stand to his former couuenant of shewing his grace and mercy vnto Abraham and his children So that that which the objcctiō saies that the word couuenant is here taken for the signe of the couuenant if it meanes thereby that it signifies not a true couuenant in it felfe which was a signe of a former couuenant is farre ftom the truth And though this solution be cleare and cannot be questioned yet if one would stand meerely in the words cited one might easely answer that the obligation of circumcision put here vppon Abraham and his children was a true couuenant but the actuall performance and execution that is circumcision in it selfe performed vppon the Israëlites was a signe of this obligatory couuenant and so it is said ver 10. hoc est pactum meum c. circumcidetur this is my couuenant c. euery mal child shall be circumcised that it may be a signe of the couuenant between me and you that is that the actuall circumcision may be a signe of this couuenant So that neither is here the obligation to be circumcised called a signe of the couuenant nor circumcision called the couuenant as the opponent affirmes not out of Scripture but from the Protestant glosse or addition to it And these answers which I haue giuen are clearly confirmed by S. Paul Rom. 4. v. 11. where speaking of Abraham he said he tooke the signe of circumcision the seale of the iustice of faith c. that he might be the father of all beleeuers where not the obligation appointed by Allmighty God to be circumcised but circumcision it selfe is called the signe and chiefly the signe or seale of his being the father of all beleeuers which was the first couuenant here made with him Objection So the lambe of the Passouet was called the Passeouer because it did figure the passing ouer of the Angell Answer The Scripture in this place calls not expresfely the Lambe the Passeour Ye shall gird your loines and put shooes on your feet holding staues in your handes and ye shall eate hastily for it is the Passeouer of our Lord. the hebrew hath it the Passeouer to our Lord. which whether it be meant of the lambe it selfe or of the whole compliment of the ceremonies required or of thc lambe as eaten in that manner or order imports little because it makes nothing at all against vs. for we must obserue that the word pascha hath a double sense sometimes it is taken properly and primarily for the reall passing of the Angell from one house to another through Egypt at other times and that commonly improperly or figuratiuely for the solemnity or feast ordained on that day when he passed and so yearely vppon the same in insuing ages Thus we take ordinarily the words Natiuity Resurrection Ascension of our Lord either for his reall birth rising from the dead or his ascending into heauen or for the solemnities of Christmas Easter or Ascension and to come to our purpose we take the word Corpus Christi the body of Christ either for his reall and true body or for the feast in honour of his body called amongst vs Corpus Christi so that vppon that day one might say Hic dies est corpus Christi this day is Corpus Christi Now the same was amongst the Iewes and instituted by Allmighty God in this place so that by the word Pesach or Passeouer was vnderstood not the reall passing ouer of the Angell but the feast or Passeouer in honour of it and so it is not called in hebrew as I haue noted the passing ouer of out Lord but to our Lord that is in his honour for the great benefit represented in the feast of the Pascha Now if the Scripture had said This is that very Passeouer wherein our Lord killed so many thousand Egyptians and saued so many of our forefathers as here is This is my Body which is braken for you This is my blood which shall be shed for many for the remission of sinnes whereby the words body and blood are determined to his reall body and blood for noe figure or type of them was brooken or shed for our finnes it might haue had some shew of parity for then must the paschall lambe needs haue been called the reall passage of the angell and not the festiuityes nominated by the same word Thus vppon Corpus Christi day one may say This day is the body of our Lord vnderstanding by Corpus Christi the solemnity so called as it is ordinarily vnderstood it might well passe hut if one should say vppon that day Hic dies est Corpus Christi quod pro nobis datum est this day is the body of Christ whieh so many hunderd yearcs a goe was giuen for our saluation all the world would condemne him noe lesse of foolery then of falshood and impiety Though therefore the thing it selfe and the picture memoriall and solemnity of it may be called by the same name in a large or generall acception thus the picture of Caesar is called Caesar the solemnity of Corpus Christi is called Corpus Christi yet when there be certaine other particles and words adioyned which tye it to a signification of the thing it selfe and distinguish it from the picture or memoriall of it then the figure or memoriall can neuer be vnderstood by that word accompanied with such adiuncts neither can the pourtraict or solemnity be euer ioyned with that word explicated with those said restrictiue particules Thus though seeing the picture of the present King of Spaine I can say this is King Phillip the fourth for that word signifies as wel King Phillip painted as really existing yet I cannot say with truth if the word is be taken in its proper and substantiall signification which for the present is supposed I this is that King Phillip who liues now in Spaine and whom this picture represents neither can I say seeing the King himselue this is King Philip which stands in such a chamber painted in the low countryes for that is not the reall but painted King seeing therefore in the words of the institution that which our Sauiour gaue his Apostles is not only called his body which happily alone were indisserent to fignifie his body painted or reall substantiall or figuratiue naturall or mysticall but addes this restrictiue which is giuen for you which particle can agree only with his reall body the opponent will proue nothing at all against Roman Catholikes vnlesse there be produced out of Scripture some text where the word signifiing the thing it selfe be applyed to the signe or figure with the same restrictiue and limiting particles as proper to that thing it selfe as here the word my Body is affirmed of the word this and declared to be that body which was giuen for vs so that the words my Body which is broken or giuen for you can neuer be taken for any signe or figure of his true body for then a mere signe of his body should
which hinders not but that there may be other aduocates and others who make intercession for vs in an inferiour kinde besides this text as the former speakes only of an aduocate and intercessour of redemption for sins as appeares by those words If any man sin we haue an aduocate c. and he is the propitiation for our sins and it is Christ that dyed c. which wee grant must be only one Thirdly thâ—â—e two texts speake of an aduocate and intercessour worthy to be heard for himselfe and his owne merits which is our Sauiour only not of other inferiour intercessours and aduocates who are not worthy to be heard for themserues or by vertue of any merits proceeding from themselues considered according to their owne naturall forces or dignities but haue only accesse through the dignity merits of Christ. This appeares by the words now cited that they speake of an aduocate worthy to bee heard for himselfe 1. Timoth. 2. v. 6. VVho gaue himselfe a ransome for all 1. Ioannis 2. v. 1.2 Hee is the propitiation for our sins it is Christ that dyed so that if in the title of this obiection when it is sayd Christ our only mediaâ—uor our aduocate and intercessour how dare wee admit of any other be meant how dare wee admit of any other mediatour aduocate or intercessour of redemption and propitiation for our sins and who is worthy to be heard for his own dignity and merits all Romain Catholikes vnanimously grant that wee dare not admitt of any other saue Christ but if by the same words be meant how dare wee admit of any other mediatuor aduocate or intercessour not of Redemption but merely of praying to Allmighty God for vs as his seruants and our friends and fellow seruants and that to be heard not for themselues but for Christ wee may returne the same question vppon Protestans and demaund of them how dare they permit their children euery night to kneele downe and beg of their pareÌ„ts that they will pray to God to blesse them for what is this but to be a mediatour aduocate and intercessour betwixt God and them not of propitiation or redemption but of praying to God for them through the metits of Christ The same practise amongst Protestants is of grand-children nephewes god-children c. nay of all generally amongst them commending themselues to the praires of others So that it is euident that such aduocates as these euen according to Protestants are not to be excluded by vertue of these texts vnlesse they will condemne themselues And this is the very same intercession that wee put amongst the Saints and Angells in heauen because both the one and the other pray to God for vs through the merits of Christ neither imports it for our present question of one sole aduocate c. that those to whom wee pray be in this world or in heauen for if there be but only one then no lesse those others on earth then those in heauen are excluded or if the intercession for vs vppon earth be not excluded by force of this text then Protestants must confesse that they themselues must acknowledge Christ not so to be our mediatour aduocate and intercessour but that they dare and doe admit of others and so are faulty themselues in what they aecuse vs or if they acknowledge no fault in this as indeed there is none then they must cease to accuse vs and vse the same distinction and explications of the texts here cited in the obiection with vs to wit that they admit only one mediatour or intercessour and aduocate of Redemption and Saluation where of the texts speake but more then one of praying vnto Allmighty God with vs and for vs by way of charity and society as S. Augustine sayes whereof the texts doe not speake or thus that there is but one only intercessour which is worthy to be heard for his own dignity and merits but more then one who are made worthy by the merits of Christ who is that only independent mediatour and all others depending of him and his merits Besides these are mediatours and intercessours to Christ as he is both God and man for vs which Christ cannot be to himselfe for à mediatour must be bewixt two as S. Paul saith The Third mistake It hath beene alwayes the practise of God's Saints in their troubles and at all tymes to call vppon him VVhen I was in trouble I called vppon the Lord and he heard me Moyses and Aaron and Samuel these called vppon the Lord and he heard them And in the night Paul and Silas being in Prison prayed and sung prayse to God so that the prisoners heard them The third proof mistaken These texts are cited to no purposse WEe grant all this as nothing at all against our doctrine or practice for who can deny that wee both teach and vse to pray to God in all occasions and in all our tribulations But if it be intended that these texts proue that wee are at all tymes to pray to God and so at noe time to any creature to pray to God through Christ for vs it is a pure mistake for the texts say noe such matter The fourth mistake BY all this is playne that it is the ancientest the best and the safest way to come only to God in our prayers and the contrary doctrine is both new and absolutely against Gods word This mistake discouered Noe such mater can be draun from the texts cited for by all that I haue answered appeares that Protestans themselues come not only to God in their prayers but haue recourse oftentymes one to an others prayers and desire others to pray to God with them and for them no lesse nor otherwise then do those of the Romain Church and therrfore this practice eyther must be ancient and agreeing with Gods word or the Protestants practice is new and against Gods word Here alsoe may be added as a further satisfaction to these aboue cited mistaken Proofes that there is an other maine difference betwixt praying to Christ the Blessed Trinity or any of the diuine Persons and our praying to an Angel a heauenly Saint or a good Christian yet liuing For our praires to God and Christ as our only Redeemer are stritly commaÌ„ded and are necessary meanes to Saluation and are acts belonging to the worship of God properly and primarily and soe are exercizes appertayning to the vertue of Religion taken presly and thus the inuocation or praying to eyther Angel Saint or liuing Chtistian is neyther vniuersally commanded nor a meanes absolutly necessary to saluation though it be a very great helpe towards it nor an act belonging immediarely and necessarily to the strict vertue of Religion or the worship of God bur an exercice good and profitable and necessarily to be esteemed as such by all true Christians as I haue allready deduced out of the Council of Trent which I thought fit to renew in the
forbid one capitall sin nor one two sinnes This our diuision strictly obserues but that of our aducrsaryes not so for their two first commandements forbid only the sin of Idolatry as being the capitall sin forbidden in them both and so can be but one commandement as we put them and their last prohibites two maine distinct sinnes the desire of adultery thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife and the desire of theft thou shalt not couet thy neighbours goods c. which are as different in thought as adultery and stealing are in act if therefore as they acknowledge there be two commandements to forbid them in all reason there must be two to forbid the desires of them and this reason is pressed by S. Augustin in the place alleadged It is further most manifest that these which are made two commandements by the Protestants can be noe more then one and the same commandement for in the 2. of Kings 17. v. 35. the whole substance of that which Protestants call the second commandement is put in one single senteÌ„ce togeather with the first in these words you shall not feare strange Gods neyther shal you worship them neyther shall you serue them neyther shall sacrifize to them now what is meant by those strange Gods is declared v. 40. and the 41. How be it they did not harken but they did after theyr former maner soe these nations feared the Lord and serued theyr grauen Images whence it is euident that that which is called strange Gods v. 35. is called grauen Images v. 41. and soe to forbid the seruice and worship of strange Gods which is in the Protestants first commandement and to forbid the seruice and worship of grauen Images is the same command as forbidding the same thing Hence also appeares that the word Phesel vsed Exod. 20.4 and is also vsed here v. 41. signifies an Idol or a strange God as I haue often said and noe lesse is manifest from these words thâ—t the seruice which is here mentioned to those grauen Images Pheselim v. 41. was to feare them and sacrifice to them as strange Gods v. 35. And moreouer thus these which are here called strange Gods v. 35. were materiall Idoles or as Protestants terme them grauen Images is most cleare v. 33. They feared the Lord and serued theyr own Gods after the maner of the nations whom they carried away from thence for they could not carry with them any other Gods saue such as these from one place to an other That nothing may me wanting to the full satisfaction of the Reader I haue here adioyned the hebrew words as they stand in the originall of this text which is so violently and frequently pressed against vs. Exod. 20. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 5. v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which words out of what I haue allready alleadged may be thus translated Thou shalt not make to thy sâ—lfe an Idoâ— any figure which is in heauen aboue or in the earth beneath or in the water vnder the earth thou shalt not bow down to them nor serue them or thus· Thou shalt not make to thy selfe an Idol of any figure which is in heauen aboue for the Protestants themselues giue the like translation to the like phrase Deut. 4. v. 16. and Pagninus giues for the first signification of Moun or Temounach figuram a figure not only artificiall but naturall or apparent as when angels appeare in the figures of men Deut. 4.15 Psal. 17.15 I shal be satified when I awake with thy likenesse Temounacb which is nothing but the substance and essence of God conceiued clearly in our vnderstanding as we commonly say in our language let him appeare in his likenesse that is in his own shape figure or persone Soe that the meaning of these words as they ly in the 20. of Exod. and 5. of Deutronomy compared with the 2. of Kings 17. where a strange God a grauen Image are the same thing as I shewed iust now can only haue this sence that Allmighty God here forbids that we should haue any strange Gods before him that is that we should not make an Idol according to any visible figure whieh wee see eyther in the materiall heauens or in the earth or in the waters worshipping and seruing that is fearing those very Idoles and sacrifizing to them as to things indewed with life power vnderstanding diuinity which horrible Idolatry is as farre from the doctrine of the Romain Church which in the beginning of this controuersie I cited out of the cleare words of the Council of Trent as darckenesse is from light To correspond to the desire of other Readers I haue also thought it conuenient to cite the Greeke text of the 70. Interpreres Exodus 20. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where they doe not only translate it serue but shew that it is a seruice proper to God which is here forbidden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thou shalt not serue them with a diuine or highest seruice as I shewed in the begining out of Scripture to be vnderstood by the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. Augustin q. 61. vppon Genesis confirmes the same Now that the difference betwixt worshipping and seruing may be better vnderstood and that worship may in some true sence be attributed to things inanimate and without knowledge but not seruice the Protestants themselues grant that ciuill worship may be giuen to te chayre of state or picture of a temporall King but seruice only to his Royall person not to his picture so that no man can be rightly sayd to serue the Kings chayre of state or his picture but to serue the Kinge and yet they may be and are sayd truly to worship or honour by some externall signe his chayre of state c. In the very same manner with proportion one may truly be sayd to worship or reuerence the picture of our Sauiour or his Saints as things known and esteemed to be as indeed they are wholy dead and inanimate without any power att all in themselues to heare vs or helpe vs merely because they represent those holy persons whose pictures they are but we cannot be sayd in any true or proper sence to serue them so long as we make only this esteeme of them And hence it is that the reuerence or worship wich we yeeld to holy Images is not intended to them or to begge any fauour of them or thinke that any help can be conferred vppon vs by any power in them and no Romain Catholike is to doe otherwise But we pray before them that we hauing them before our eyes may better and more attentiuely thinke of those whom they represent and the reuerence and honour which we giue to them is in a double respect first we giue them that reuerence which is due to holy things dedicated and consecrated or tending to the worship of God as are altars holy vessells and
likenesse of our Sauiours Passion with them and so giuing the reuerence of kneeling to it they properly worship an Image or similitude or remembrance of our Sauiours death And if any should answer that they worship not the bread and wine in the Lords supper nor kneele to them but only to God when they receiue them I demand presently whether they exhibite any kind of reuerence to the bread and wine as a representation of our Lords Passion or no if they answer that they giue none at all to them why then doe they make an exteriour shew and that by way of command and obligation of exhibiting reuerence and respect to those signes seeing that in the exteriour none who see them can iudge that they giue not some reuerence euen to them againe if they giue no reuerence at all to them what greater respect doe they beare to the Lords supper then they doe to their own in their houses so that if a zealous brother would kneele to God at the same tyme when he eates his supper he whould shew as much respect to a brown loafe as he does to the Lords supper when he kneeles only to God in receiuing it And yet further if one who goes to their communion had no maw to adore God at that tyme but should put it of to some other when he found himselfe more moued by the spirit why could not he receiue sitting or standing and that without any externall reuerence at all to what he receiues visibly Nay how could he in conscience receiue kneeling ' or shewing any externall reuerence If they answer that they exhibit some reuerence to the externall signes as representations of our Lords death I demand whether it be a ciuill or a religious reuerence to say it is a ciuil reuerence were absurd for that is in matters of state and ciuill authority only and this is in matter of Religion If they say that it is a religious reuerence then I haue my intent that euen Protestants doe exhibite Religious reuerence to signes figures and representations of our Sauiour no lesse then Catholikes and then I demand further by what externall signe they make profession of such a reuerence to the signes of their communion certainly they will find no other which shewes it more clearly and fully then their kneeling or whatsoeuer they name it is an externall exhibition of religious reuerence which is nothing but worship in a true and Christian sense whence appeares that Protestants themselues are guilty of what they accuse vs that is of giuing woiship to an Image or figure of our Sauiour dying vppon the crosse for vs. That which I haue answered to the 20. of Exodus is in like manner applyable to the 26. of Leuiticus v. 1. and to the 6. v. 73. for they speak only of Idols and false Gods from which all Roman Catholikes abhorre far more then Protestants It is not my intention here to enter into any schoole questions which can neyther easily be made plaine enough to be rightly conceiued by all those whom I intend to informe in this treatis nor are they necessary to be known by all Catholicques nor if they were known is it necessary to beleeue them So long therefore as the doctrine of the Council of Trent cited in the beginning of this controuersie is beleeued and obserued noe more will or can be required for soe much as belongs to this point of any one who eyther is or intends to be a Child of the Roman Church which doctrine is not only without all danger but euen without all possibility of Idolatrie for seeing an Idolatrous worship must acknowledge a diuine power and vertu in that which it worships and the Council expressely theaches that noe such diuine power is to be acknowledged in any Image it is impossible to follow this doctrine and to commit Idolatrie in the worship we giue to any Image all therefore which is required to vnite a Protestant in this particular to the doctrine of the Roman Church is only this that he beleeue noe more that there is eyher life vertu or diuinity in any Image then he now beleeues there is in the name of IESVS spoaken or written that he put noe more confidence nor hope in the picture then he now puts in the name that he pray noe more to the picture then he now prayes to that name if kneeling before the name of IESVS grauen vppon some stone he pray to our Sauiour but as he now puts of his hat and boweth his knee or body when he sees or heares that name he hold it lawfull to exhibit the same reuerence when one sees the picture of our Sauiour and as he may now kisse that sacred name in deuotion to our Sauiour soe he hold it lawfull to kisse our Sauiours picture in deuotion to him or in his regard If a Protestant should demande whether there be as cleare proofs of Scripture for the worship of Images as there are for the worshipping the name of IESVS I answer there are That some Images may be lawfully made is cleare in the Brrazon serpent Num. 21.8.9 That they may lawfully be put in places dedicated to the seruice of God is euident in the two cherubins of gould Exod. 25.18 That they may haue a reference to diuine seruice and be ordinances helonging to it is manifest Hebr. 9.1.5 That it is lawfull to exhibite some worship to them is all ready proued Ps. 99.5 Adore his footstoole That the worship which is done to the Image of another tends as much to his honour whose Image it is as the worship done to his name tends to the honour of him-whose name it is is vndeniably prouued Reu. 13. v. 15.16.17 And he had power to giue life to the Image of the beast that the Image of the beast should both speake and cause that as many as would not worship the Image of the beast should be killed and he causeth all both small and greate rich and pore free and bond to receiue a marke in theyr right hand or in theyr foreheads and that noe man might buy or sall saue he who had the marke or the name of the beast or the number of his name whence is manifest that the worship of the Image of this accursed creature tended to his honour otherwise he would neuer haue compelled men to worship it and that he was honored noe lese in this if not more then in carijng his marke and his name which can be deduced from no other principle then this that all worship done proportionally to the Image is an honour to him who is represented by it and consequently that in this our Sauiour and the Saints are honoured as truly as any other in theyr Images If any Protestant demand farther whether there be any expresse command in the new Testament to worship holy Images I answer there is noe expresse command If it should be replied that nothing is to be held or practized by Christians
of a person of me the other of a Body which is but one part of the person who consists both of soul and body vnited so that the whol proposition is quite different the one from the other Secondly though these propositions had not beene so different as they are yet our Sauiour cannot possibly be thought to haue meant by these words my Body a mere remembrance of his Body because this explication must be verified of the bread which was consecrated by our Sauiour in his last supper as it is euident For he speakes of that euen according to Protestants now that could not be a remembrance of his body for nothing is said according to Protestants to be a remembrance of a thing which is actually and visibly present as the body of our Sauiour then was to the Apostles being seene heard by them neither could it be a remembrance of his passion because we remember things past not to come as the passion of our Sauiour then was and so it should haue been a type of our Sauiours death as the ceremonies of the old law were before he dyed and not a remembrance or commemoration Therefore it is euident that by the thing which he called his body in his last supper could not be meant a remembrance of his body as Protestants would haue it and so this explication is very false Therefore when our Sauiour commanded his Apostles in these words doe this in remembrance of me he could not meane any action or thing then present or done at that time but an action which he enioyned the Apostles and their successors to doe afterwards in the Christian Church in remembrance of his passion principally which is cleerely deliuered by S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. v. 26.27 This is the new testament in my bloud this doe as often as you drinke in remembrance of me where the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies shall drinke quotiescumque bibetis doe this so often as you shall drinke and so it is translated by Beza in his latin translation quotiescumque biberitis as often as you shall drinke and should haue been by our English Trāslatours had they closely followed the greeke text as they pretend to doe but here it made not for theyr pourpose and soe they put it eyther falsly or at least obscurely soe often as you drinke which euidently shews that our Sauiour meant by doe this not any action which was done in time of the last supper or institution and receiuing of the Sacrament by the Apostles but what they were to doe in the future and that our Sauiour in these words doe this in remembrance of me did not command the present action of eating and drinking when our Lord celebrated his last supper is euident because had it been of the present action it would follow that he twice commanded the same action to be done at the same time for he commanded his Apostles to doe what was then to be done when he said take eate drinke c. therefore to free our Sauiour from a nedelesse tautologie must be vnderstood the command of doing some thing else and at some other time to be conteined in these words doe this in remembrance of me especially considering that the mention of remembrance could not be vnderstood of any thing then visibly present or after to come as I said before These words therefore being to be vnderstood of the consecrating and frequenting of this Sacrament for the future only cannot possibly be an explication of the former words this is my Body which speake only of a thing that is then present as is euident and consequently those words according to the obiection are plainely simply to be beleeued as they sound without any glossing of the words of our Sauiour there being no ground in this place of Scripture for any such figuratiue glosse as I haue prouued and each Christian must beleeue that that thing which our Sauiour gaue his Apostles was his very body as his affirmed it to be If happily not withstanding that this were granted some Protestants should gather from these words doe this in remembrance of me that this Sacrament in times insuing after our Sauiours death was only to be a remembrance of his body and so not his body whatsoeuer is to be said of rhat Sacrament in the first institution I answer that though some ancient heretiques haue been of this opinion yet I neuer heard of any Protestant who held that the Christians after our Sauiours time receiued not the same which the Apostles did from his hands and so this obiection is to noe purpose for the Protestants Yet that I may cleare all difficulties which may probably occurre against what I haue said in this matter I answer that this is noe good consequence our Sauiour would haue this Sacrament celebrated and frequented in remembrance of him therefore the hoast after the consecration is only a remembrance of his body and not his true body or thus therefore that which Christ called his body in the institution is now amongst Christians only the remembrance of his body for if these words doe this in remembrance of me were not an explication of those others This is my Body in the first institution they will neuer be any explieation of them and so there will be noe reason to say that the meaning of thesc words this is my Body is this this is a remembrance of my Body by reason of these words doe this in remembrance of me for these words only signifie that the action here commanded doe this is to be in remembrance of me not that the thing conteyncd in the Sacrament was to be a remembrance of him now who can doubt but the same person may doe one action in remembrance of himselfe that is of some action which he had done before how ordinary is it for any one to write his own workes and what he himselfe hat done or suffered did not S. Faul doe this and was not this done in remembrance of himselfe doing or suffering such things and shall any thence make this consequence S. Paul writ this in remembrance of himselfe therefore he was a remembrance of himselfe therefore it was not S. Paul who writ it for nothing can be a remembrance of it selfe who sees not how false and childish this discours is may we not say the same of our Sauiour when he appeared to S. Thomas whom he put in remembrance of himselfe suffering vppon the crosse when he commanded him to put his hand into his side and looke vppon his hands and feet c. and shall we then say that our Sauiour was not himselfe or that is Body was not that which suffered because it did something in remembrance of his body crucified what Christian will dare to discours in this manner if then our Sauiours own body that suffered vppon the crosse can doe something to put vs in remembrance of the same body crucifyed once for vs why should we denie
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
Christian may be truly said both to haue eaten the flesh and drunke the blood of the sone of man and soe sufficiently to haue fullfilled this declaration of our Sauiour This imagination I say is wholy cut of by what I haue answered to the former opinion to omit the nouelty of this inuention for the community of Christians comply sufficiently with this command if some receiue vnder the forme of bread and others of wine this being amongst themselues to haue both eaten the flesh and drunke the blood of the sone of man though each in particular doe not both of them the command being giuen not in the singular but in the plurall number Now that I may conuince euen from the confession of our Aduersaries that communion vnder both kindes is not necessary to saluation 1. First whatsoeuer Luther holds in some places as he is most vnconstant in his assertions yet in very many others he clearly defines that communion vnder both kindes is not necessary to saluation nor was euer commanded by our Sauiour De capt Babylonicâ c. de Eucharist in Declar. in serm de Eucharist à se habito de formulâ Missae In assertionibus Artic. 16. Epis. ad Bohemos Tomo 2. Germanico fol. 100. In aliâ editione Tomo 7. fol. 360. libro de vtrâque specie Sacramenti Si veneris ad locum in quo vna tantùm species ministratur accipe tantùm vnam quemadmodum ibi accipiunt si praebentur duae duas accipe nec quidquam singulare infer nec te multitudini oppone If thou comest to a place where one only kinde is administred receiue one only if where both receiue both and induce noe singularity nor appose thy selfe to the multitude Thus Luther 2. The same is held by Melancthon in loc com edit 2. nu 1551. sol 78. 3. And in the English Statutes In the first Parlament vnder K. Edward the 6. pag. 818 In case of necessity communion vnder one kinde is permitted neyther is any way condemned the vse of those Churches where communion vnder the forme of bread only is practised Which clearly proue that those English Protestants held not communion vnder both kindes necessary to saluation And here I make an end of this whol treatis which had the spirit of Christian humility and obedience perseuered in the harts of Christians need neuer haue been begunne and was vndertaken for no other end then to let the miflead spirits of our age and country see how little reason they either had in the beginning or now haue to disobey the precepts and contradict the decrees of theyr noe lesse tender then powerfull mother the vniuersall Church that being noe other nor better then a weake pretence of Scripture mistaken the common plea of all sectaries against the generall consent of Christendome For this mistake of a few curious and disquiet Nouelists the mysticall body of Christ must be rent in peeces Kingdomes and Prouinces swinne in each others blood Churches and Religious howses the monuments of Christian pyety rased and defaced citties sacced and pillaged contries dispeopled and desolated castles burned families ruined parents bathed in their own teares theyr children half famisht like those of the Israelites crying out for bread and none found to giue it them and that I may shut vp all in those sad lynes of Vincentius Lirenensis Commonitorio 1. c. 6. speaking of the Arrian beresie and giuing noe lesse a true description of those then a presage of our tymes after he had declared how the whol Romane Empire was shaken the west and easterne Churches eyther by fraud or force dangerously infectcd and all things both sacred and Prophane distempred and distracted he vses these words Tunc temeratae coniuges depullatae viduae prophanatae virgines dilacerata monasteria disturbati clerici verberat◠Leuitae acti in exilium Sacerdotes oppleta sanctis ergastula carceres metalla Then maried woemen were abused widdows dispoyled of theyr purple mourning garments sacred virgins prophaned monasteries torne in peeces clergie men displaced Leuites beaten priests sent into banishment dungeons prisons and mettle mines fild with Saincts O vnhappy and accursed mistake what mischeefs hast thou allready wrought and art still a working in the bozom of Christendom how hast thou hoodwinkt the eyes bewitched the eares clowded the braines and set on fyer the harts of mistaken Christians who are soe deeply besotted with thee that like one in a frenzie they can neyther beleeue nor indure to heare that they are mistaken and yet are not to be deserted as wholy desperate and incurable there is still a sunne which can dart a beame of light into theyr souls to discouer these cymerion clouds a neuer erring truth to correct these mistakes and a most prouident wisdome to lead them to the certaine way of saluation Deare contrymen I haue only exposed before your eyes and more I cannot a cleare looking glasse wherin you may behold the foulest grossest and most dangerous of your mistakes and beholding loath them and loathing leaue them though you leaue the whol world and your own liues with them for being once discouured left they must be or God will leaue you FINIS THE INDEX A. ANgels haue been worshipped in Scripture pag. 34.35 Angels indued with supernaturall graces 16.17.18 How he Arke is called God 293. B. BEza Translates in all the Euangelists and S. Paul for is my Body signifies my Body 514. Beza sayes that these words which is powred out for you as they stand in the Greeke are crept out of the margent into the text 214.215 How our Sauiours true body is broaken 200.201.102.103 Christ neuer said this is my Body that is to say a cōmemoration of my Body 215.216.217 Nor could say soe 218 c 219. c. S. Paul cals the consecrated elements the bread and cup of our Lord. 253.255.256 Why the consecrated Hoast is called bread 265.266 c. The Hoast is called noe otherwise bread after consecration then wine was called water Io. 6.196 Bread taken but not giuen by our Sauiour 193.194 Naturall bread cannot be really the Body of Christ. 213. 257. True naturall bread cannot be the Body of Christ as his true flesh is called bread Io. 6.281 ad 285. The Apostles did not eate bread remaning bread but bread made the Body of Christ as in Cana of Galilee they did not drinke water remayning water but water made wine 150.251 C. How the Chalice is the new Testamēt 231.232 c. Whol particular Churches aboue 400. yeares agoe communicated publickely vnder one kinde How Circumcision is called the couenant 287.288 Commandements put shorter in one place of Scripture then in other 114.115 The diuision of the Comwandements more reasonable according to Catholicques then Protestants 118.119 Noe Commandement left out of the Romane Bibles 112.113 Council of Trents Doctrine of worshipping of Saincts and Angels 1.2.3.4 and how tbey pray to God for vs. ibidem Concerning Images 69.70.71.72.73 Concerning Iustisiccation 137.138 to the 143. Concerning merit of