eius Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum qui solus noster Redemptor Saluator est ad eorum orationes opem auxiliumque confugere THe holy Synode commands all Bishops and the rest which haue the office and care of teaching that they diligently instruct faithfull people teaching them that the Saints which raigne togeather with Christ offer vp theyr praires to God for men that it is good and profitable humbly to inuoke them and to haue recourse to theyr praires helpe and assistance to obteyne benefits of God through his Sone Iesus Christ our Lord who alone is our Redeemer and Sauiour Whence it is cleare that according to the Council of Trent to whose doctrine all those of the Romain Church hold themselues obliged to subscribe first that wee pray not the Saints That they Should procure any blessings by theyr sole force and vertu independant of God but only that they present theyr praires to God to obteyne them of him for vs orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offerre which plainely cleares vs from all idolatry in this particular both they and wee praying to the same one only God And secondly we haue not recourse to theyr praires to God as if they were to be granted for the worth and dignity of the Saints imdepedently of Christs merits but only through and for his merits ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per Filium eius Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum to obteyne benefits of God through his Sone Iesus Christ our Lord excluding the Saints from being eyther our Redeemers or Sauiours which we all acknwledge to be christ alone qui solus noster Redemptor Saluator est as this holy Council here teaches vs which makes vs vndeniably free from the least shaddow of injury done to our Sauiour and his infinite merits when we inuoke the Saints Thirdly we are here taught to giue reâ—ence and worship to the Saints in heauen suppliciter eos inuocare to inuocque them humbly deuoutly suppliantly neyther as Gods nor as sauiours but as pure creatures reigning with Christ and as dependent of God and Christ as we are our selues as appeares by the former words of the Council now cited Lastly we are here taught that this humble inuocation of the Saints and the same is of Angels is good profitable but the Council teaches not neyther giues any generall commaÌ„d to inuoke them nor that the actual practice of it is absolutly necessary to Saluation or that noe man can be saued who has not thus humbly inuoked the Saints for theyr praires are only furthering helpes not necessary meanes to Saluation soe that noe man is bound to beleeue any absolute necessity of it but in rigour it is sufficient not to reiect it as bad or hurtfull but to allow of it as good and profitable leauing the practice or not practice the greater or lesse use of it to euery ones particular piety and deuotioÌ„ This I say not to induce any one to thinke that it were eyther laudable or allowable in such as beleeue the goodnesse and profit of this inuocation as all Romain Catholicques must doe neuer or very seldome to practice it for this were to be supinely negligent in vsing the helpes which wee beleeue to be profitable for our spirituall good as the same appeares in desiring the praires of Gods seruants whilst they liue here on earth which is nor absolutly necessary but yet good and profitable but I say it only that all may know distinctly what the Council here teaches as necessary and what only as good and profitable and to dissabuse vulgar Protestants who thinke that the Romain church teaches that it is as necessary to saluation to inuoke and worship the Saints as to inuoke and worship Christ himselfe Hauing thus declared the doctrine of the Romain church deliuered in the Council of Trent let us now see what Protestants alleadge aganist it out of Scripture mistaken The first Protestant Position Thus framed by the opponent God only to be worshipped therefore neyther Saint nor Angell This is proued by Scripture mistaken Mat. 4.10 It is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue saith Christ. The first mistake The words of this text affirme not that God only is to be worshipped THe text saith thus thou shalt worship the Lord thy God from which cannot be proued thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only that word only being not ioyned in this text to the worship of God as no Protestant can or does proue that God only is to be feared from the like text of Scripture Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God seeing that à wife is commanded to feare her husband Ephes. 5.25 And subiects to feare theyr Magistrates and Gouernours Rom. 13.4 Neyther is any one soe senslesse to affirme that God only is to be loued because Dauid saies O loue the Lord all yee his Saints for if God only that is none saue God were to be loued then noe man were to loue his neighbour which not with standing is most strictly commanded as all know nor husbands to loue theyr wiues which S. Paul commands Ephes. 5. v. 25. and how come they then to proue that God only is to be worshipped because the Scripture here cited commands vs to worship God but commands noe more to worship him only then the former texts to feare and loue him only How come they I say to vrge such à text as this without the least appearance of proose but by à pure mistake of the words of Scripture especially seeing that the Scripture in an other place commaÌ„ds vs as clearly to worship something beside God as it commands to feare and loue others beside God Psalme 99.5 worship his foorstole where the very same Hebrew and Greeke phrase and words are vsed which are in this text cited Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God howsoeuer that text Psal. 99. is mistranslated by Protestants as I shall shew here after Ande the Prophete Isay foretels that the enimies of Hierusalem should worship the steps of her feete Isay 60.14 but what soeuer be meant by those steps certainly it cannot be God therefore the text of Scripture cited Mat. 4. commands not that God only should be worshipped If any Protestant shoud say that though the word only be not ioyned to worship yet it is ioyned to serue in the text cited Mat. 4. and him only shalt thou serue which seemes to be of as much force as if it were ioyned to worship I answer that if the Opponent had framed the Protestant position thus God only to be serued therefore neyther Sainct nor Angell the latter part of the text hauing and him only shalt thou serue there might haue beene some shew of proofe in alledging these words Mat. 4. But seeing the position runs thus God only to be worshipped and the text saith not thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only but thou shalt worship the Lord
exhibite reuerence and worship to persons and things in acknowledgement of the supernaturall and free gifts graces and blessinges of God where with they are inriched as I haue shewed many holy persons mentioned in the Scriptures haue done let him call that worship supernaturall or christian or pious or an exterordinary ranke of ciuill worship I shall not much contend about rhe name when the thing is done For what soeuer he call it it is and cannot but be a Religious worship in it selfe at least in that large sense soe clearely drawn from the Seriptures And Thus much of the discouery redresse of the second mistake THE THIRD MISTAKE The vvord serue in Mat. 4.10 is misunderstood THe opponent indeuoring to proue that God only is to be worshipped and therefore neyther S. nor Angell from the text of Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worshipp the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue Seeing there is noe proofe in the former part of the text as I haue shewed must haue recourse to the latter and him only shalt thou Serue and that this clause may haue any appearance of force it must suppose that the word Serue here vsed signifies all kind of Seruice Soe that these words and him only shalt thou Serue must signify thus much that noe seruice must be done but to God alone which must needs be a very grosse mistake for the word Seruice taken in this generall sence playnly contradicts the Precept of S. Paul Obey your temporall Lords c. Seruing them with a good will as to our Lord and not to men And that Prophesie in Genesis of Iacob and Esau. The greater shall serue the Lesse Soe that it is manifest that not God only is to be serued Whence may breefely be noted that before one cite any text of Scripture for the proofe of any thing one must first coÌ„sider whether the sence in which that text must be taken to be of force to proue what we intend contradict not other playne places of Scripture as this does which if it doe we must seeke some other proofe for that will not be a proofe but a mistake But the mistake in this place of Mat. 4.10 proceedes not only from want of reflection vppon other places of Scripture but from want of knowledge of the greeke word vsed here by the EuaÌ„gelist For though both in English Latin and Hehrew there be only one word to signifie the seruing of God and creatures Yet in the greeke there is a proper word which signifies only the seruice of God or proper to him alone and is neuer vsed for the religious seâ—uice done to any creature as a creature but as esteemed by those whoe exhibite that seruice to be a God This word in greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 latreuin vsed by the holy Ghost in this place Mat. 4 10. to signifie serue That this may be vnderstood the Reader may please to note that many words haue two kinds of significations the one by force of theyr first institution which they anciently had and haue amongst heathen Authours the other by vse and application to some one particular Sence by vertue of common vse and custome which hath in processe of tyme obtayned force to limite them to that perticular Sense Thus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tyrannos amongst the ancient Greekes first signifyed a king and was taken in a good Sence but amongst later Authours and now vniuersally it signifies a Tyrant or cruell and vniust oppresser of such as are vnder him And as the vnanimous consent of approued Authours and common wealths hath a power to giue a new signification to words or rather to limite or restrayne the ould to some determinate parte of what they signifyed by force of theyr first institution soe hath allsoe the vniuersall consent of ecclesiasticall approued Authours and the common voyce of Christendome the like power soe to alter the ancient signification of some words that it determines the indifferency and vniuersality of theyr originall Signification to some one part or member of it when they apply it to expresse something in Christian Religion Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptismus which anciently signifyed any kind of washing amongst ecclesiasticall and Christian Authours is taken for a SacrameÌ„t known by that name Thus Euangelist which originally signifeyed any one who told good tydinges signifies a wryter or promulger of the Gospell In the like manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifyed amongst the auncient infidels any kind of feruice amongst Ecclesiasticall Authours signifies only that kinde of Religious seruice which is don to God Soe that it hath two significations the one morall the other Ecclesiasticall as Scapula a Protestant authour of our nation acknowledges in his Lexicon both of this and the former and many other words graunting that according to the Sence which it hath amongst Ecclesiasticall authours and in the new Testament it signifies a Religious worship only and in proofe of this cites the epistle to the Hebrewes where beeing put absolutely it signifiâ—es the worship of God This dubble significaâ—ion supposed I vrge further that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latreuin in the Scripture signifies that Religious worship only which is exhibited to God or diuine worship and is neuer vsed through the whole Scripture for a religious Seruice done to any creature as to a creature I haue bestowed some dayes study to examine this matter and hauing searched all the places of Sctipture where this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is I neuer found it signify any religious sesuice saue diuine and I Prouocke any Protestant authour to proue the contrarie True it is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 douleuin is indifferently vsed very commonly in both Testaments to signify the religious seruing of God or creatutes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latreuin neuer but for seruing eyther a true or false God when it is referred to worship blonging to Religion And though Scapula being a Protestant only say that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a religious worship yet the proofe which he bringes for it out of the epistle to the Hebrews conuinces that being absolutely put that is alone without any oblique case it signifyes as he acknowledges the Seruice done to God only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectum facere seruientem that could not make him that did the seruice perfect And he might alsoe haue cited the same word put absolutely and signifying only the seruice of God in S. Luke where he sayth Anna the Prophetesse was night and day in the Temple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seruing that is doing seruice to God This text Luke the 2.37 The Protestant bible of 1589. with Fulks commentarie translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Serued God And Heb. 9.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seruings of God and the later Bibles translate it diuine feruice whence it appeares that the absolute significarion of this word is the seruice of God or diuine
that there are two kinds of worship the one interiour the other exteriour the interiour is in the minde and soul only the exteriour is that interiour signifeyd by some humiliation of the body soe that though one may haue the inward of the soule without any outward or exteriour in the body yet one can heuer haue a true act of exteriour or bodily worship without an interiour worship in the soule thus the souldiers in the tyme of our Sauiours passioÌ„ though they bended their knees to him which is one part of exteriour worship taken Separately and absolutely in it selfe yet because it was not accompanied with the inward humiliation of the soule it was noe act of worship but of mockerie I say it followes that as the outward corporall humiliation is constitured an act of true worship by the inward intention of the minde Soe are the different kinds of worships distinguished only by the different intentions and humiliations of the soule For the very same externall comportment and prostration of the body may be vsed both when wee worship God an Angell a Saint an Apostle a Bishop a Priest a King a Magistrate a father a mother c. thus the very same hebrew and greeke word is vsed in these different worships the same bowing and kneeling is practised to them all as I haue allready proued But though the same externall gestures of the body may be vsed to all yet they bâ—ome different kinds of worships according to the different humiliations intentions and acknowledgments which he who worships desires to exptesse by those outward deportments of the body Thus if when I kneele I intend to exhibite worship to the Creatour and maker of all tkings that kneeling will be a diuine worship proper to God only If I kneele with intention to acknowledge only some ciuil dignity or morall exccllency in the person before whom I keele it will bc a meere ciuill worship but if I kneele before or to some other thing or person with intention to acknowledge in them 'a worth or dignity neyther infinite nor diuine but finite and createed neyther yet ciuil morall humane and naturall but christian spirituall and supernaturall such a kneeling will neither be an act of diuine worship proper to God only nor of ciuill worship proper to persons or things indued with meare humane and naturall excellences but will be an act of supernaturall and religious worship taken in a larger sense as I shall presently declare Thus wee see that the different intentions of the mynde make the same externall kneelings of the body to be differeÌ„t kinds of worships by intending there by to acknowledge a worth in that which is worshipped diuine Supernaturall or ciuill soe that all the difficulty in this matter consists in shewing clearly that there are these three different worths or excellencies to be acknowledged and honored by an act of worship Two of these to witt diuine and ciuill excellency the one found in God alone the other in the ciuill Magistrate all Protestans Acknowledge the difficulty therefore at the last comes to make it eleare that there is allso a third worth and excellency which is neyther infinite nor increated nor diuine nor yet humane or naturall but wholy spirituall and supernaturall inspired or communicated aboue all reach of naturall force and light from the holy Ghost and giuen to men through the only merits and by the authority of our Sauiour These heauenly excellencies I find to be of two sorts the one internall and iustifying graces and gifts or at the least giuen freely to men as other supernaturall things the other externall powers and authorities both which I will conuince out of holy Scripture to be such supernaturall gifts of God as I haue affirmed S. Iames speaking of the internall graces saith thus Euery best and perfect gift is from aboue descending from the father of light And S. Paul by the grace of God I am what I am and his grace was not voyd in me and that of our Souiour without me yee can doe nothing And S. Iohn Soe many as receiued him he gaue them the power to become the sones of God who are not born of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God And many like texts which euidently proue that all true grace and Sancttitie is a free gift of God aboue the force of mans nature vnderstanding and will and this Protestans commonly graunt and noe Christian can deny without falling in to Pelagianisme Concerning the externall authority dignity and preheminencie of Ecclesiasticall persones in the true Christian church they are as euidently ascribed to Christ and the holy Ghost as the former Thus S. Paul And some verily God hath set in the church first Apostles secondly Prophetes thirdly Doctours next miracles then graces of doing cures helps gouermens kinds of tongues Which he ascribes with many other heauenly gifts to the holy Ghost towards the begining of this chapter in the words following And there are diuisions of graces but the same spirit And there are diuisions of ministries but the same Lord. And there are diuisions of workes but the same God who workes all in all But to euery one is giuen the manifestation of the spirit to profit To one by the spirit is giuen the word of wisdome but to another the word of knowledge according to the fame spirit to an an other faith in one spirit to an other the worke of power to an other Prophesie to an other discretion of spirits to an other kinds of tongues to an other interpretation of speeches All these workes one an the same spirit diuiding to euery one as he will And to the Galathians And he that is our Sauiour hath giuen some to be Apostles others to be Prophets others to be Euangelists but others to be Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of the Saints into the worke of the ministry to the edifying of the body of Christ till wee all meete in the vnity of faith and the acknowledgment of the sone of God in a perfect man in the fullnesse of the age of Christ whence it is eleare that not only in the Apostles tyme but through all ages till the end of the world the dignities in the church were to be guifts of our Sauiour and not conferred by any authority purely humane and naturall And as those testimonies couince that both inward holinesse and ecclesiasticall dignities are gifts of the holy Ghost and conferred by the power and Authority deriued from Christ soe lickewise the worth and excellency of the Saints in heauen are to be accounted the highest and chiefest supernaturall gifts and graces of God Thus S. Paul The grace of God Protestants reade the gift of God is eternall life which all the Saints of heauen inioy And S. Iohn Be faithfull vntill death and I will giue the a crowne of life And S. Mat. Yee shall sit vppon
our Religion and tending finally to the acknowledgment of God and our Sauiours honour as authour of our faith and Religion Soe that hauing these references to Gods honour though those Acts of Religious worship tend immediately to the acknowledgement of some created supernaiurall excellence in that which wee worshipp by them yet that hinders not theyr beeing Religious acts in this larger sence As appeares by these following texts of Scripture where Moyses is commaunded to prescribe certaine ceremoniall rites in Sacrifices Holocausts amongst which one was that the brest right Shoulder of that which was offered in sacrifice should be giuen to the Priests as belonging to them by right and ordinance of God The giuing of these two parts of the thing offered to the priest was an action done immediately to a pure creature and not to God and yet it is called Religion as appeares by the words These things God commaunded to be giuen to them that is to Aaron and his ofspring as it is in the precedent words from the children of Israell by a perpetuall Religion in theyr generations Secondly S. Iames. Pure and vndefiled Religion with God and the father is this to visite the orphanes and widowes in theyr tribulation and to keepe himselfe vnspotted in this life where a worke of mercy to the pore is called Religion that is a worke proceeding from Religion and belongrg to Religion though done to creatures such as are orphanes and wedows All that I haue cited out of Scripture in the discouery of this second mistake will I hope haue coÌ„uinced the iudicious and well minded Reader that there is a Supernaturall created excellency communicated liberally from Allm God to some creatures infinitely below the diuine excellency of God and yet far aboue all naturall and ciuill worth which therefore must deserue honour and worship seeing that naturall and ciuill excellencies euen according to protestants though far inferiour to them deserue it which worship seeing it is done in acknowledgment of the Spirituall and supernaturall dignities which are only proper to Gods true religion and soe are religious excellencies may be rightly termed a religious worship in the fore named sense For seeing the humble acknowledgmeÌ„t of diuine perfections is deseruedly termed diuine worship and of ciuill perfections rightly styled ciuill worship soe the humble acknowledgment of religious perfections for the like reason is to be named Religious worship which will yet seeme lesse strange to an indiffereÌ„t eye if one consider that the some different degrees may be found in Acts of other vertues which are here fouÌ„d in worships I haue allready proued from Scripture that there are different kinds and degrees of feares and loues whence it followes that when one feares the iustice and wrath of some ciuill Prince or magistrate it may be called ciuill feare but when one feares the iustice and authority of an Apostle a Prophet c. whose power is drawn from Religion it may be named a Religious seare Thus the feare of Adam hiding himselfe from God was a diuine feare The feare of Adonias flying from king Salomon was a ciuill feare but the feare of the Primâ—tiue Christians of S. Peeter when Ananias fel down dead at his feete was a Religious feare And the same distinction is in differeÌ„t ordres of loue S. Peeter loued our Sauiour as his God and Redcemer with diuine loue Ifack loued Esau with a ciuill loue but the Primitiue Christians loued S. Paul with a Religious loue And in the same manner as I haue allready Proued Moyses worshipped the infinit maiesty of God with a diuine worship the children of Iacob worshipped the power and excellency of Ioseph with a ciuill worship but rhe Sunamite worshipped Elizeus and the captaine of fifty men Elias whose authorities were deriued known and acknowledged only from faith and Religion with Religious worship And the giuing such a Religious worship as this which I haue described to a creature is soe far from derogating any thing from the due worship of God or from ascribing any worship proper to him to any creature that it would be an insufferable iniury to God And horrid Sacriledge to affirme that he is to be worshipped with any such worship for that were to acknowledge in him only a created finite imperfect excellencie which were to make him an Idoll a false God Neyther can his honour be any thing diminished by exhibiting this kinde of Religious worship to a creature indued with spitituall graces for his honour cannot be iniured but by giuing to a creature the wotship proper and due to him only seeing therefore this is no worship due to him neyther only nor at all it cannot be any way a preiudice to his honour For as ciuill and religious feare and loue commanded to be giuen to creatures is no way preiudicious to the diuine feare and loue which we-owe to God Soe neyther can ciuill nor religious worship commaunded to be exhibited to creatures as I haue proued be preiudicious to the highest diuine worship which we owe to God And thus much Allm God seemes to say by his Ptophet Isay. I am the Lord this is my name I will not giue my glory to any other nor my praise to Idols where he saith not I will not giue glory to any other for that would be contrary to the words of the Psalmist speaking of man in his first creation Thou hast crowned him with glory and honour but I will not giue my glory to an other that is that infinite glory which properly belongs to God only wich is specifyed in the precedent words I am the Lord this in my name soe that God wil neuer giue that which is his proper name and title to be Lord of all things to an other which is yet more expressely set down by the same Prophet And I will not giue my glory to an other heare o Iacob and Israell whom I call I I my selfe am the firrst and I am the last And my hand also layd tbe foundarions of the earth and my right hand measured the heauens c. This is that glory proper to him alone of being the eternall God creator of heauen and earth which he will not giue to an other which soe long as he keepes inuiolable to him selfe all vnder glories limited and created which are like soe many little motes compared with the infinite extent and light of his glory he both liberally giues himselfe and wills they should respectiuely be giuen to his creatures If not withstanding all these euidences both of Scripture and Reason any one should remayne soe strangely willfull and immouable by force of education and continuall custome from his infancie as to deny all kind of Religious worship in how large a sence soeuer it be taken to be lawfully exhibited to any saue God alone I say if any such should be found soe long as he yeelds to the thing it selfe that is to
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
Readers memory least the contrary misconceipt amongst Protestants of our doctrine in this poinct might alienate his affection from our Religion If any one desire to haue the inuocation of Saints and Angels thus explicated prouued by Scripture he may please to examine Iob. 5.1 Call if there be any which will answer the and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne where the seauenty Interpreters haue it in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is turne the to some of the holy Angels And Gen. 48. v. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all 〈◊〉 blesse these Laddes which is a plaine inuocation of an Angel as in the former verse 15. the like speech was an inuocation of God And lastly the first of Samuel 28. v. 7. to the 22. where the Scripture affirmes expresly 1. thrice ouer that Samuel himselfe appeared v. 15.16.20 2. that Saul worshipped him and Samuel did not forbid him and soe accepted of it v. 14. 3. that Saul desired Samuel to assist him and soe inuoked him v. 15. 4. that Samuel prophesied truly what should become of Saul and the Israelites army under him as apprares in the next chapter which was a manifest signe that he who appeared was not the diuel but a true Prophete of God both because the diuel hath noe certaine knowledge of accidentall and casuall things to come as those which Samuel foretold were and because the Prophete Ierem. c. 28. v. 9. giues this for the signc of a true Prophete sent from God The Prophete which prophesieth of peace when the word of the Prophete shall come to passe then shall the Prophete be known that the Lord hath truly sent him That he who here appeared to Saul was Samuel hemselfe and that he truly prophesied is witnessed by Ecclesiasticus c. 46. v. 20. And after his death he prophesied and shewed the king his ende and lift vp his voyce from the earth in prophesie to blot out the wickednesse of the people which booke though it be not accounted canonicall by Protestants yet they must acknowledge it to be of greater authority then any they can alleadge of theyr party to proue that it was not Samuel neyther concluds the reason brought commonly by Protestants any thing against this for though Saul had recourse to that witch to raise him vp Samuel and she had consented to doe it yet the text sayes not that her conjuring raised him or that he was inforced to come by force of her witchcraft for first Samuel attributes his coming vp not to her but to Saul v. 15. why hast thou disquieted me secondly it seemes that soe soone as the woman had consented to Sauls petition that Samuel by the power of God preuenting her wicked conjurings came vp unexpectedly and suddainly and in a terrible and unusuall maner and therefore the text saies v. 12. And when the woman saw Samuel she cried out with a lowd voyce Thirdly That woman said not I raised but I saw Gods ascending from the earth where the Hebrew word Elohim Gods is vety ordinarily taken for good Spirits or Angels in the old testament These three texts may suffice for the present it being not my intention to proue but to defend THE SECOND CONTROVERSIE Concerning the making and worshipping of holy Images The Doctrine of the Romain Chruch concerning the use and veneration of holy Images deliuered in the Council of Trent sess 24. MAndat sancta Synodus omnibus Episcopis caeteris docendi munus curamque sustinentibus vt fideles diligenter instruant docentes eos Imagines Christi Deiparae Virginis aliorum Sanctorum in templis praesertim habendas retinendas eisque debitum honorem venerationem impertiendam non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis diuinitas vel virtus propter quam sint colendae vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum vel quod fiducia in Imaginibus sit figenda veluti olim fiebat à Gentibus quae in Idolis spem suam collocabant sed quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur referrur ad Prototypa quae illae repraesentant ita vt per imagines quas osculamur coram quibus caput aperimus procumbimus Christum adoremus Sanctos quorum illae similitudinem gerunt veneremur Id quod conciliorum praesertim verò secundae Nicenae Synodi decretis contra imaginum oppugnatores est sancitum THe holy Council commands all Bishops and all others who haue the office and care of teaching that they diligently instruct faithfull people teaching them that the Images of Christ of the Virgin Mother of God and of other Saincts are to be had and reteyned especially in churches and that due honour and veneration is to be giuen to them not that one beleeues that there is any diuinity in them or power for which they are to be worshipped or that one is to asck any thing of them or that confidence is to be put in them as anciently the gentiles did who placed theyr hope in Idoles but because the honour which is done to them is referred to those whom they represent Soe that through the Images which we kisse and before which we uncouer our heades and prostrate our selues we worship Christ and his Saints whose similitudes they are which doctrine is established by the decrees of Councils especially of the second Council of Nice Seeing therefore here the Council of Trent expresly commands that all Bishops and Paslours c. teach this doctrine to all faithfull Christians noe Aduersary of the Romain Church can eyther doubt in prudēce whether this be her doctrine nor in charity iudge or affirme vppon a mere coniecturall supposition without any certaine and particular information or proof that Romain Catholicques commonly and ordinarily pray to pictures and put theyr confidence and hope in them beleeuing that there is power life and diuinity in those carued or panited Images which they haue before them and soe hoping to be heard and helped by them as the heathens did by theyr Idoles this I say noe man can say or iudge in charity because he must eyther iudge that the Prelates and Pastours of our church are generally neglecting to teach the faithfull vnder theyr charge what they are here commanded which would be to accuse them of a high and hainous neglect or he must iudge that faithfull people beeing sufficiently taught this doctrine by theyr respectiue Pastours are proudly dissobedient to theyr Pastours and the whol church in doing the quite contrary to what thy are taught which were to condemne them of a greeuous sinne and that without any sufficient reason vppon a mere coniecture or voluntary and rash iudgement contrary to the expresse command of our Sauiour Luc. 6.37 Nolite iudicare non iudicabimini Iudge not and you shall not be iudged And as contrary to that of S. Paul Rom. 14.4 Tu quis es qui iudicas alienum seruum domino suo stat aut cadit VVho art thou who iudges an others seruant he stands or
set down in an other English Catechisme which I haue seene and read in a publike auditory of Protestants The ground therefore of this false imposition if it may be termed a ground may happily haue beene some small short Catechismes made for little children and new beginners for the help of their memories to be learned by hart wherin this commandement as all the rest of the longer commandements set down Exod. 20. Deut. 5. is abridged and brought to so many words as merely serue to expresse the substance of them omitting the rest thus 1. I am the Lord thy God thou shalt not haue any other Gods before me 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vayne 3. Remember thou sanctify the festiuall dayes 4. Honour thy father and mother where not only many words adioyned to the command against adoring false Gods or Idols Exod. 20. Deut. 5. but to the three ensuing also are here for breuity's sake omitted setting down in few words the substance and making no mention of the reasons and amplifications found in Exodus and Deuteronomy least were they all sett at large as they are there both the memory of yong children might be ouercharged and their weake vnderstandings confounded not being able to distinguish the substance of the command from the reasons and amplifications of it Now if we deliuered the commandements with this preface as Protestants do in their common prayer booke The same which God spake in the 20. chapter of Exodus saying c. we were obliged to put them all word for word as they are found there For otherwise the commandements would not be answerable to the Title But seeing we find them in other places of Scripture set down in a much briefer manner then they are there and find no precept neither in Scripture nor in the Church to deliuer them to Christians as they are deliuered in Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. rather then in other places our aduersaryes can no more condemne vs of falsefying them when we put them briefer then they can the holy Scripture it selfe for abbreuiating them more in other places then they are in Exodus now cited and Leuiticus That they are thus abbreuiated in Scripture is manifest Leuit. 19. v. 1.2.3 And the Lord spake vnto Moyses saying speake vnto all the congregation of the children of Israel and say vnto them yee shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy yee shall feare euery man his father and his mother and shall keepe my sabbaths I am the Lord your God yee shall not turne vndo Idols nor make molten Gods I am the Lord your God c. where that which our aduersaryes account the second commandement is put euen shorter then many of our catechismes haue it Turne not your selues vnto Idols nor make vnto your selues molten Gods as it is in Exod. 20. v. 23. Yee shall not make vnto your selues Gods of siluer neither shall yee make Gods of gould Neither indeed is it any way conuenient to deliuer the commandements publikely and generally to Christian people word for word as they stand Exod. 20. Leuitit 26. because therby they are indangered either to take sunday to be saturday or the Iewish Sabbath or must hold themselues obliged to obserue Saturday with the Iewes that alone being dies Sabbati the Sabbath day wherin only God rested after the creation of the world which only he also Sanctifyed and commanded to be kept as clearly appeares by the words of the commandement soe that it is not any seuenth day or one indeterminately euery weeke which God commands to be kept holy in this precept but one only and determinately that is the same seuenth day where in God rested from the worke of the creation as appeares Gen. 2.1.2.3 Et benedixit diei septimo sanctisicauit illum quia in ipso cessauerat ab omni opere suo quod creauit Deus vt faceret And God blessed the seuenth day and sanctified it hecause that in it he had rested from all his workes which God created and made now it is most euident that God rested only vppon one determinate day and that noe other then the Iewish Sabbath or Saturday or if they vnderstand well what day is meant in the commandemenr they must needs be scandalized to see a commandement vniuersally deliuered to them of keeping the Iewish Sabbath which is and euer was Saturday and yet neuer obserued by any of them but Sunday in place of it Hence therefore we see in generall that it is very inconuenient to propose Gods commandements publikely to Christians word for word as they stand in Exodus and so wee can neuer be iustly condemned if we put some of them as they are more briefly deliuered in other places of Scripture or now to be in obseruance amongst Christians But there is an other poynt boggeled at chiefly by the ignorant about the diuision of Gods cōmandements Yee obiect they against vs put the two first commandements into one and diuide the last into two I answere that a Catholike seeing their diuision may with much more reason tell Protestants yee put the two last commandements into one and diuide the first into two Briefly therefore to cleare this poynt it is to be noted that though it be expresly declared in Scripture that Gods commandements were ten in number and written in two tables yet through the whole Bible neuer is it declared which is the first second third c. nor so much as one word spoken concerning the diuision of them but this was left either to tradition or to the prudent determination of Doctours so that howsoeuer they are prudently diuided there will be nothing contrary to Scripture so long as the whol substance be expressed and the number of them be obserued Hence in and euen before S. Augustins tyme as he witnesses there was a double diuision of the commandements amongst Christians some diuiding them as we doe and others as our aduersaryes Yet both S. Augustine himselfe q. 71. in Exod. and S. Hierome Comment in Psalm 32. and Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 6. Stromatum follow our diuision S. Augustin prouing it very largly to be the better and putting in the first commandement Idol not Image and serue not worship and S. Hierome setting down the three commandements conteyned in the first table as short or shorter then any of our Catechismes doe and from them euen to our tymes it seemes to haue beene the receiued diuision at least in the westerne Church and should haue beene followed by those of our nation who euer before the breach were estemeed a part of it and yet pretend to be so had not the spirit of contradiction against the Romain Church induced them to the contrary Now as we haue authority so haue we solid reason to prefer this diuision before that of our aduersaryes for certaine it is that each different commandement forbids a different maine sin so that neither are we to make two
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
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
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
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
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