been eyther worsted or soe much as touched by any one text of Scripture which they euer pressed against her witnesse the many large volumes of full and cleere answers to euery senteÌ„ce objected by her Aduersaries Neyther euer refused she to incounter her enemies with this weapen of theyr own chusing True it is she requiers iudges present to see and determine which party hath the better in the incounter but they refuse all other iudges quite contrary to the light of reason saue that very weapen where with rhey fight and though she still keepe the feeld continue on the coÌ„bat maintaine the quarel without soe much as yeelding eyther a step or hairs breadth not withstaÌ„ding she must be worsted only because her aduersaries say she is What will an impartiall ey iudge of such proceedings yet to shew how empty and vaine all these flotishes are and how strong desires she hath of the eternall good of her enimies rather then leaue them wholy destitute of redresse she freely like an indulgent mother condesceÌ„ds to theyr infirmities and conformes her selfe to theyr wayward humours and that soe farre as to expose the equitie of her cause euen to the iudgement of her very Aduersaries and confides with holy Dauid inimici nostri sunt iudices that euen her most forward enimies will not be soe voyd of light reason and equity as not to acknowledge her conquerant and themselue vanquished euen in theyr own iudgements and with theyr own weapen Thus she enters the list and confides in the strength of her God and spouse that the day wil be hers And findes noe surer meanes to incompasse it then by disarming her enimie because to dissarme him him is to dissanimate him for yeeld he must when he can feight noe longer I haue indeauored in this present Treatis to giue my Readers an essay of this kinde of victory of the Roman Church where in I hope he will finde it manifest that the texts which our Aduersaries vsually alleadge against the Romane doctrine in such points as I haue tuched are not arguments but mistakes And that soe grosse and palpable that halfe an ey may discouer them Thus therefore the matter stands and the combat proceeds betwixt vs. Our Aduersaries haue now aboue