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
thy God who sees not that there is noe shew at all of proofe in it as when the Scripture sayth Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue one might at least seemingly proue from this sentence that God only is to be serued but one shall neuer proue by the force of those words that God only is to be feared If a Protestant should reply that worship and serue seeme to signify the same thing and soe only being added to serue is as much as if it were added to worship I answer that if wee haue regard to the Greeke text in which only the difference betwixt worship and serue in Mat. the 4. v. 10. is clearly discouered there is a large difference betwixt those two words the one signifying properly and by mere force of the word worship in generall and soe vsed familiarly in holy Scripture to signify both rhe worship due to God and to men Saincts and Angells and the other a seruice due to God only and neuer applyed to the religious seruice of any creature which I shall here after make manifest Beside serue signifies more largely then worship for wee serue God by faith hope charitie obedience and all good workes done to his honour but wee worship 〈◊〉 him only by an act of Religion As appeares Hebr. 12.28 let vs haue grace wereby we may serue God acceptably with Reuerence and Godly feare MISTAKE II. Worship missapplied in this text Mat. 4.10 I Haue allready proued that this text commands not that God only should be worshipped because it saies not thou shallte worship the Lord thy God only but though it had said soe yet it were to be vnderstood not to forbid the exhibiting of all kind of worship to any saue God but only such worship as is proper to God alone and which without Sacrilege and Idolatry cannot be giuen to any but to God Thus though Saint Paul say that God only hath immortality yet that must be vnderstood of a most diuine infinite and vncreated immortaliâ—y proper to God alone and not of all kinde of immortalities for then S. Paul would contradict him selfe when he saith that our mortall bodies shall put on imusortality Thus when our Sauiour said none is good saue one that is God it must only be vnderstood of an essentiall incomprehensible goodnes for otherwise that text would be contrarie to S. Luke saying and behould there was a man named Ioseph which was a counseller a good man and a iust and to that of the Acts which speaking of S. Barnabas saith that he was a good man and full of the holy Ghost Now as there are different kinds of Immortalities and goodnesses the one infinitely perfect diuine essentiall and vncreared the other imperfect humane accidentall and created soe that the scriptures ascribing the one to God only and the other to creatures are easily reconciled and playnly vnderstood without any shew of contrariety or contradiction amongst them selues or iniury to God soe are there in Scrtpture different kindes of worships the one acknowledging and exhibiting honour to an Infinite diuine vncreated immortality and goodesse in the Person which he worships and the other a creaded and finite Thus in the text cited Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God though the word worship considered in it selfe signifie properly both these kinds of worships yet as it lyes here it must be taken for the first kinde of highest and cheifest worship only but the very same word both in hebrew greeke latine and English in other places of Scripture must be taken for the Second kinde of lower and inferour worship acknowledging and intending only to expresse an imperfect limited and created goodnesse in the persoÌ„s or things worshpped Thus we read in Genesis The sones of thy father shall adore or worshipp thee Saith Iacob blessing his sonne Iuda And of the btetheren of Ioseph saluting theyr brother when his bretheren had worshipped him and nothing more ordinary in holy hcripture then worship giuen to persons in dignity and authority As therefore this Protestant position that God only is to be worshipped being vnderstood at it must here by the opponent that noe worship at h all is to be giuen to any saue God playnly contradicts those and the like places of Scripture Soe the Romaine Catholique position that some kinde of worship is to be exhibited to others then God is both euidently consonant to these texts and noe way dissagreeing from that of Mat. 4.10 and the like texts wich command vs to worship God nay though they should command vs to worship God only beecause such commands are all wayes to be vnderstood of that first and highest kinde of worship aboue mentioned neyther is there any possible meanes to reconcile different places of Scripture which seeme to ascribe to God only that which in other places is ascribed to creatures but by such distinctions of perfections or worships as I haue declared And this is soe cleare that it must be and is confessed by Protestans themselues who generally graunt that Religious worship is to be giuen to God only but ciuil worship to creatures wich distinction being once admitted the opponent will neuer be able to conuince any thing against the worship of Saincts and Angels out of Mat. 4.10 for if one will terme the worship giuen to Saincts and Angels a ciuil worship as I will presently demonstrate Protestants must doe if they make noe distinction betwixt religious worships then euen Saincts and Angles may be worshipped at the least with some kinde of ciuil worship euen according to Protestants notwithstanding thath text of Mat. 4.10 which according to them must be vnderstood to forbid only Religious worship to any saue God But because the common tenet of Catholique Doctours is that things created may be worshipped with some kinde of Religious worship I will make it euident out of Scripture that some Religious worship hath been and may be lawfully exhibited to creatures and soe not to God only Thus wee read in the bookes of kings that the captaine of 50 men worshipped Elias the Prophete and 50 men together the Prophete Elizeus and after the Sunamite receiuing her reuiued sone adored the same Prophete Thesame is of Moyses commanded to adore the grouÌ„d where on God stood and of Dauid commanding to worship the footstoole of God And least it should be thought that this manner of worshipping was only in vse in the ould testament wee haue an expresse president of it in the new for our Sauiour in the reuelation speakes to the Angell of philadelphia thus Behould I wil make them that is his enimyes come and worship before thy feet Now that it may appeare that these acts of worship were Religious and not meerely ciuill wee must know in generall that worship is nothing but an humiliation of our selues in acknowledgmeÌ„t of some goodnesse and excelleÌ„cie in that which wee worship Soe
our Religion and tending finally to the acknowledgment of God and our Sauiours honour as authour of our faith and Religion Soe that hauing these references to Gods honour though those Acts of Religious worship tend immediately to the acknowledgement of some created supernaiurall excellence in that which wee worshipp by them yet that hinders not theyr beeing Religious acts in this larger sence As appeares by these following texts of Scripture where Moyses is commaunded to prescribe certaine ceremoniall rites in Sacrifices Holocausts amongst which one was that the brest right Shoulder of that which was offered in sacrifice should be giuen to the Priests as belonging to them by right and ordinance of God The giuing of these two parts of the thing offered to the priest was an action done immediately to a pure creature and not to God and yet it is called Religion as appeares by the words These things God commaunded to be giuen to them that is to Aaron and his ofspring as it is in the precedent words from the children of Israell by a perpetuall Religion in theyr generations Secondly S. Iames. Pure and vndefiled Religion with God and the father is this to visite the orphanes and widowes in theyr tribulation and to keepe himselfe vnspotted in this life where a worke of mercy to the pore is called Religion that is a worke proceeding from Religion and belongrg to Religion though done to creatures such as are orphanes and wedows All that I haue cited out of Scripture in the discouery of this second mistake will I hope haue coÌ„uinced the iudicious and well minded Reader that there is a Supernaturall created excellency communicated liberally from Allm God to some creatures infinitely below the diuine excellency of God and yet far aboue all naturall and ciuill worth which therefore must deserue honour and worship seeing that naturall and ciuill excellencies euen according to protestants though far inferiour to them deserue it which worship seeing it is done in acknowledgment of the Spirituall and supernaturall dignities which are only proper to Gods true religion and soe are religious excellencies may be rightly termed a religious worship in the fore named sense For seeing the humble acknowledgmeÌ„t of diuine perfections is deseruedly termed diuine worship and of ciuill perfections rightly styled ciuill worship soe the humble acknowledgment of religious perfections for the like reason is to be named Religious worship which will yet seeme lesse strange to an indiffereÌ„t eye if one consider that the some different degrees may be found in Acts of other vertues which are here fouÌ„d in worships I haue allready proued from Scripture that there are different kinds and degrees of feares and loues whence it followes that when one feares the iustice and wrath of some ciuill Prince or magistrate it may be called ciuill feare but when one feares the iustice and authority of an Apostle a Prophet c. whose power is drawn from Religion it may be named a Religious seare Thus the feare of Adam hiding himselfe from God was a diuine feare The feare of Adonias flying from king Salomon was a ciuill feare but the feare of the Primâ—tiue Christians of S. Peeter when Ananias fel down dead at his feete was a Religious feare And the same distinction is in differeÌ„t ordres of loue S. Peeter loued our Sauiour as his God and Redcemer with diuine loue Ifack loued Esau with a ciuill loue but the Primitiue Christians loued S. Paul with a Religious loue And in the same manner as I haue allready Proued Moyses worshipped the infinit maiesty of God with a diuine worship the children of Iacob worshipped the power and excellency of Ioseph with a ciuill worship but rhe Sunamite worshipped Elizeus and the captaine of fifty men Elias whose authorities were deriued known and acknowledged only from faith and Religion with Religious worship And the giuing such a Religious worship as this which I haue described to a creature is soe far from derogating any thing from the due worship of God or from ascribing any worship proper to him to any creature that it would be an insufferable iniury to God And horrid Sacriledge to affirme that he is to be worshipped with any such worship for that were to acknowledge in him only a created finite imperfect excellencie which were to make him an Idoll a false God Neyther can his honour be any thing diminished by exhibiting this kinde of Religious worship to a creature indued with spitituall graces for his honour cannot be iniured but by giuing to a creature the wotship proper and due to him only seeing therefore this is no worship due to him neyther only nor at all it cannot be any way a preiudice to his honour For as ciuill and religious feare and loue commanded to be giuen to creatures is no way preiudicious to the diuine feare and loue which we-owe to God Soe neyther can ciuill nor religious worship commaunded to be exhibited to creatures as I haue proued be preiudicious to the highest diuine worship which we owe to God And thus much Allm God seemes to say by his Ptophet Isay. I am the Lord this is my name I will not giue my glory to any other nor my praise to Idols where he saith not I will not giue glory to any other for that would be contrary to the words of the Psalmist speaking of man in his first creation Thou hast crowned him with glory and honour but I will not giue my glory to an other that is that infinite glory which properly belongs to God only wich is specifyed in the precedent words I am the Lord this in my name soe that God wil neuer giue that which is his proper name and title to be Lord of all things to an other which is yet more expressely set down by the same Prophet And I will not giue my glory to an other heare o Iacob and Israell whom I call I I my selfe am the firrst and I am the last And my hand also layd tbe foundarions of the earth and my right hand measured the heauens c. This is that glory proper to him alone of being the eternall God creator of heauen and earth which he will not giue to an other which soe long as he keepes inuiolable to him selfe all vnder glories limited and created which are like soe many little motes compared with the infinite extent and light of his glory he both liberally giues himselfe and wills they should respectiuely be giuen to his creatures If not withstanding all these euidences both of Scripture and Reason any one should remayne soe strangely willfull and immouable by force of education and continuall custome from his infancie as to deny all kind of Religious worship in how large a sence soeuer it be taken to be lawfully exhibited to any saue God alone I say if any such should be found soe long as he yeelds to the thing it selfe that is to
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-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
twelue seates iudging the twelue tribes of Israell And S. Paul Know you not that the Saints shal iudge the world if the world shall be iudged by you are you vnworthie to iudge of small matters Know you not that vvee shall iudge the Angells how much more things of this life And S. Iohn brings in the 24. Elders saying thou hast made vs a kindome and Priestes and vve shall reigne vppon the earth whence most clearly appeares that the Saints in heauen haue those two highest dignities which are in esteeme amongst men of Iudges and Kings of the whole world which notwithstanding is aboue the power of all mortall men to confer vppon them and only in the power of God and therefore these iudiciary and Royall powers must be of a higher ranck and order then are any dignities meerely ciuill humane and naturall And the like dignities are ascribed in holy writ to the Angells for our Sauiour calls them holy Angells and soe they must haue true holinesse wihch is a gift of God aboue the force of nature They were the Promulgers of the ould lavv the Embassadours of God in matters of highest concernment the inflicters of Gods punischments Gen. 19.1 Reu. 15. trough out The captaines generalls of the armies of God Iosua 5.14 The Gouerners controulers of kingdomes Dan. 10.12.13.14 The. deuiders of the Reprobate from the elect in the day of Iudgment Mat. 13.49 And the Sendres of the wicked in to hell fier ibidem with many such like dignities and preheminences all great and high in them selues and aboue the reach both of all humane and Angelicall nature bestowed freely vppon them through the liberality of God And as this supernaturall excellency is found in Saints and Angells soe is it ascribed all soe to other things in Scripture to which God hath freely communicated certaine blessings and priuileges Thus we read in Iosua Loose the shoes from thy feete for the place where thou standest is holy And in Exodus Loose thy shoes from thy feete sor the place where thou standest is holy ground Thus the bread of the temple is called holy bread and sanctifyed bread The Temple is called holy yea soe holy that our sauiour saith that the temple Sanctisieth the gold which is in it and the Alter sanctifieth the gift which is offered vppon it Thus the most inward place of the temple had noe other name then Sanctam Sanctorum the holy of holies that is the most holy place of the whole world The holinesse of these and the like things where in soeuer it consisted issued not from any ciuill or humane power but was drawne from the power and authority of God as authour of the true Sauing religion of those times Thus I haue made it cleare out of Scripture that there is a worth a dignity a power an excellency which is meerely created and infinitely inferiour to the attributes and perfections of God and yet far excelling all ciuill and humane worth and aboue the reatch sphere and force of all ciuill power and authority The most cleare rule to the capacity of the vulgar to distinguish ciuill worths and excellencies from Spirituall and supernaturall is that those which are common to the true religion with all other kinds and professions of men are only ciuill and naturall such as are wit vnderstanding knowledge learning eloquence nobility valour Gouernment Magistracy c. But those which are proper to the true religion are Spirituall and Supernaturall as are the dignity of a Saint in heauen of an Angell a holy man yet liuing a Prophet an Appostle a Bishop a Priest a Godfather a God mother c. And because these and the likc excellencies are proper to religion they may in a large sence be termed religious excellencies or dignities· That this may be better vnderstood the Reader may take notice that the word Religion may eyther be taken in a strict sense for the vertue of Religion as it is distinguished from othet infused and supernaturall vertues whereby true worship and honour is giuen to God or in a more large and generall sence for the whole profession of those who esteeme them selues to haue the true sauing way of seruing God and attaining Saluation And this is the more obuious and vulgar vnderstanding of this word Religion thus we commonly say the Catholicque Religion c. that is theyr whole beleefe and profession In the first strict and and rigid sense Religion is taken amongst the Schoole doctours when they dispute of the nature of infused vertues and in the like sense it is often taken in the bookes of Moyses Exod. 12.26.43 Exod. 29.9 Leuit. 26.31 n. 19.2 where it is restrayned eyther to sacrifice or or some other worshrp of God In the Second more large acception it is found both in the old and new testament Hester 8.17 Soe that many of an other nation and sect ioyned them selues to theyr Religion and ceremonies Hester 9.27 Vppon all those who would vnite them selues to theyr Religion Acts 26.3 Saint Paul saith that before his conuersion Hee liued a Pharesie according to the most certaine sect of his Religion Iames e. 2. If any one seeme to be religious and bridleth not his tongue this mans religion is vaine In which texts it is manifest that Religion is taken for the whole beleefe and Profession both of Iewes and Christians Hence it followes that as the word Religion soe the word Religious deriued from it may be taken in the two fore said differēte senses yet I find it vsually in Scripture in the secōd larger acception where a Religious Persone signifies nothing but a person truly deuout vertuous and fairhfull Thus Acts 2.5 But there vvere dvvelling in Ierusalem Ievves Religious men of all nations vvhieh are vnder heauen And Acts 10.2 where it is said of Cornelius that he vvas Religious and fearing God vvith his vvhole houshould giuing many almes to the common people and all vvayes praying God And Acts 13.50 The Iewes stirred vp certaine Religious and honest woemen and the chiefe of the citty c. And Iames the 1.26 If any man seeme to himselfe to be Religious not bridling his tongue this mans Religion is vaine where Religious is taken for pious vertuous c. For ells the ill gouernment of the tongue would not hinder a true exercise of the vertue of religion strictly vnderstood as it differs from other theologicall and morall vertues as it hinders not the true exercise of faith and hope as they are particular vertues This large acception therefore of these words Religion and Religious being soe clearely deliuered in Scripture It will be sufficient for defence of the Catholique Romaine faith in this point to affirme that when our Doctours say that any thing created may be or is worshipped with Religious worship that it is Religious in this large acception found soe familiarly in Scripture that is vertuous pious christian a worship belonging to our Religion proper to
seruice In the like manner I find it Acts 7.7 Rom. 1.9 and Reuel 22. taken for the seruice of the true God and for the seruice of Idoles or false Gods Acts 7. v. 41. 1. Cor. 5.1 and Rom. 22.15 in the old Testamēt very often From this ground proceeds the ordinary distinction of Religious worship into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latria and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doulia for seeing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latreuo signifyes noe other Religious Seruice saue that which is due to God through the whole Scripture and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 douleuo signifyes in hundreds of places as well that which is due to God as to creatures hence the seruice done to finit Persons belonging to Religion may rightly be termed doulia and that which is exhibited to God alone Latria and hence it proceeds alsoe that the seruice of false Gods or Idoles is neuer called eyther in Scripture nor in approued Ecclesiasticall Authours noe nor by Protestants themselues Idolodoulia but Idololatria Idolatrie because it giues to them diuine seruice due to God only being deriued from Larria which signifies noe other Religious seruice saue diuine Seeing therefore noe Romaine Catholique teaches that diuine seruice due to God only is to be giuen to any creature but the quite contrary they hould nothing against this text of S. Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is with the seruice of Latria or highest degree of Seruice which as I haue demonstrated by Scripture is due to God only Thus haue I discouered three plaine mistakes in these few words of Mat. 4.10 to proue that God only is to be worshipped where in I haue beene forced to be more large then I wished because vppon what I haue here deliuered depends the clearing of the insuing controuersies in this matter of worship The second Protestant Position Forbidden the worship of Angells This is proued by Scripture mistaken I Iohn saw all these thinges and heard them and when I had heard and seene I fell downe to worship before the feete of the Angell wich shewed me these things then said he vnto me see thou doe it not for I am thy fellow seruant worship God The first mistake This text is made contrary to other playne texts of Scripturc allowing the worshp of Angells ANd two Angells came into Sodome at ninght Lot sitting at the gates of the citty who when he had seene them rose and went to meete them and he adored prostrate vppon the groūd c. which worship the Angells accepted noe way reprehending Lot or forbidding him as appeares in the text And when Iosua was in the feeld of Hierico he lift vp his eyes and saw a man standing against him houlding a naked sword and he went vnto him and sayd art thou ours or our aduersaryes who answeared no but I am a prince of the army of our Lord and and now I come Iosua fell groueling vppon the ground and adoring sayd wy doth my Lord speake vnto his seruant c. where it appeares that this Angel was a creature and not God for he is called a prince That is one of the Princes of Gods army The second mistake THis text of S. Iohn proues noe more that all worship of Angells is forbidden then an other of S. Luke that the worship of Saints yet liuing is forbidden As Peeter was coming in Cornelius met him and fell downe at is feet and worshipped him But Peeter tooke him vp saying stand vp I my selfe alsoe am a man And yet it is cleare out of Scripture that holy men yet liuing are to be worshipped and haue accepted of the worship of others Againe he sent a third captaine of fifty men and fifty men with him who when he was come bowed his knees tovvard Elias and prayed him and said man of God despise not my life and the liues of thy seruants that are vvith me c. She that is the Sunamite fell at his feete and adored vppon the groond where we see that the Prophete Eliseus was worshipped and he refused it not And it is the common practice of Protestants in Engeland to kneele downe and aske blessing of theyr Godfathers and Godmothers desiring them to pray for them to God which is a true worship and yet it is noe ciuill worship because the reason why they doe it belonges not to any dignity in the common wealth but to Religion and therefore it must be a worship appertaining to Religion as was the worship of Elias and Eliseus now cited which is the wery same with that worship which by Romain Catholickes is giuen to Saints and Angells as creatures belonging to faith and Religion The third mistake ONe may proue as well that it is vnlawful to weepe as ro wurship Angells beecause an Angell forbad S. Iohn to weepe And I wept much because noe man was found-worthy to open and to read the booke neyther to looke therein And one of the Elders said vnto me weepe not And yet certainly it is lawfull to weepe for if it weare not neyther our Sauiour would haue wept ouer Hierusalem nor commaunded the woemen of Hierusalem to weepe ouer themselues c. The text of S. Iohn Reuel 22. v. 8. v. 8. ad 9. reconciled with the other texts of Scripture IF any one would proue out of the 10. of the Acts v. 25. and 26. now cited that noe Apostle or saint yet liuing were to be worshipped because S. Peeter refused the worship which Cornelius exhibited to him I demaund what would a Protestant answer to such an obiection Eyther he must say that S. Peeter refused this worshep though he might laufully haue accepted it as beeing due no lesse then the like worship was accepted by Elias and Eliseus that S. Peeter I say notwithstanding Refused it out of humility and respect which he bare to Cornelius and this supposed Protestants must giue vs leaue to apply with the greatest part of the ancient Fathers and Doctours the same answer to S. Iohn's worshipping the Angell and his refusing it for some worship was noe lesse due to this Angell then it was to the two Angells which Lot worshipped Gen. 19. v. 1. and the Angell which Iosua worshipped Iosua 5. v. 14. now cited and yet this Angell refused it out of humility and respect which he bore to S. Iohn as S. Peeter did Acts 10. v. 25. and 26. or if this answer seeme not soe conuenient to this plare of the Acts a Protestāt must answer that Cornelius here gaue him the worship which was due to God only that is the highest diuine worship which he therefore refused ' as iniurious to God noe otherwise then ' S. Paul and Barnabas with all earnestnesse possible refused the saerifice which the heathen Priest of Lystra would haue offered to them as to two Gods Iupiter and Mercurius whom they tooke them to be
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
same iustification which is mentioned by S. Paul to the Romanes which they mainly contend to be a true iustification in the sight of God or if they will haue it here a iustification only before men they must acknowledge that the same mentioned to the Romanes is no other then before men and so by endeauoring by such shifts to weaken the force of this text against themselues they take away all force from that of Rom. 4. to conclude any thing against vs. Besides this iustification of Abraham here mentioned by S. Iames can be no other then that which is true and interuall before God for as it followes in the text he was called a friend of God and that truly for he was indeede as he was called a friend of God and hence it follows ineuitably that the iustification which S. Iames deduces from that of Abraham by works and not by faith only as appeares by the word then wee see then c. is a true intrinsecall iustification in the sight of God for no other saue that could be rightly inferred from the former And indeed though we had none of the foresayd euidences to conuince the true meaning of S. Iames yet what man of iudgment can imagine that this holy Apostle would labour so much to proue that Christians are iustifyed by their good works before men when that is a matter too cleare and known to need proofe and too light and friuolous to deserue it or what considerate man can thinke that this Blessed Apostle or the holy Ghost by whose inspiration he writ this would so earnestly exhort Christians to abound in good works to the end that they may be iustifyed before men seeing corrupt human nature is too too prone to doe good workes for such by endes as these and hath more need of a bridle then a spurre in this particular and rather to be deterred from it then put vppon it as our Sauiour did the Stribes and Pharisees who did their works to be seene and consequently to be praysed and iustifyed before men This text therefore hauing been demonstrated to be meant of iustification before Allmighty God by works and not by faith only seeing S. Paul inspired by the same holy Spirit in what is cited out of him in the insuing text cannot possibly contradict S. Iames here as he must needs be thought to haue done if he sayd as Protestants would haue it that we are iustifyed in the sight of God by faith only and not by good works working with faith and perfecting it informing and vinificating it as S. Iames describes them here we will now see in what sense S. Paul's words are to be vnderstood and reconcile them with this text of S. Iames. The Protestant Position Iustification by faith only This is proued by Scripture mistaken Therefore wee conclude that a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law Being iustifyed by faith we haue peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ. For therein is the righteousnesse of God reuealed from faith to faith as it is written the iust shall liue by faith Knowing this that a man is not iustifyed by the works of the law but by the faith of Christ Iesus that we might be iustifyed by Iesus Christ and not by the works of the law for by the works of the law shall no liuing flesh be iustifeyd The first mistake The word only is not found in any of these texts In all these texts is not once the words faith only to be found which is put in this Protestant Position was to be proued by them Neither iâ— iâ— consequent a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law therefore a man is iustifyed by faith only no more then this follows a man is nourished by bread without the grasse of the field therefore a man is nourished by bread only for though the grasse of the feeld do not nourish vs yet many other things besides bread de nourish vs. in like manner though the woreks done by force of the grace of God and not by force of the law do iustify vs and so we are not iustifyed by saith only nor at all by the works of the law but by faith and good works done by the grace of Iesus Christ and not by the kâ—owledge of rhe law The Second mistake The workes of the law misunderstood That S. Paul here vnderstands only by works of the law such works as are done by force and knowledge of the law before the faith of Christ infused into a soul or that it is inlightned and assisted by his grace and by this law is vnderstood the law written in the books of Moyses both morall in the ten Commandements and ceremoniall as circumcision and other rites and ceremonyes of the Iewes That by works of the law I say are vnderstood by S. Paul only such works as are done by force of knowledge of the law befotc the inlightning of the faith and grace of Christ is euident out of this chapter Rom. 3. v. 14. Now we know that what things soeuer the law sayth it sayth to thcm that are vnder the law that euery mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God Here he speakes of the law speaking or teaching what is to be done according to it and then adds presently as a conclusion from that knowledge got by the law v. 10. therefore by tbe deeds of the law no flesh shall be iustifyed in his sight for by the law is the knowledge of sin The reason why the deeds of the law iustify not is because they come from the knowledge of the law by the law is the knowledge of sin wherunto he opposes the tighteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ vnto all in the first texts following verses 21. but now the righteousnetre of God without the law is manifested being witnessed by the law and Prophets v. 22. euen the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all and vppon all them that beleeue for there is no difference This is the known doctrine of all Roman Catholikes against the Pelagians that no worke can iustify which comes only by doctrine and light of the written law but all iustifying works must come from the faith and grace of Christ so that we all confesse and conclude with S. Paul that a man is iustifyed by faith vvithout the vvorkes of the lavv that is wirhout such works as are meerly of and from the law as are opposed here by S. Paul to the grace and faith of Christ. Secondly by the law in this place is vnderstood both the motall law written by Moyses in the ten Commandements and the ceremoniall conteyned in the bookes of Leuiticus Deuteronomij c. for the morall law Protestants themselues doubt not that the Apostle speakes of it and that the ceremonial is here meant is euident in the two next following Verses
speaking of Iewes and Circumcision v. 24. Is he God of the Iewes only and not also of rhe Gentils yea of the Gentils also v. 30. Seeing it is one God vvhich shall iustify circumcision by faith and vncircumcision through fayth and â— 1. VVhat aduantage then hath the Ievv or vvhat profit is there of circumcision and the seauen last verses of the second chapter make it yet clearer seeing that the Apostle's intent is there to proue that iustification did not only belong to the Iewes but to the Gentils also and therefore the Iewes were not to thinke that iustification came by the obseruance of their ceremoniall law which Moyses had giuen them and whereby they were chiefly distinguished from the Gentiles who had knowledge of the morall law and esteemed themselues obliged to obserue it Which is the present doctrine of RomanÌ„e Catholikes The Third mistake The vvord Iustifie missapplied Thirdly by Iustification here is vnderstood only the fitst IustificatioÌ„ from sinne to iustice wherby a beleeuer is made of a child of the deuil the child of God this is cleare v. 23. For all haue sinned and come short of the glory of God v. 23. being iustifyed freely by his grace through the redemption vvhich is in Iesu Christ. v. 25. VVhom God hath set forth to be a propitiation trough faith in his bloud to declare his righteousnesse for the remission of sinnes that are past through the forbearante of God And in this all agree that the first iustification of a sinner is a worke of the mercy and grace of God through the merirs of our dearest Sauiour and cannot be condignly merited by any works precedent But the Apostle makes here no mention at all of the second iustification or increase of that iustice and grace which is giuen vs in the first iustification and wherof S. Ihon speakes Reu. 22. v. 11. Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc he that is righteous let him be righteous still saith your English text which signifyes only a perseuerance in that righteousnesse or iustice which was first receiued when it should be he that is righteous let him be made righteous still as the latin hath it iustificetur adhuc and all the other phrases adioyned shew not only a perseuerance butsalso an increase of that wickednesse or holynesse wherin they were before or let him vvorke righteousnesse or iustice still as the greeke hath it wich comes all to the same purpose Now the question betweene vs and Protestants is only of the second iustification or increace of iustice acquired in the first which we only affirme to be augmented by good works done in and through the grace of Iesus Christ. The fourth mistake The vvord faith misconstuâ—ed Fourthly by faith is not to be vnderstood a bare sole act of Christian faith and much lesse of particular confidence and application of Christ merits to our selues whereof the Apostle speakes not one word in this place where on Pâ—otestants rely soe much but a faith viuificated informed and animated with charity and other Christian vertus ioyned with it This is cleate chap. 4. v. 1.2.3 where the faith of Abraham is brought in by the Apostle in proofe of what he had sayd Now who can deny but this faith was viuificated with charity seeing S. Iames c. 2. v. 22. novv cited affirmcs that his faith vvrought vvith his works and by works his faith was made perfect And Galat. 5. v. 6. where the Apostle treates of the same iustification by faith maketh this matter out of question for in Iesus Christ neither circumcision auayleth any thing nor incircumcision but faith which worketh by loue or charity This truth is imbraced by all Romane Catholikes though it be not as they hold our formall iustification nor a condigne merit of our first iustification but only a congruous and yet sure disposition to it through the mercifull and faithfull promise of God and through the only merits of our Sauiour By all these particulars duly pondered appeares that this text of the Apostle Rom. 3. v. 28. therefore we conclude that a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law sayes nothing but what is taught by Romane Catholikes vniuersally But if Protestants would conclude any thing against vs they must produce a text which sayes good workes of such as are iustifyed already done by vertue of the grace of Christ and not by the bare knovvledge of the lavv do not iustify and this only is in question betwixt vs that is augment and inâ—crease that righteousnesse or iustice already acquired and make vs more iust The former answer is likewise to be applyed to the other texts Rom. 5. v. 1. Rom. 1. v. 17. Galat. 2. v. 17. for the Apostles meaning is the same in them all Yet because I intend to giue full satisfaction to each text obiected against vs I will adde a word or two to these seuerall texts The second text Rom. 5. v. 1. Being iustified by faith vve haue peace vvith God through out Lord Iesus Christ. This text is mistaken Here S. Paul speakes of the fitst iustification wherby a sinner is made a seruant and friend of God agreably to Romane Catholiks now deliuered as appeares v. 8. But God commendeth his loue to vs in that vvhile vve vvere yet sinners Christ dyed for vs and v. 10. for if vvhile vve vvere enemyes vve vvere reconciled to God by the death of Christ much more being reconciled vve shall be saued by his life and the whole sequell of the chapter shewes euidently that his maine discourse is of the first iustification and attonement of sinners and enemyes to God through the death of Christ yea euen the text it selfe v. 1. here obiected declares it selfe sufficiently to be meant of the first iustification Therefote being iustifyed by faith vve haue peace vvith God through our Lord Iesus Christ sayth the text for this hauing peace vvith God by iustification argues that before that iustification we had not peace but â—mnity with God and so were in state of sinne and damnation which is only true of the first iustification for before the second iustification or increace of iustice we haue that peace with God and so receiue not peace by reason of it And though there were no other answer saue this that of whatsoeuer iustification this text speakes Rom. 5. v. 1. yet iustification by faith only for proofe of which it is alleadged will neuer be proued from it for it sayth being iustifyed by feith but no newes here of faith only The third text Rom. 1. v. 17. For therin is the righteousnesse of God reuealed from faith to faith as it is vvritten the iust liueth by faith This text is mistaken These words prooue nothing at all for iustification by faith only no more then this proposition the iust man liues by breath proues that the iust man liues by breath only for as his liuing corporally by breath hinders not his liuing by meat and drinke so his
good workes 162.163.164 concerning good workes 52.53 Concerning Purgatory 179.180 Of the reall Presence 189.190 c. Concerning communion vnder one kinde 317.318 to 322. The second Council of Nice concerning Images 83. Communion in one kinde supposes the reall Presence 323. How the cup is the fruit of the vine 257.258 c. D. â—he DIuinity of God neuer pictured by Romane Catholiques 72.73 Doe this c. Signified nothing to be done in time of the Institution Doe this c. cannot be extended to lay men 347. to 350. Doulia is indifferently taken in Scripture for the worship of God and of creature 33.34.35 Drinke yee all signifies not all Christians 34. to 346. F. FAith only Iustifieth not prouued by Scripture 143.144 c. Faith ioynd with other vertues the disposition to the first iustification 138.139 153. The flesh Io. 6. cannot signifie the flesh of Christ. 303. G. Some GLory may be giuen to creatures but not that which is proper to God 26.27 I. IF all worship of Image weere forbidden one place of Scripture would be coÌ„trary to annother 110.111 Image put for Idol 105. a grauen Image signifies a false God in the Protestant Bibles 119. The name of Iesus is as much worshipped by Protestants as the picture of Iesus by Catholiques 28. VVhat an Idol properly is 8.81 VVhat in Image properly is 80.81 The difference betwixt an Image and an Idol 82.83 How Images are to be worshipped 124.125 Grauen Image scarce euer put in Protestant Bibles but in place of words which signifie Idoles or false Gods Image-worship for Idolatry 105.106 Image added to Scripture 95.96 98.101 c. The worship done to the Image redounds to the persone represented proued by Scripture 132.133 Iustification not acquired but increased by good workes 152. VVhat relation Images haue to God the Fader and the holy Gost. 75.76.77 K. In one KInde is a true Sacrament conferring grace 326. to 3 n0 How these words onlesse yee eate c. Io. 6. declare the necessity of receiuing both kindes 351. to 355. L. LAy people are depriued of noe grace necessary to saluation by wanting one kinde 328.329 334. How one kinde is a compleate refection 332.333 How the actuall sacrament all graces of both kindes are giueÌ„ by each apart 335. 340. Noe lay man is bound some limes in his life to receiue vnder the forme of wine eyther ioynly with the other kinde or separately 397.398 How the Lamb is called the Passouer 289. to 293. Latria is allwayes vsed in Scripture when it is brought for religious worship for the worship dew to God only 32.33.34 How eternall life is a gift of God 171.172 Luther thought the words of consecration most cleare 313. M. MEdiatour and Aduocate of 2. sortes 60.91.62.63 Merit of good workes takes not a way humility 175. P. The Hebrew word Phesel Exod. 20. falssly translaeed Image 84.85 Phesel translated Idol in some Protestant Bibles Isay 44. 85. Protestants pray as much to sinners on earth as Catholiques to Saincts in heauen 58.59 Protestants worship bread and wine as much as Romane Catholiques worship Images 129.130 Protestants themselues esteeme it not necessary to saluation to communicate vnder both kindes Diuisions amongst Protestants and not amongst Catholiques in matter of the vnderstâ—ding Christ words 243.244 Protestants beare little or noe reuerence to the bloud of Christ in this Sacrament 367. Protestants frame a most meane opinion of the Body and the blood of Christ. 365.366 Noe Scripture against Purgatory 182.183 c. Proofes out of Scripture for Purgatory 187. Six mistranstations in Ex. 20.4 in the Protestant Bibles 91.92.93.94 R. REligion and Religious taken in 2. senses in Scriptuâ—re 21.22.23.24.25 That which our Sauiour gaue his Apostles in his last supper could be noe remembrance of his Body 222.223 c. How any thing may be a remembrance of it selfe 227.228.229 How the Rock is called Christ. 295. to 296. S. SAcraments according to theyr essentiall parts are to be receiued as they were instituted whensoeuer they are receiued 325. The bare institution of a Sacrament induces to necessity no receiue it 3. Saincts and Angels prayree to God for vs are herad only trough the merits of Christ. 58. 62. The worship of liuingâ—Saints as much forbiddeÌ„ in Scripture as of Angels 35.36 VVhensoeuer by praires we come to the Saints we come mediately but truly to Christ. 56.57 Iintreating the Saints to pray for vs is not a necessary meanes but a profitable helpe to saluation 1.2.3 65. Saints indowed with supernaturall graces 16.17.18 Saturday commanded to be Kept holy Ex. 20.116.117 The vvords of Scripture are allways to be vnderstood properly vvhen noe other article of faith compells vs to the contrary 315.416 The Scriptures allowes of praying to Saints departed and Angels 66.67.68 Noe text in Scripture saies expressly that vve are iustified hy faith only 149. c. Scripture mistranflated 78.79.80.81 88.89 and from 95. to 127.128 Scripture eyther mistranflated or misinterpreted or missapplied or misused or augmented or altered or reiected and generally mistaken one vvay or other by Protestants per totum The seauenth day not Sunday but Saturday and the Iewish Sabbath 116. All Seruice is not dew to God only 29.30 T. VVhat is meant by new Testament 235.236 c. Testament in my blood is not to fay signe of my blood 239. Threskia signifies not vvorshipping but Religion 45.46.47 Perpetuall tradition teaches that some allwayes receiued vnder one kinde 370. Objections drawn from naturall reason against Transubstantiation breefly answeared 306.312 The torment of dearh or of triall of malefactors touches not souls of the iust 158. W. WHat the word this signifies in these vvords this is my Body 107.108 c. VVords haue two significations ancient and now in vse 30. ciuil and Ecclesiasticall 31.32 VVords of Scripture are not to be extended beyond theyr ordinary signification vvithout necessity 361. to 364. VVhen vvords spoaken to the Apostles are to be extended to others and how farre 334.344 The vvords of consecration vvholy true according to Catholiques 245.246 The vvord est is cannot be signifies 301. VVhich are workes of the law 149.150 c. and 156.157.158 c. All Good workes and vvords are the gifts of God 164. God workes vvhich are fruits faith are pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ according to English Protestants 167. The difference betwixt vvorship serue 123. To vvorship God is not to vvorship him only 6.7.8.9 vvorship of 3. kindes 9.10.11 Religious worship strictly taken dew to God only 11.12 Taken in a large sense may be giuen to creatures vvhich are indewed vvith supernaturall graces 12.13.14 n 15.16.17 c. Creatures commanded to be vvorshipped 108.106 S. Iohn is as much forbidde to vveepe by an Angel as to vvorship 36.37 The vvorship vvhich the Romane Church giues to Saints and Angels cannot be giuen to God vvithout blasphemy and sacrilege 25.26 Creatures may be vvorshipped vvith the vvorship of Doulia 19.20 The vvorship of