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
as will presently appeare Hauing therefore as I hope cleared this point of the reall presence in the iust balance of an open and impartiall eye it will not be very difficult to euen an other as a sequell from this concerning communion vnder one kind which though it be not thought vppon in these objections yet this fit occasion the great difficulties which our aduersaries raise against it the earnest desire which many not otherwise ill disposed haue to be satisfied in it and the request of others who haue seene some part of this treatis haue put me vppon necessitie to say something but very succinctly of this matter holding my selfe close to Scripture according to my former methode This point therefore supposes the reall presence and is rather to be treated against Lutherans or such other Protestants as are conuinced of that mysterie then against Caluinists or Suinglians who disbeleeue it for were not our Sauiours body and blood really present there as the practise of receauing one only kind had neuer been allowed so could it not haue been defended This therefore supposed I will indeauour to defend communion vnder one kind and answer whatsoeuer is pressed by our aduersaries against it out of Scripture mistaken Objection First they vrge the institution of this Sacrament as hauing been vnder the formes both of bread and wine which institution is to be followed by all Christians and so both to be receaued Answer The bare institution of a Sacrament drawes with it noe necessitie of frequenting it as appeares in Priesthood and mariage instituted by our Sauiour which not withstanding impose noe necessitie or command to receaue them so that standing precisely in the institution noe man wil be obliged to receaue either both or either of rhem Objection Secondly though the bare institution of a Sacrament impose noe command to receaue it yet it imports a precept that when it is receaued or administted it be done in that manner it was instituted as it appeares in baptisme Priesthood and other Sacraments Seeing therefore our Sauiour instituted this Sacrament both in the consecration and communion in both kinds at least whensoeuer it is receaued it must be receaued vnder both Answer This objection inuolues many difficulties and is first to he vndeestood that Sacraments are to be receaued and administred as they were first instituted in such matters as belong to the substance and essence of the Sacrament not in other accidentary circumstances of time place personnes precedences consequences c. as was the institution of this Sacrament after supper sitting vppon the ground giuen to priests only in a priuate secular house c. Secondly there is something particular in this Sacrament which is in noe other euen concerning the substance of it for the very same entire substance being here put vnder each kind makes that woesoeuer receaues either of them receaues the whole substance of this Sacrament and consequently receaues a true Sacrament instituted by our Sauiour and so that which is able to sanctifie him who worthily receaues either of them Thirdly concerning the substance of this Sacrament all that can be gathered from the bare words of the institution is that it is to be consecrated and receiued by Priests such as were the Apostles who were Priests then made when it was first instituted vnder both kinds but here is noe president giuen about the lay people because none then receaued it That the whole substance of our Sauiour is here receaued I suppose for the present neither is it much questioned by such as grant the reall presence nor can be possibly doubted of by any who beleeues that our Saoiour dies not more and soe both flesh and blood and life and soule and diuinitie are all vnited togeather weresoeuer he is hence therefore followes that lay people receiue as much of our Sauiour seeing they receaue him wholy and interily as Priests doe That he who receaues our Sauiour thus vnder one only kind receaues a true Sacrament is as cleare as the former for who can without absurditie denye that vnder one kind is exhibited an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace which is the compleat definition of a Sacrament according to our aduersaries for here the formes of bread only containing vnder them our Sauiour by way of meat signifie that he confers a spirituall grace nourishing and feeding our soules to eternall life and thus much is signified by the English ministers when they distribute the bread to the people saying the Body of our Lord Iesus Christ preserue thy body and soul to eternall life c. and containing his body represented as separated from his blood and so as dead by force of the words of consecration are an outward visible commemoratiue signe of his sacred death and passion and seeing that both bread is composed of many graines and wine of many grapes vnited togeather the mystical vnity of Christians receauing this Sacrament is sufficiently signified hy the species of either of them if then here he an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace both exhibitiue commemoratiue and significatiue here must needs be a true Sacrament euen according to the pttnciples of our aduersaries and what I haue said of the forme of bread is by the same reason verified of the forme of wine but not only in their principlcs but in all good Theologie there must be a true Sacrament vnder each kind for certainly seeing that a different grace is conferred by each of them the one of spirituall meate the other of spirituall drinke which how it is to be vnderstood I will hereafter examine each will be sufficient to sanctifie and helpe the soul to eternall life If it should be replyed that in neither of these kinds alone is exhihited a compleate signe either of our spirituall refection or the death of our Sauiour but only a partiall or imparfect signe of them which notwithstanding are compleatly significd vnder both togeather I answer that if by a compleat signe be vnderstood a most full and expresse representation of these two particulars I grant that there is not vnder one only kind so full and expresse a representation and in this sense not so compleat a signe of them as vnder both togeather but then it must be prouued this most full and expresse representation vnder both being exhibited to lay Christians by the consecration and communion of the Priest in the dread full sacrifice of the masse that the substance of this sacrifice requirs that they should be allways so fully and expressely represented in each particular communion of the people but if by a compleat signe be vnderstood a signe sufficient to signifie both our spirituall food and vnion and the death of our Sauiour I denie that there is not a compleat signe of both exhibited vnder each kind This distinction may be much illustrated by an instance from baptisme certainly the mystery of the trinity was more expressely fully and compleatly signified by that
bloud of the Lord which giues enough to vnderstand what kind of bread and cup he meant here for they cannot be properly sayd to be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ who receiue vnworthily an externall signe or remembranee of it though otherwise they may highly offend him as a subiect cannot be rightly said to be guilty of the body and bloud of his King who receiues not his seale or signet with that reuerence which becomes a subiect te shew to his Prince but in the opinion of Catholikes it is litterally and propetly true being a most high affront and iniury done to the very body and bloud of Christ there present and yet this is more clearly insinuated in the 29 verse for he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himselfe not discerning the Lord's body where the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a determinate iudging one thing from another which is cleare in Catholique doctrine but not easy to be vnderstood in the Protestant for how can one be sayd properly to discerne that which he acknowledges not to be present in that thing which he receiues Vnworthily and though happily in some improper and far fetcht sense this might be sayd yet according to the true rule of interpreting holy Scripture we must vnderstand the wordes of it in a proper sense when nothing compells to the contrary as the Opponent acknowledges Obiection And which is more attributing to this bread things which cannot agree to the Body of Christ to wit to be broken Answer I haue before answered to this and shewed that the word broken is familiarly taken for giuen by way of diuision or distribution amongst many which is vsed by other Euangelists so that giuen and hroken here may signisy the same thing But if by broken be vnderstood a breaking in peeces of that which was whol before who can deny that such a breaking agrees with the Body of our Sauiour absolutely speaking was not his sacred flesh all torne and broken with the nayles thornes and scourges as the Prophet foretolde ipse attritus est propter scelera a nostra he was broken for our wickednesses and though naturall bread be properly sayd to be broken yet it cannot be affirmed by any Christian to be broken for vs as the Apostle here sayd it was that is for our saluation as onother Euangelist affirmes of the chalice And therefote Christians must beleeue and confesse quite contrary to the Opponent here that S. Paul is attributing here to this bread that which cannot agtee with naturall bread but only with the true Body of Christ to wit to be broken for vs as that only was mystically in this Sacrament by may of an vnbloudy sacrice and visibly vppon the Crosse. Obiection And Christ himselfe called the cup. after consecration the fruit of the vine both in S. Matthew and S. Marke Answer But in S. Luke he calls the cup as much the fruit of the vine before consecration Therefore if you vrge S. Matthew and S. Mark 's authotity for the one giue vs leaue to vrge S. Luke's authority for the other and know that you haue concluded nothing vnlesse you proue that we are rather to stand to the narration of S. Matthew and S. Marke then of S. Luke which here you haue not done Certaine it is that there can be no contradiction nor opposition amongst the Euangelists therefore seeing S. Luke relates these words I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine c. before the institution of the Sacrament and the two former Euāgelists after and yet none of them expressly affirme that our Sauiour sayd these words after or before the Sactament was instituted though one put them before and the other after we must gather by the context and other circumstances whether indeed they were spoken by our Sauiour before or after the consecration of the chalice That this may be vnderstood Nothing is more otdinary with the Euangelists as all Interpreters note then to set things down by transposition or anticipation somtymes putting things iust in that order they happened somtymes transposing them into a former or latter place This supposed it is more probable that S. Marke sets down those words out of their proper place then S. Luke for we haue a cleare testimony that S. Marke in this very institution of the chalice puts those words by way of anticipation and they drunke all of it out of their ptoper place the chalice hauing not then been consecrated nor any of the Apostles hauing then tasted of it therefore it is more likely of the two that S. Marke vses here a trāsposition then S. Luke who reckons all othet things in their proper places and orders as they happened and if there be a transposition admitted in S. Marke it must be also one in S. Matthew But though it were that our Sauiour sayd these words after consecration and that by this fruit of the vine he meant reall and materiall wine which I will presently discusse yet the argument proues nothing at all against vs. for our Sauiour hauing drunke in his last supper true and reall wine with his disciples before the institution of this holy Sacrament may very easily be vnderstood to haue referred words to that first dtinking in tyme of his last supper and so in relation to that say I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine c. as if some person hauing first drunke wine after some other drinke at a banquet may vsually say I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine till I drinke it in my own house referring those wordes only to that which he dranke first neyther can I see how Protestants according to theyr principle of beleeuing nothing but what is in Scripture can deny this explication for seeing our Sauiour sais expresly here I will drinke noe more of the fruit of the vine c. and that we haue noe place of Scripture which eyther affirmes or insinuates that our Sauiour then drank of the consecrated chalice he must necessarily referre his drinking the fruit of the vine to some other wine which he had drunk before the conscration Vnderstanding the two first Euangelists in this manner we clearly reconcile them with S. Luke for he must probably be vnderstood of that which our Sauiour dranke before the Sacrament was instituted as according to this interpretation the others also must vnderstand it but it will be much harder to reconcile them if those words be referred to the consecrated chalice for that hauing not been yet instituted according to S. Luke's setting down our Sauiour's words they cannot possibly be referred to them for our Sauiour according to the Protestant opinion would presently haue drunke wine in the Sacrament and so must haue falsifyed his own words as soone as he had spoken them promising then not to drinke any wine till his father's kingdome were come and yet presently after drinking it
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
question of for though the coming by prayer to them be not commanded here yet that hinders not but eyther in some other place of Scripture or by other lawfull authority commended in Scripture it may be either commanded or allowed as if one should argue against Protestants euen out of this place in this manner our Sauiour sayes Matth 11. v. 28. Come vnto mee all yee that labour c. Hee sayes not here addresse your prayers expresly and by name to God the Father or the oly Ghost by saying our Father which art in heauen c. or come holy Ghost eternall God c. but come vnto mee therefore it is vnlawfull to vtter such perticular prayers to God the Father or the holy Ghost expressing them by name but all must be made to our Sauiour only who sees not how false and senslesse this reasoning is for though our expresse coming to God the Father and the holy Ghost be not commanded here yet neyther is it forbidden and is commanded in other places and practized by the whole church of God yea and by the Protestants themselues Others vrge the Same text in this manner Come vnto me sayth our Sauiour Therefore to mee alone and to no other and so neyther to Saint nor Angell which hath as much force as this Come vnto mee sayth our Sauiour therefore goe not by name to any other diuine person but to me and so neyther to God the Father nor to God the holy Ghost expressly who are two distinct Persons from him or as forcible as this come vnto me all yee that are pore and needy and I will releeue you saith some rich charitable person to the pore of the citty where he dwells therefore he commands them to come to no other but to him and forbids them the asking almes of any â—aue himselfe Or very like to this Come vnto me c. sayth our Sauiour therefore to no other but to him and so forbids children to pray to their Parents or to beseech other Christians yet liuing to pray for them c. which notwithstanding Protestants dayly practise for if our Sauiours meaning be to exclude all saue himselfe when he said come vnto me c. then the liuing must be excluded noe lesse then the Saints and Angels of heauen and if the Saints yet liuing be not excluded then our Sauiour did not intend by those words to exclude all and if not all then it can neuer be prouued from this text alone that the coming as wee doe to Saints and Angels is forbidden in this text I answere therefore that though our Sauiour in these words command all sinners to come vnto him yet he commands them not to come vnto him only and so forbids not the comming vnto others and this answer will I hope satisfy any considerate person standing precisely in the force of the wotds and in what by true discourse may be deduced from them Yet for a more full satisfaction all Protestants are to understand that when Catholikes come by prayr vnto any Saint or Angell they still performe what our Sauiour here commands of comming to him for wee come by their intercession mediately vnto him when wee beg of them to pray to him for vs no lesse then Protestants children come mediatly vnto him by the intercession of their parents when they desire them to pray to God to blesse them and as the Centurian who by one Euangelist is sayd to haue gone to our Sauiour and yet by an other he only went to some of his friends to speake to our Sauiour for him which was to come mediately or by their meanes to him especially seeing that when wee pray to any Saint or Angell wee desire that all theyr praires for vs may be heard through the merits of Christ. The text of S. Luke mistaken When you pray say our Father which art in heauen THis text if it were only cited to proue that wee ought to pray to God in this forme is not against vs but against those Nouellists who disallow of it If to proue that wee are to pray in no other words nor forme suaue this It concludes as much against Protestants who vse other formes as against vs if to proue that wee are only to pray to God the father it contradicts the former of comming to God the Sone and if to pray to God only and not to Saints or Angells it proues as well that one Christian liuing may not pray to another So that Protestants must confesse it proues either too much or nothing In a word all that can be drawne from it is that it teaches an excellent forme of praying to God as appeares by the Apostles demand Lord teach vs to pray and the scope of our Sauiours doctrine against the hypocrisy of the Iewes Matth. 6. v. 7. The text of S. Iohn mistaken VVhatsoeuer yee shall aske the Father in my name he will giue it you THis is the constant and vniuersall doctrine and practise of the Church of Rome for whether wee pray to any Person of the Blessed Trinity or to any Saint or Angell or to Father or Mother or any Christian yet liuing wee beg all Per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum c. through our Lord Iesus Christ or in his name knowing that nothing is to be demanded or granted in heauen or in earth but for his sake which I repeate often because it imports much An other text of S. Luke mistaken Aske and yee shall haue seeke and yee shall finde knocke and it shall bee opened vnto you THis text hath not so much as any shew of proofe against vs for wee dayly aske and seeke and knocke with full hope of what is here promised The third Protestant Position Christ our Sauiour only mediatour our Aduocate and intercessour how dare wee admit of any other This is proued by Scipture mistaken For there is one God and one mediatour betwixt God and man the man Christ Iesus The first Proof mistaken The word mediatour misapplyed against vs. THis text speakes of a mediatour of Redemtion only as appeares by the words following v. 6. One mediatour c. who gaue himselfe a ransome for all which all Romain Catholikes grant to be but only one to wit our Sauiour If any man sin we haue an Aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours but also for the sins of the whole world It is Christ that dyed yea rather that is risen againe who is euen at the right hand of God who also maketh intercession for vs. The second Proof mistaken The wâ—rd Aduocate misvnderstood and misapplyed IN this whole text is not found that Christ only makes intercession for vs or that he only is our aduocate which is to be proued all that is sayd here is that wee haue an Aduocate with the Father Christ Iesus c and who also waketh intercession for vs
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
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
tymes after consecration for it follows no more that therefore it should be pure bread remayning as it was before the words of consecration then that the water remained in its own nature after it was made wyne because after the change it is called water Neither doth yet S. Paul if his words be well marked say that the consecrated hoast is naturall and common bréad such as it was before fit to be eaten at an ordinary table as the Protestants must grant it not to be for at the least it is sacramentall bread and consecrated to a religious and holy vse according to them and therefore though he had put the same word bread before and after consecration yet it follows not that the signification of that word after consecratiâ—n should be the same with the signification of the same before consecration for before it signifyes common ordinary naturall and vsuall bread but after sacramentall significant coÌ„memoratiue holy diuine bread according to Protestants and therefore if Ptotestants must confesse that though the word be the same yet the signification is not the same why blame they Romane Catholicques if they giue the same answer saying that by the word bread in S. Paul before consecration or blessing is meant the substance of naturall and vsuall bread but after consecration supernaturall heauenly spirituall diuine bread which our Sauiour termeth himselfe to be in the sixt of S. Iohn six or seauen different tymes and which euery Christian chiefly begs of God in the Pater noster or Lords prayer saying giue vs this day our dayly bread for it is to be noted that bread in greeke familiarly in holy Scripture is taken for all manner os meate and not for bread only as it is distinct from all other meates But to make it yet clearer that S. Paul did not meane naturall bread remaning in its own substaÌ„ce as it was before when he called the Sacrament bread after it was consecrated or designed for a part of that holy mystery it is particularly to be reflected on that in this acceptioÌ„ he neuer calls it absolutly bread but allways with in article determinatiue or restrictiue referring it to that which consecration had made it and so he calls it this bread this cup that bread that cup to wit which was held for a Sacrament and mystery amongst Christians by force of our Sauiours words and to put vs out of all doubt that it was not that naturall bread and wine which it was before it was consecrated he clearly calls it the bread of our Lord and the cup of our Lord v. 29. wherfore whosoeuer shall eate this bread and drinke this cup of our Lord vnworthily c. and as we gather Ioan. 6. v. 48. that when our Sauiour termed the bread whereof he spoke there the bread of life he meant not naturall and visible bread but supernaturall and diuine in the same manner are we to gather from the words of S. Paul that by the like phrase the like bread is signifyed and as our Sauiour termes that bread wherof he spake Io. 6. v. 51.58 this bread to distinguish it from naturall and vsuall bread and to signify that he thereby meant his true body so also doth S. Paul here neyther can it more be gathered from the being tetmed bread by S. Paul that is naturall and substantiall bread then it can be gathered from the canon of our masse that wee beleeue it to be the substance of bread because it is often called bread in the said canon after consecration Objection If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should vnderstand flesh were not he worthy to be blamed to entertayne the people in errour since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence that it is bread which man naturally beleeues would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspension and to beleeue that it is his flesh though it seemeth bread then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses calling it alwayes bread without any explication Answer We are not to prescribe to the holy Ghost what he is to disclose to the writers of diuine Scripture he could haue deliuered many other mysteries of our faith in clearer words in the holy Scripture then he hath done if it had seemed good in his diuine Prouidence and therefore though he command vs not here in expresse termes to deny our senses and to beleeue that it is his flesh though it seeme bread as some holy fathers haue done with in the first fiue hundred yares yet he calles it as expressly the body of Christ as he calls it bread and seeing we finde bread often to be taken in a spirituall sense in holy Scripture for the food of out soules but neuer finde the body of Christ which is giuen for vs to be any other then his reall true Body one would thinke that the darker or more doubtfull word should in any reasonable mans iudgement yeeld to the more cleare and certaine and be interpreted by it then the contrary which is here alleadged and though our Sauiour call his flesh bread twice as often as S. Paul calls that which was consecrated bread here Ioannis 6. yet no man dare from thence argue that his flesh was not true flesh but corporall and materiall bread And if S. Paul by calling it so often bread after consecration should ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses as the opponent here affirmes he would draw vs also to thinke that it is mere naturall and vsuall bread after consecration as it was before and therefore we may apply the same objection in almost the same wordes against Protestants which here is brought against vs in this manner If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should vnderstand a Saerament or mystery as it is beleeued to be amonst all Christians were he not worthy to be blanted to entertaine the people in errour since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence that it is vsuall and common bread which man naturally beleeues would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspention and to beleeue that it is sacramentall and spirituall bread though it seeme vsuall bread then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses calling it always bread without any explication Thus whilst Protestants frame arguments fitter for Infidells then Christians against vs they neuer consider what force the like arguments haue against themselues But it is very vntrue that S. Paul called it bread without any explication or that he any way draws vs to what our senses would iudge if they were left to themselues but eleuates our thoughts vnto faith telling vs that it is panis calix Domini the bread and cup of our Lord which our Sauiour confesses himselfe to be Iohn the sixt and besides that he who eats this bread and drinketh this cup of our Lord vnwortily shall he guilty of the body and