a huÌ„dred yeares proclamed through the eares of Christendome that the Romane Church resists the known truth and the euident testimonies of the written word of God a heauy accusation I demand in the poursuit of this discours that these testimonies be cited and euidenced out of the authenticall editions and originall languages of the holy Bible In place of these they presse the words of theyr own late translations These I proue to be dissonant dissagreeing from the originall and soe not the words of true Scripture but of a false translation will make against vs. They tell me that whatsoeuer the words are in the originall yet the sense is euideÌ„tly against the Roman Church I demaÌ„d how shall the sense at least in theyr principle of sole Scripture euer euidently appeare but by the words of the originall They tell me whatsoeuer the words be yet the sense is euident I reply that I am nothing mouued with theyr saing without theyr prouuing They bid me proue that it is not euident I tell them that it belongs to him who affirmes to proue his own assertion which if they refuse the whol world will discouer that they haue nothing euident in the whol Bible against the Tenets of the Roman Church Yet to comply beyond all obligation I vndertake to proue that the texts which they most presse against vs are neyther euideÌ„t not soe much as probable but euidently insufficient and not soe much as capable of that sense which they draw from them to make them sound against vs and consequently nothing but pure mistakes And yet farther that nothing may be vvanting to a full victory I presse against them clere vvords eyther out of theyr own TraÌ„slations or out of the originall the force whereof they cannot possibly auoyd but eyther by denijng the plaine and proper sense of the vvords and flying to tropes and figures improprieties shadows and abscurities and that vvithout any necessity saue only of mainteyning theyr own assertions or translating the vvords in a secondary signification leauing the primary and most proper vvhen it makes against them vvhich notvvithstanding they put in other places vvhere it makes not against them or by translating the words quite contrary to the originall eueÌ„ by theyr own acknowledgemeÌ„t or vvhen they are soe troughly prest that theyr is noe way of escaping to reject the expresse words of the neuer questioned originall and affirme that they crept out the margent into the text The discouery of these and such like particulars is the maine drift and summe of this Treatis vvhich I haue intiteled Scripture mistaken the ground of Protestants c. The occasion of my falling vppon which vvas as follows This Treatis vvas at first a priuate controuersie in answer to a long Cathalogue of texts taken and mistaken out of the Protestants Bible and sent to a Persone of quality to diuert him from the Romane faith Through importunity of friends I condescended that it might passe the print hoping that some might reape profit from it and therefore couched it in a plaine easy stile that not only the learned but the vulgar also might vnderstand it I keepe my selfe close to Scripture in the vvhol processe and connexion of my proofes eyther against my Aduersary or in my own cause scarce affirming any thing vvhich I confirme not by one clere texr or other and those such as I haue read and diligeÌ„tly examined my selfe in vvhat language foeuer I cite them and therefore if any false dealing be found in the citations I am content as in that case I should vvell deserue to bere the shame of it The texts whieh I answer are those vvhich are commonly and cheefly stood vppon by Protestants and indeede vvhich mainly vvithhold them from imbracing the Romane faith and the points of controuersie such as are the most pressed against vs and maintayned by our Aduersaries soe that I haue noe reason to doubt if the Readers be once conuinced that they haue noe ground against vs euen in theyr own Bible in these maine and radicall controuersies as I am in greate hope they vvil be that they vvill at least beginne to suspect the vveakenesse of theyr own and to diseouer the strength of our cause and soe put themselues in a fare vvay of returning to the bosome of that mother-mother-church from vvhich the late mistakers and misusers of holy Scripture haue seduced them Some controuerfies of lesser moment set down in the paper I haue here omitted which I reserre to an other occasion being now pressed for vvant of time to content my selfe vvith these Wherein that I may proceed vppon a suer foote I obserue this methode first I set down plainly and vnquestionably the Doctrine of the present Romane Church deliuered as such in the expresse vvords of the Council of Trent in each controuersy vvhich I treat there by stating aright the question disabusing the Protestant Readers vvho are commonly vvholy missin formed of our doctrine by a vvrong conceipt of it in stilled into them preserued in them by eyther the malice or ignorance of theyr Teachers Secondly I set down the Protestant positions eyther as I finde them in the paper or in the nine-and thirty Articles of the English Protestant church Thirdly I cite and answer the texts of the Aduersary by discouuering clerely the seuerall mistakes coÌ„teyned in them and lastly I alleadge some plaine passages of Scripture as they stand in the Protestant Bible in confirmation of our doctrine The greatest fauour therefore that I expect from you deare contrymen is that you spare me not neyther in troughly examining what I alleadge nor in demanding satisfaction in matters which you cannot fully examine of persones abler and learneder then your selues Please therefore to ponder vvhat you read noe lesse impartially then seriously to disingage your selues from that vvithdrawing bias vvhich education custome contry friends selfe loue will and iudgement haue insensibly instilled into your harts labour with a strong humble desire to be informed aright with a loue of truth aboue all transitory interests of this short and miserable life lastly haue your earnest recourse to Allm. God both to discouer what is best for your etetnal welfare and to imbrace it when you haue discouered it preferre God before creatures your soul before your body heauen before earth and before time eternity SCRIPTVRE MISTAKEN THE GROVND OF PROTESTANTS c. THE FIRST CONTROVERSIE Concerning the vvorship of Saints and Angells The doctrine taught beleeued and professed in this point as matter of faith by the Romain Church And dliuered in the Concil of Trent as Such Sessione 24. MAndat sancta Synodus omnibus Episcopis caeteris docendi munus curamque sustinentibus vt Fideles diligenter instruant docentes eos Sanctos vnà cum Christo regnantes orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offerre bonum atque vtile esse suppliciter eosinuocare ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per Filiâ—m
eius Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum qui solus noster Redemptor Saluator est ad eorum orationes opem auxiliumque confugere THe holy Synode commands all Bishops and the rest which haue the office and care of teaching that they diligently instruct faithfull people teaching them that the Saints which raigne togeather with Christ offer vp theyr praires to God for men that it is good and profitable humbly to inuoke them and to haue recourse to theyr praires helpe and assistance to obteyne benefits of God through his Sone Iesus Christ our Lord who alone is our Redeemer and Sauiour Whence it is cleare that according to the Council of Trent to whose doctrine all those of the Romain Church hold themselues obliged to subscribe first that wee pray not the Saints That they Should procure any blessings by theyr sole force and vertu independant of God but only that they present theyr praires to God to obteyne them of him for vs orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offerre which plainely cleares vs from all idolatry in this particular both they and wee praying to the same one only God And secondly we haue not recourse to theyr praires to God as if they were to be granted for the worth and dignity of the Saints imdepedently of Christs merits but only through and for his merits ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per Filium eius Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum to obteyne benefits of God through his Sone Iesus Christ our Lord excluding the Saints from being eyther our Redeemers or Sauiours which we all acknwledge to be christ alone qui solus noster Redemptor Saluator est as this holy Council here teaches vs which makes vs vndeniably free from the least shaddow of injury done to our Sauiour and his infinite merits when we inuoke the Saints Thirdly we are here taught to giue reâ—ence and worship to the Saints in heauen suppliciter eos inuocare to inuocque them humbly deuoutly suppliantly neyther as Gods nor as sauiours but as pure creatures reigning with Christ and as dependent of God and Christ as we are our selues as appeares by the former words of the Council now cited Lastly we are here taught that this humble inuocation of the Saints and the same is of Angels is good profitable but the Council teaches not neyther giues any generall commaÌ„d to inuoke them nor that the actual practice of it is absolutly necessary to Saluation or that noe man can be saued who has not thus humbly inuoked the Saints for theyr praires are only furthering helpes not necessary meanes to Saluation soe that noe man is bound to beleeue any absolute necessity of it but in rigour it is sufficient not to reiect it as bad or hurtfull but to allow of it as good and profitable leauing the practice or not practice the greater or lesse use of it to euery ones particular piety and deuotioÌ„ This I say not to induce any one to thinke that it were eyther laudable or allowable in such as beleeue the goodnesse and profit of this inuocation as all Romain Catholicques must doe neuer or very seldome to practice it for this were to be supinely negligent in vsing the helpes which wee beleeue to be profitable for our spirituall good as the same appeares in desiring the praires of Gods seruants whilst they liue here on earth which is nor absolutly necessary but yet good and profitable but I say it only that all may know distinctly what the Council here teaches as necessary and what only as good and profitable and to dissabuse vulgar Protestants who thinke that the Romain church teaches that it is as necessary to saluation to inuoke and worship the Saints as to inuoke and worship Christ himselfe Hauing thus declared the doctrine of the Romain church deliuered in the Council of Trent let us now see what Protestants alleadge aganist it out of Scripture mistaken The first Protestant Position Thus framed by the opponent God only to be worshipped therefore neyther Saint nor Angell This is proued by Scripture mistaken Mat. 4.10 It is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue saith Christ. The first mistake The words of this text affirme not that God only is to be worshipped THe text saith thus thou shalt worship the Lord thy God from which cannot be proued thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only that word only being not ioyned in this text to the worship of God as no Protestant can or does proue that God only is to be feared from the like text of Scripture Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God seeing that à wife is commanded to feare her husband Ephes. 5.25 And subiects to feare theyr Magistrates and Gouernours Rom. 13.4 Neyther is any one soe senslesse to affirme that God only is to be loued because Dauid saies O loue the Lord all yee his Saints for if God only that is none saue God were to be loued then noe man were to loue his neighbour which not with standing is most strictly commanded as all know nor husbands to loue theyr wiues which S. Paul commands Ephes. 5. v. 25. and how come they then to proue that God only is to be worshipped because the Scripture here cited commands vs to worship God but commands noe more to worship him only then the former texts to feare and loue him only How come they I say to vrge such à text as this without the least appearance of proose but by à pure mistake of the words of Scripture especially seeing that the Scripture in an other place commaÌ„ds vs as clearly to worship something beside God as it commands to feare and loue others beside God Psalme 99.5 worship his foorstole where the very same Hebrew and Greeke phrase and words are vsed which are in this text cited Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God howsoeuer that text Psal. 99. is mistranslated by Protestants as I shall shew here after Ande the Prophete Isay foretels that the enimies of Hierusalem should worship the steps of her feete Isay 60.14 but what soeuer be meant by those steps certainly it cannot be God therefore the text of Scripture cited Mat. 4. commands not that God only should be worshipped If any Protestant shoud say that though the word only be not ioyned to worship yet it is ioyned to serue in the text cited Mat. 4. and him only shalt thou serue which seemes to be of as much force as if it were ioyned to worship I answer that if the Opponent had framed the Protestant position thus God only to be serued therefore neyther Sainct nor Angell the latter part of the text hauing and him only shalt thou serue there might haue beene some shew of proofe in alledging these words Mat. 4. But seeing the position runs thus God only to be worshipped and the text saith not thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only but thou shalt worship the Lord
which is not set down in expresse words in the new Testament I answer that that is manifestly vntrue and must be confessed to be soe euen by Protestants themselues for they can neuer find any expresse mention in the new Testament that nothing is to be beleeued or practized lawfully by Christians saue that which is expressed in the new Testament 2. that any churches were made or to be made amongst Christians distinct from dwelling houses 3. that fonts for baptisme were put in those churches 4. that childeren were euer actually baptised in those fonts 5. that God-fathers and God-mothers were to be vsed in Baptisme of childeren 6. that any spirituall kindred arises by vertu of Baptisme betwixt those God-fathers and God-mothers on the one side and the childeren Baptized theyr Parents respectiuely on the other If therefore none of those can be found mentioned expressely in the new Testament with what shew of reason can Protestants demand that the worship of Images should be mentioned in the new Testament seeing they practice these particulars noe lesse then we the worship of Images But in these and such like religious practices it is sufficient euen according to the Protestant Principle of sole Sctipture that eyther there be expresse mention made of them eyther commanding or allowing them in the old Testament which is neuer reuoked or dissallowed in the new as is that of the worship of Images or at least that the lawfullnesse of them can be deduced from the old or new Testament by a good consequence drawn according to the rules of right reason as the worship of Images is manifestly from the 13. of the Reuel now cited for if the worship of the Image tend to the honour of him who is represented by it as is there euident and that it is lawfull to doe all that which tends to the honour of our Sauiour then it follows ineuitably that the worship of his Image is lawfull and the like is of the Images of Saints Thus haue I indeauored to discouer the different mistakes of Protestants in the texts of Scripture cited by them against the vse of holy Images taught and peactized in the Romane Church and with all the strange mistranslations inuented by them to make holy Scripture speake to the vulgar against the doctrine and practice of the Romane Church in this particular and this may sfuffice for the second Controuersie THE THIRD CONTROVERSIE Concerning Iustification The Doctrine of the Roman Church deliuered in the Council of Trent touching this Point Sess. 6. can 1. SI quis dixerit hominem suis operibus quae vel per humanae naturae vires vel per legis doctrinam fiunt absque diuina per Iesum Christum gratiâ posse iustificari coram Deo Anathema sit It any one shall say that a man can be iustified by his workes which are done by the force of humaine nature or by the doctrine of the law without diuine grace through our Lord Iesus Christ let him be accursed Ibidem can 2. Si quis dixerit ad hoc solùm diuinam gratiam per Iesum Christum dari vt facilius homo iustè viuere ac vitam aeternam promereri possit quasi per liberum arbitrium vtrumque sed aegrè tamen difficulter possit anathema sit If any one shall say that diuine grace through Iesus Christ is giuen only to this end that a man may more easily liue iustly and deserue eternal life as if he could doe both though with labour and difficulty by his freewill let him be accursed Ibidem can 3. Si quis dixerit sine praeuenienâ—e Spiritus sancti inspiratione atque eius adiutorio hominem credere sperare diligere aut poenitere posse sicut oportet vt ei iustificationis gratiâ conferatur anathema sit If any one shall say that without the preuenting inspiration of the holy Ghost and his assistance a man can beleeue hope loue and repent as he should doe to haue the grace of iustification bestowd vppon him let him be accursed Here I demand vppon what ground the 13 of the 39 English Protestant Articles speakes thus of the scoole men of the Roman Church Workes done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his spirit are not pleasant to God for as much as they spring not of faith in Iesu Christ neyther doe they make men meet to recriue grace or as the schoole Authors say deserue grace of Congruity I would gladly haue those schoole Authours named and cited who affirme contrary to the expresse words of the Council of Trent so great a semi-Pelagian Heresie as this is whereof they are here accused And if none attall can be produced how great an vntruth is conteyned in this article where it is said not as some of the schoole Authours but as the schoole Authours say that is eyther vniuersally or commonly affirme whence may clearly be collected that those new Prelates and Doctours who composed those 39 articles which haue been euer since they were composed esteemed the summe and substance of the Protestant Religion and faith in England were eyther grosly ignorant in the doctrine of the schoole Authours and exceeding temerarious in affirming that of them which they neuer vnderstood or insufferably deceiptfull and malitious in accusing them against theyr own knowledge and conscience of holding generally an errour which not soe much as any one of them euer held but the quite contrary Conc. Trid. ibidem cap. 8. Cùm verò Apostolus dicit iustificari hominem per fidem gratis ea verba in eo sensu intelligenda sunt quem perpetuus Ecclesiae Catholicae consensus tenuit expressit vt scilicet per fidem ideo iustificari dicamur quia fides est humanae salutis initium fundamentum radix omnis iustificationis sine quâ impossibile est placere Deo ad filiorum eius consortium peruenire gratis autem iustificari ideo dicamur quia nihil eorum quae iustificationem praecedunt siue fides siue opera ipsam iustificationis gratiam promeretur si enim gratia est iam non ex operibus alioquin vt idem Apostolus inquit gratia iam non est gratia When the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by fayth and gratis or freely those words are to be vnderstood in that sence which the perpetuall consent of the Catholicque Church allwayes held and expressed to wit that we are said to be iustified by faith because faith is the beginÌ„ing of mans saluation the foundation and roote of all iustifieation without which it is impossible to please God and to come into the number of his childeren But we are said to be iustified gratis because none of these things which goe before iustification whether it be faith or workes deserue the grace of iustification for if it be grace it is not of workes otherwise as the same Apostle says grace would not be grace Conc. Trid. ibidem cap. 10. Sic ergo iustificati
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
that the Pictures which thus represent the apparitions of God the Father or God the holy Ghost should be had and reteyned espeacially in churchs for there the Council mentions only the Images of our Sauiour and of Saints but she only tolerates or permits that such other pictures may be made when it is found expedient and that only historically The second Protestant Position Noe Image whatsoeuer ought to be worshipped This is proued by Scripture mistaken The first Proofe YEe shall make you no Idolls nor grauen Image◠neither reare yee vp a standing image neither shall yee set vp an Image of stone in your Land to bowe downe to it for I am the Lord your God The first mistake Noe word in this text neeessarily signifies Image in the originall which is heere translated Image HEre is named Image three tymes in so few words and yet neither the 70. Interpretes in greeke nor the vulgar translation in Latine haue so much as once this word Image in the whole verse neither is there any word in the Hebrew text which necessarily signifyes Image in this place as is cleare out of Pagninus his translation word for word So that this appeares alsoe to be a mistake like the former Coloss. 2. to deceiue the ignorant reader by making him abhorre holy Images seeing them so clearly and often forbidden in his English Bible I deny therefore that Images are forbidden in this place or the reuerence due to them and it belongs to Protestants to proue it neither will it be inough if they proue that some one of these words may be taken to signify an Image for they must shew that it must needs signify an Image in this very place if they will conuince any thing against the worship of holy Images out of it for it may signify also that which is no Image and till they proue that it necessarily here signifyes an Image they effect nothing especially seeing that though any of these words in the Hebrew mighr signify an Image in some secondary sinification yet here they doe not both because the 70. Interpreters and the ancient vulgar translation and Pagninus and almost all saue the new Protestant translations put it otherwise and because the first word Elilim in Hebrew signifyes an Idol or false God as it is here translated by Protestants and cōsequently all the words following must be taken for Idolls to agree with it the difference betwixt an Idol and an Image I will giue you presently The Second Proofe THou shall not make to thy selfe any grauen Image nor the likenesse of any thing that is in heauen aboue or in the earth heneath or in the water vnder the earth thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them The Second mistake The Hebrew and Greek words here put Grauen Image are mistranslated HEre againe is the word grauen Image put in to the English text contrary both to the Hebrew and Greeke text the Hebrew word here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pesel which the 70. Interpreters in this place translate in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Idol or false God and the Latine sculptile which in the eeclesiasticall signification is always through the whole Scripture taken for an Idol or representation of a false God when it is forbidden as also the Hebrew word pesel which is neuer taken in a good sense for any Image truly representing anything existent as it is really in it selfe as carued or grauen curiosityes Now the difference betwixt an Image and an Idol is this an Image is a representation of a true thing which either is or is possible to be in that very maner wherin he who makes or vses the Image intends to represent it as the paintings or caruings of trees of flowers of beasts of men or women which we ordinarily vse in our houses Thus the word Image is taken Gen. 1.26 and 27. Gen. 5. v. 36. Deut. 4. v. 16. 2. Cor. 4. v. 4. Coloss. 1. v. 15. and in many other places and in Hebrew it is called tsalem in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ikon But an Idol is a representation of what neither is nor can possibly be as he who makes or vsees it intends to represent it and therfore is called Abacuc 2. v. 18. a false phantasie in the 70. Interpreters and according to the Hebrew a thing which tells a lye that is represēts that to be which neither is not can be And Isay 44. v. 10. an Idol is called vanity or profitable for nothing And S. Paul 1. Cor. 8.4 we know that an Idol is nothing in the world because it represents that to be God which neither is nor possibly can be God because there is but one only true God and therefore in Hebrew Idols are called Elilim that is vanity or falsity and in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an empty and Idle fiction of the brayne Hence it comes to passe that the very same materiall representation may in diuers respects be an Image and an Idol an Image in regard of that which is truly represented by it an Idol in reference to that which it represents falsly and lyingly Thus the picture of the Sun is an Image therof so far as it represents the face beames and figure of the visibile sun and puts vs in remembrance of it But the very same materiall picture will be an Idol in as much as it is made to represent the sun as a God and a soueraine diuine power as the heathens represent it in their Idols And hence by different persons the same materiall picture or statue may be esteemed and respected as an Image or as an Idol for a true Christian seeing the Image of the Sun will regard only the true representation of the true sun̄e in it but the Heathen will esteeme it as conteyning or representing some diuinity or deity and so to him it will be an Idol That which here I exemplify in the Sunnes picture is to be extended to all other representations of men or other creatures for if any one in an historicall way would represent some reall passage in the life of Mars Iuno Iupiter Saturne Venus c. as they were men or weomen once here liuing vppon earth and go no further those very pictures will be Images only that is true representations of that which once was but if one intend to draw their pictures or carue their statues with designe to represent them as Gods and Goddesses it will be in that regard no Image but a pure Idol falsly representing that to be God which neither was nor can he God And the very same different respect is in force in those very pictures which Protestants allow of for if one should haue the pictures of Queene Elizabeth or King Iames merely to represent them as they indeed were the one true King the other true Queen of England the would be Images only but if a Heathen should make a God of each of them
are here excluded from ordinary sermons to common people and all curiosities forbidden The Protestant Position That the soules of the faithfull in theyr departure are happy wee often read but noe newes of Purgatory This is proued by Scripture mistaken Blessed are the dead who dye in the Lord from hence sorth saith the spirit that they may rest from theyr labours and theyr workes follow them The first mistake The text saith not they rest presently after theyr death They are not sayd here to rest presently after theyr departure but that they may rest and yet they may be termed blessed as our Sauiour calls the pore in spirit blessed in this world and in theyr misery because the Kingdome of heauen belongs to them as it does to those in Purgatory The second mistake The word labours misapplyed They are not sayd to rest from all labour but from their labours that is such labours persecutions afflictions sorrowes temptations mortifications troubles anxietyes as they suffered in this world from all which they rest after death By theyr labours also may be fitly here vnderstood theyr good workes and patience in suffering the miseries of this life with hope of eternall reward so that they are sayd to rest from their labours because the recompence and crown of their former labours are alloted to them as certainly to follow as the next words declare opera enini eorum sequunturillos for their morkes that is their labours follow them and yet in some of them it may happen that they may not presently receiue the reward of them which hinders not the resting of their labours because they are not to haue any reward for what they suffer after this life The second proofe out of Scripture mistaken For wee know that if the eartly house of this tabernacle were dissolued wee haue a building of God a house not made with hands eternal in heauen This text is mistaken These words say not that presently after death they shall goe into that heueauenly house How follows it hence that so soone as they depart they must goe into this house prepared for them seeing that many may haue houses that are hindred to liue in them especially in these distracted tymes and our Sauiour saith Blessed are the pore in spirit for theirs is the kingdome of heauen euen whilst they are liuing in this world And the Apostle Now therefore yee are no more strangers and furainers but fellow citizens vvith the saints and of the houshold of God And yet more clearly S. Iohn these things I writte vnto you that yee may know that yee haue life euerlasting yee who beleeue in the name of the sone of God That is in full hope and expectation not in actual possession which yet iâ— sayd more clerely to belong to those in Purgatory who haue an infallible certainty of life eternall The third proofe from Scripture mistaken But the soules of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them Mistake The word torment misvnderstood The Latin hath it non tanget illos tormentum mortis the torment of deach shall not touch them which is most true of all the iust departed because they shall liue eternally but Protestants regard not the vulgar Latin translation The greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which according to Scapula particularly signifyes a torment to which malefactours or suspected to be so are put to make them confesse the truth or to try whether they be guilty or no as are the racke or such like Now no such torment as this shall tuch the soules of the iust departed because God hath sufficiently tryed them and approued of them in this life as apeares v. 5. and hauing beene a little chastised they shall be greatly rewarded for God proued them and found them vvorthy of him selfe Which is a playne place for merits but when it is against Protestants it is only apocryphal If any shall demand whether the word Purgatory be expressed in Scripture I answer that it is as much expressed as the word trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diuine Petson which not withstanding are beleeued by Protestants If it be replied that at least the substance or meaning of those words are expressed in Scripture I answer the same of Purgatory which I demonstrate in this maner Purgatory is nothing else according to the Council of Trent now cited but a place where temporall punishments are suffered by iust persones after death vvich they deserued in this life Now if any iustified soul be and often is liable after death to suffer such punishments then certainly there must be some certaine place where they must be suffered But iustified soules may be and often are liable to suffer such punishments after death ergo there must be such a place where in they are to suffer them That iustified soules may be and often are liable to such punishments I proue thus Iustified persones yet liuing after the remission of theyr sinnes and consequently of eternall torment are liable to some temporall punishment therefore souls departed of iust persones may and often are liable to the like I proue the antecedent out of the 2. Sam. 12. v. 13.14 And Dauid said vnto nathan I haue sinned against the Lord and Nathan said vnto Dauid the Lord also hath put away thy sinnes thou shalt not dy Howbeit because by this deed thou hast giuen great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme the child also which is borne vnto the shall surely dy whete for that very sinne which was put away and forgiuen Dauid was punished by the death of his child because thou hast giuen by this deede c. the child shall dy The same is proued by the example of Adam whoe after his sinne was forgiuen him was notwithstanding liable to the punishment of death which is the wages of sinne as are also all iust persones for the same reason The antecedent therefore being clere I proue the consequence by this argument Seeing God is noe respecter of persones and that he rewards euery one according to theyr workes whosouer deserues the like punishmeÌ„t that Dauid deserued shall surely be punished as Dauid waâ—slet vs therefore put this case that at the same time with Dauid there had been an other Person guilty of sinnes as greate as were those of Dauid who should haue also repented with the same degree of sorrow and consequently obteyned pardone of his sinne as Dauid did this sinner must haue been liable to the same temporall punishment that Dauid was now suppose that this other sinnerâ— should haue died the very instant after his sinne was forgiuen him according to the doctrine of the Romane Church he should haue been punished temporally in the other world with a punishment correspondent to that of Dauid and soe God should not haue been a respecter of persones but haue rewarded euery one according to theyr workes but according to Protestants he should
SCRIPTVRE MISTAKEN THE GROVND OF PROTESTANTS AND COMMON PLEA OF ALL NEW REFORMERS AGAINST THE ANCIENT CATHOLICKE RELIGION OF ENGLAND Many texts quite mistaken by Nouelists are layd open and redressed in this treatis by restoring them to theyr proper sense according to which it is made manifest that none of them are of force against the ancient Catholicke Religion By IOHN SPENSER of the Society of IESVS Videtis id vos agere vt oninis de medio Scripturarum auferatur auctoritas S. Aug. li. 32. contra Faust. c. 19. PRINTED AT ANTWERPE By IAMES MEVRSIVS ANNO M.DC.LV. The points of Controuersie conteyned in this Treatis I. Of vvorship of Saincts and Angles pag. 1. II. Of the making and vvorshipping of holy Images pag. 69. III. Of Iustification by faith only pag. 137. IV. Of the merit of good vvorkes pag. 161. V. Of Purgatory pag. 179. VI. Of the reall Presence pag. 189. VII Of Communion vnder one kinde pag. 317. THE PREFACE THose victories are deseruedly inroled amongst the most noble and memorable in the monumeÌ„ts of Antiquity wherein an Enemy is ouercâ—m me with his own weapen Thus Dauids beating down that Tower of the Philistines seemed to the Israelites to haue been a conquest ouer ten thowsand Enemies Saul percussit mille Dauid decem millia because he cut of Golias head with Golias sword Thus the sone of God our dearest Sauiour purchast the noblest of all victories against the strongest of all Enimies vt qui in ligno vincebat in ligno quoque vinceretur because he who ouercame vs by a tree was through him by a tree ouercome And thus our deare Redeemer hauing been furiously attacked by the Tempter in the desert with the authority of his own word put to flight and vanquished the same Tempter by the authority of the same word which he had pressed against him Hence it is that not the sling of Dauid werewith he begunne but the sword of Golias was reserued and wrapt vp in a holy Ephod in the Tabernacle as an eternall trophe and monument of his victory Hence that anciently most ignominious hatefull of creatures the crosse is now erected in triumphal maner not only vppon the highest towers of Christian temples but vppon the most sacred and soueraigne heads of Christian Emperours And hence it also is that the Catholicque Church hath soe carefully conserued soe religiously honored and gloriously triuÌ„phed in those breathes of diuinity the holy Scriptures because that as her spouse stopt the fontaine soe she by the heat of his spirit hath dried vp the troubled and diuided streames of all errours and heresies trough theyr heauenly light and authority This is the victoty which I represent in triumph in this present treatis as the most heroicke amongst all others of the Romane Church because it conquers heresie by the weapen of heresie vt qui in verbo pugnabant in verbo quoque vincerentur that those vvbo haue hitherto fought vvith the sole vvord might be ouercome vvith the sole vvord The Romane Church euen from the first Challenge of her aduersaries in these last ages hath giuen them the foile nay quite defeated them at the weapens of Antiquity vniuersalâ—â—y vnity succession visibility sanctity miracles Fathers Councils reason authority but these were soe farre and clearly her weapens that they scarce euer dirst lay clayme to any of them and soe the victory glassed in theyr eyes seemes eyther none or small because not gayned with a weapen of theyr chusing now therefore to accomplish what she hath soe prosperously attempted she accepts the combat euen with that weapen which they take by mistaking to be theyr own It is the vvritâ—en vvord of God the sole vvritten vvord to which all appeall here they boast and glory here they exult and triumph not only before the victory but befote the fight this and this alone they take for theyr bucklar of defense for theyr armour of proofe for theyr deepe piercing dart theyr swift flying arrow and theyr sharp edged sword this they brandish before the eyes of innoceÌ„ts with this they florish in theyr bookes and Pulpits in theyr publicque meetings and priuate conuenticles nay in the very streetes and tauernes and that soe seemingly with a glosse as false as it is faire that they dazle the eyes of the vulgar and strike them with admiration in each motion of it Here they fully perswade themselues that those of the Roman Church dare not medle with them and take for granted that whatsoeuer wee haue gained vppon them by other weapens yet wee yeeld our selues clerely conquered by this So confideÌ„t are our Aduersaries in theyr own conceipts where as the Roman Church neuer as yet acknowledged to haue been eyther worsted or soe much as touched by any one text of Scripture which they euer pressed against her witnesse the many large volumes of full and cleere answers to euery senteÌ„ce objected by her Aduersaries Neyther euer refused she to incounter her enemies with this weapen of theyr own chusing True it is she requiers iudges present to see and determine which party hath the better in the incounter but they refuse all other iudges quite contrary to the light of reason saue that very weapen where with rhey fight and though she still keepe the feeld continue on the coÌ„bat maintaine the quarel without soe much as yeelding eyther a step or hairs breadth not withstaÌ„ding she must be worsted only because her aduersaries say she is What will an impartiall ey iudge of such proceedings yet to shew how empty and vaine all these flotishes are and how strong desires she hath of the eternall good of her enimies rather then leaue them wholy destitute of redresse she freely like an indulgent mother condesceÌ„ds to theyr infirmities and conformes her selfe to theyr wayward humours and that soe farre as to expose the equitie of her cause euen to the iudgement of her very Aduersaries and confides with holy Dauid inimici nostri sunt iudices that euen her most forward enimies will not be soe voyd of light reason and equity as not to acknowledge her conquerant and themselue vanquished euen in theyr own iudgements and with theyr own weapen Thus she enters the list and confides in the strength of her God and spouse that the day wil be hers And findes noe surer meanes to incompasse it then by disarming her enimie because to dissarme him him is to dissanimate him for yeeld he must when he can feight noe longer I haue indeauored in this present Treatis to giue my Readers an essay of this kinde of victory of the Roman Church where in I hope he will finde it manifest that the texts which our Aduersaries vsually alleadge against the Romane doctrine in such points as I haue tuched are not arguments but mistakes And that soe grosse and palpable that halfe an ey may discouer them Thus therefore the matter stands and the combat proceeds betwixt vs. Our Aduersaries haue now aboue
plaine Infidelity and blasphemy against our Sauiour Now that this is so appeares euidētly first out of the text it selfe if it had been wholy cited for it followes immediately v. 18. in your owne Bible and not holding the head by which all the body by ioynts and bands hauing nourishment ministred and knit togeather increaseth with the increase of God Which is nothing but so to worship Angells that they deny the souerainty of Christ and acknowledge him not to be the chiefe nourishing head of the church which all Romain Catholikes condemne as mainly iniurious to Christ and destructiue of the church because it takes a way his diuinity and exhibites worship to the Angells not as Christ seruants and vassalls infinitly inferiour to him and on whom he hath no dependance at all but as to his equalls or Superiours But Romain Catholikes not denying Christ's absolute souerainty and Diuinity but most constantly beleeuing it euen whilst they worship Angells as his seruants doe not any thing against this text of S. Paul Coloss. 2. v. 18. and 19. wherin is forbidden only such a worship of them as destroyes the beleefe that he is the Soueraine head of his church worshipping of Angells c. v. 18. not holding the head c. v. 19. The Second mistaken The greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mistranslated SEcondly that not all honour and worship of Angells is forbidden in this text but only such as destroyes the Souerainty and Diuinity of Christ may be gathered out of the greeke word here vsed by the Apostle threskeia which as Scapula a Protestant in his lexicon notes hath for the first signification Religion and so the vulgar latin translates it Religionem Angelorum the Religion of Angells which intimates thus much that those against whom the Apostle here writes did compose out of theyr own heads a religion of Angells whom they had neuer seene nor did they vnderstand as the Apostle signifies in these words v. 18. intruding into those things which they haue not seene and fayning vnto them selues certaine subordinations and dependences amongst the Angells and making our Sauiour a mere Angell as the rest and not God And so framing theyr whole faith and religion in Angells that it might iustly be termed by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 threskeia ton Angelon the religion of Angells And had your Protestant translations beene so punctuall and faithfull in giuing the full signification of the greeke text as you imagine they should rather haue translated the greeke word Threskeia according to the prime and first signification religion then according to a secondary signification worshipping but they chose this rather then the former because it sounds in the eares of the vnlearned more against the doctrine an practise of the Romain Church who are carried away much more by the words then the sense of Scripture which the vnlearned and vnstable peruert to theyr owne destruction 1. of Peetet the 3. v. 16. and this is the ordinary deceit of your new translatours in very many other places of holy Scripture when the greeke or hebrew words haue different significations allwayes to put that which makes most against vs leauing the rest which notwithstanding they put when the other serue theyr turnes better against vs though the greeke word be the same which I am able to demonstrate if it be demanded the translation of the word Threskeia shall now suffice for though they translate it here worshipping because that word seemed to be of force amongst the ignorant readers against vs yet Iames 1. v. 26. and 27. they translate the very same word threskeia here vsed religion not worshipping or worship this mans religion is vaine v. 26. pure religion c. v. 27. because there it was no aduantage for them nor disaduantage to vs to translate it Religion but howsoeuer when such texts as these are vsed against vs Protestants must not thinke that we are bound to stand to theyr translation which we allow not of but to the hebrew greeke or Latin with proportion and so when the words in those languages haue different significations we are not bound to answer to the text as it stands in theyr new translations but haue freedome to take the word in some other signification especially when antiquity hath soe translated and onderstood it therefore I answer here that the greeke word hauing different significations it is not the worshipping but the religion of Angells which is here forbidden for soe the vulgar translation hath it which is ancient about twelue hundred yeares and how can any Protestant though learned euer conuince out of Scripture that the word threskeia is rather to be translated worshipping then religion seeing the greeke word signifies both and the scope and context of the Apostle rather agrees with religion then worshipping nay how shall the pore vnlearned readers be certaine that their translation is the word of God and the true and only signification of the word in the originall in that place when the originall word hath sundry significations and further how shall they not haue cause to doubt of and call in question the whole translation of the bible seeing they know not when the words in the originall haue different significations or only one and so may doubt wether the true signification and that which is only meant there by the holy Ghost is put or rather an other which was not intended by the holy Ghost in that place especially in places of controuersy where their Translatours vse to take all aduantages against vs as I haue shewed And yet neyther of those two inconueniences toutch Romain Catholikes because their translation is commended and approued by the holy church which thy beleeue cannot erre in her definitions in poynts of faith and so rest assured that their translation deliuereth the true signification of the words meant by the holy Ghost in each particular place though the words in themselues be indifferent to many significations in the originall Now it appeares euidently that S. Paul speakes of a Religion or as the Protestants will haue it a worshipping of Angells which makes them equall to Christ or Christ dependant of them because the streame of holy ancient fathers affirme that the Apostle wrote here against Symon Magus and other Arch-heretikes in the Apostles time who coyned these errours of the Angells forging certaine subordinations dependences and preeminencyes amongst them that our Sauiour was one of them as some thought subiect to them The ancient Fathers who affirme that the aboue said heretikes held these errours about the Angells are Clemens Romanus who liued in the tyme of the Apostles lib. 6. Constitut. c. 10. S. Ireneus who liued in the next age after the Apostles lib. 2. against hereseys c. S. Epiphanius who florished about 300. yeares after Christ in his Catalogue os heresyes speaking of Symon Magus and the rest and Theodoret who wrote about 400. yeares after
falls to his own maister The Council of Trent in the same session IN has autem sanctas ac salutares obseruationes si qui abusus irrepserint eas prorsus aboleri sancta Synodus vehementer cupit ita vt nullae falsi dogmatis Imagines Rudibus periculofi erroris occasionom praebentes statuantur But if any abuses haue erept into these holy and prefitable obseruations the holy Council vehemently desires that they be wholy abolished or taken away soe that there be not exposed any Images teaching false doctrine and giuing occasion of dangerous errour to the common people And then the Council addes these wrds Quod si aliquando historia◠narrationes sacrae Scripturae cùm id indoctae plebi expediet exprimi sigurari contigerit doceatur populus non propterea diuinitatem figurari vel quasi corporeis oculis conspici vel coloribus aut figuris exprimi possit But if some times it happen that the histories or passages of holy Scripture be expressed and figured out in pictures when that shall be expedient for the vnlearned let the people be taught that thereby the diuinity is not painted eyther as if it could be seene by corporeall eyes or expressed by coulours or figures And presently after Omnis porro superstitio in Sanctorum inuocatione reliquiarum veneratione Imaginum sacro vsu tollatur omnis turpis quaestus eliminetur omnis denique lasciuia vitetur Moreouer let all superstition in the inuocation of Saints the veneration of reliques and the holy vse of Images be taken a way let all base lucre be banished and let all immodestie be auoyded And least any Protestant should conceiue that the second Council of Nice cited here by the Council of Trent deliuers any doctrine contrarie to what is here deliuered I thought fit to adioyne the words of that Council The second Council of Nice Actione 3. NOn materiae vel coloribus cultum offerentes sed per haec inuisibilibus visibus ad principalem adducti honorem illi debitum impendentes Scientes secundùm Basilium Magnum quòd Imaginis honor ad principalem transeat Not presenting worship to the matter or coulours but through these being brought to the person represented by them wee giue due honour to him Knowing according to Basil the Great that the honour of the Image passes to him who is represented by it Hauing deliuered the doctrine of the Romain Church in this point of Images let vs now see what her Aduersaries produce against it out of Scripture mistaken The first Protestant Position It is not lawfull to represent God the Father in any likenesse whatsoeuer of any Image This is proued by Scripture mistaken The first Proof THey changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to a corruptible man and to birds and to foure footed beasts and to creeping things The second Proof TAke yee therefore good heed vnto yeur selues for yee saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spoke to you in Horeb out of the middest of the fier Least you corrupt your selues and make you a grauen image the similitude of any figure the likenesse of male or female These proofs mistaken· THese texts are missappleyed against the doctrine of the Romain Church wee grant most willingly all that is sayd here neither do wee euer represent God the Father by any image at all immediatly or directly that is to signify that he is of a figure or shape like that image but cheefly as wee haue now shewed in the Council of Trent wee represent by our Images the figures wherin he appeared to the ancient Prophets historically And I beheld till the thrones were cast down and the ancient of dayes did sit whose garmēts were white as snow the hayre of his head like to pure well This figure here described by the Prophet Daniel we represent neither is it forbidden in any of the places alleadged or any other of holy Scripture to represent the figures wherin Allmighty God hath pleased to represent himselfe for where is it forbidden to represent by way of history this vision of Daniel as he describes it or the vision of other Prophets and of S. Iohn in the Apocalyps more then any other historyes of Scripture Let any such place be produced neyther by such representations do Romain Catholikes more beleeue that God the Father is an old man then did Daniel the Prophet beleeue he was one when he saw this vision For the Roman Church both stedfastly beleeues her selfe and strictly commands all her Prelats Pastours and teachers to instruct all her children that God is a pure spirit in himselfe and hath no body or figure at all and that such like pictures are not to represent God immediately but the figures wherin he appeared And this euen the little children are taught in their catechismes and if some chance to be ignorant of it it is not the Churches fault but the fault of her particular Pastours who are negligent in instructing their flockes as also ignorant people may easily fall to thinke as well amongst Protestants as Catholikes that God the Father hath a right hand consequently a body because they haue mention of his right hand in their creed and the like is in many places of Scripture read ordinarily by common people in England where God is sayd to haue feet hands head face mouth eyes eares and particularly in this vision of Daniell and others of S. Iohn in the Reuelations if these words be not by negligence of Pastours or Ministers well explicated and yet notwithstanding as these words he sits at the right hand of God the Father Allmighty and the like are not to be blotted out of the creed or Scripture but to be well explicated so also those pictures though some through their Pastours negligence may fall into errour by them are not to be taken away but explicated and expounded according to the grounds of the Christian faith and the doctrinc of the Catholicke Chruch Yet if any one would vrge that some attributes of God may be signifyed by some pictures which are vsed in the Catholicke Church I answer that thence followes not that we intend to picture the Diuinity or nature of God or to signify that it is a visible corporall thing like to that picture but only to make a hieroglyphicall expression of certaine attributes as wee doe when we represent vertues or vices in certaine shapes of men or weomē the better to expresse the nature of them not to signify that they are corporall or like to those persons Thus the white haire mentioned by Daniell signifycs the neuer begining nor ending eternity of God the crown scepter and world his absolute dominion ouer all things the light about him his infinite glory and so of the rest Only here I thought fit to note that according to the Council of Trent aboue cited The Church of Rome hath not commanded nor ordayned
answer is a mere euasion grounded vppon a false principle I will presently make manifest for first it is not the custome of Greeke authours speaking of the statues or Idols of theyr Gods to expresse them in the feminine as referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in the masculine article as referred to the God whose name that statua beares Secondly Acts 19.35 those words which M. Fulck and other Protestants vnderstand of the statua or Image of Diana are not put in greek with the feminine but with the masculine or newter gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby is manifest that when the greeks speake of theyr Idols and statuas they referre them not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the feminine but rather to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the newter gender or some such like word Thirdly in the 1. of Kings 19.18 whence this text of Rom. 11.4 is taken the Septuagint haue it in the masculine gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet both this place and that of S. Paul must necessarily be vnderstood to speake of the same thing and in the same sence which seeing the Protestants will haue to be only the statua or picture of Baal it must needs follow that the reason why S. Paul hath it in the feminine gender is not because it speakes of that visible and artificiall Idol for 1. Kings 19.18 speaking also of that hath it in the masculine gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This therefore is not the Reason but S. Paul puts it in the feminine and the Septuagint in the masculine gender because Baal was a common name to the Idols of the heathens which weare adored by the Iews thus nothing is more familiar in the old Testament then to put that word in the plurall number Baalim because it was common to many false Gods which weare comprised in that name now those Gods some were males and some femalls and soe of both genders amongst which Astarthes Queene and Goddesse of Sidonia was the most famous where of familiar mention is made in the old Testament speaking of Baalim and Asteroth Seeing therefore that both S. Paul and the booke of kings speake of a generall worshipping of Baal through the whol kingdome of Israel which must be extended to all theyr false Gods whether men or woemen it might likewise be translated truly both in the masculine gender in the first of the kings and in the feminine in the 11. to the Romains as comprehending both And soe S. Paul hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the feminine not in reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Image as Fulk would haue it bur in reference to Astarthes or other woemen Goddesses comprehended in that generall word Baal as Catholicque doctours vnderstand it for according to this exposition both the old and new Testament are easily reconciled but according to Fulk neyther can the old be here reconciled with the new nor the new with it selfe as I haâ—e declared whence appeares seeing this reason failes which Protestants foly alleadge for theyr defence that the word Image is here added to the text with out any sufficient reason and soe falsely and corruptedly I finde the like addition of the word Image Acts 19.35 aboue cited where though the greek word be of the masculine gender as I haue declared yet the word Image which is not in the originall as M. Fulk acknowledges is put into the English text thus of the Image which came down from Iupiter where there was noe reason at all to put Image seeing the greeke words are masculine but the Readeâ— may easily discouer by such indirect proceedings as these that it is not the gender but the generall disgust against holy Images which caused these additions for whether the greek article be masculine or feminine Image must come in as is euident from these two textsâ— Neyther is that which M. Fulk alleadges of any force for the greek words may be refered to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and be translated as our vulgar hath it Iouis Prolis Iupiters child hauing rather relation to the Person then to the Idol of Diana Or if it be referred to that Idol which was reserued with soe greate honour in the temple of Ephesus yet by reason of the great stupidity and brutality of the Heathens described in many places of holy Scripture as I shall here after declare that very Idol was held by them to be a true deity and the liuing Goddesse Diana and therefore they made soe loud and strong acclamations magna est Diana Ephesiorum great is Diana of the Ephefiens who was noe other then that dull and dead Idol which was adored by them in the temple of Ephesus But though they had been wiser then the ordinary strayne of Idolaters and soe had esteemed that Idol to be a mere representation of theyr Goddesse yet seeing that the originall hath noe word which signifies Image but vses a generall expression which is indifferent to the one or other of these explications why should not the English as well as the greek haue only sayd that which came down from Iupiter neyther expressiing Image nor any other determinate thing if they had as fully intended to follow the originall without all passion against holy Images as they predend it But that I may further lay open how vehemently they were transported in the first appearance of theyr new Church against the vse of Images I will breefly alleadge some other places of Scripture wherein theyr translations of the yeares 1562. and 1577. as M. Fulk acknowledges and 1589. they haue translated the greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worshippers of Images 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Images Thus Ephes. 5.5 where the greek hath Idolater these traÌ„flations haue a worshipper of Images And Coll. 3.5 where the greek hath Idolatry they haue worshipping of Images and the like is Gal. 5.20 1. Ioan. 5.21 for Idoles in greeke they translate Images in the Bible printed 1562. and though in Fulks testament it be translated Idoles in the text yet in the margent he puts or Images Now how great a difference there is betwixt an Idol and an Image I haue all ready declared and M. Fulk acknowledges fol. 456. that the vse of our English speach hath made the name of Idol odious and of Image indifferent whence follows necessarily that the word Image according to him may signifie noe lesse a good then a bad representation but the word Idol allways a bad soe that the word Image or Images cannot be put absolutly in those places of Scripture where they are vniuersally to be vnderstood of things bad or vnlawful thus therefore 1. Iohn 5.2 where the Apostle saith Babes keepe your selues from Idoles being an indefinite and soe an vniuersall precept he commands Christians to keepe themselues from all kinde of Idoles what soeuer and soe is fitly and truly expressed by the word Idoles because that word is alwayes taken in our language euen according to M. Fulk
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
that all the good workes of iust and righteous persones shall be rewarded in Christ and soe be truly meritorious in Christ hauing such a supernaturall goodnesse cōformable to that heauenly reward in them which is all that is taught in this point by the Church of Rome The Protestant Position That the good workes of the Regerate are not such as can deserue heauen This is prouued by Scripture mistaken The first Proofe For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not vvorthy to be compared with the glory which shal be reuealed vnto vs. The first mistake Nothing against merits in this text NO more is a graine of mustard seed worthy to be compared to that high and spread stalke those multitudes of increase which it beares and yet it produces them as also do the small sufferings of thi world that fayre tree of life and glory in heauen as witnesseth S. Paul 2. Cor. 4. v. 17. For our light affliction which is but for a moment worketh for vs a farre more exceeding and eternall weight of glory The second Proof So likewise yee when you haue done all those things which are commanded you say we are vnprofitable seruants we haue done that which was but our duty to doe The Second mistake These words missapplied against merits What is there here which denyes the deseruing heauen by the good works of the regenerate is it because we haue only done our duty and why then deserues a seruant his wages by doing his duty and nothing else is it because we are vnprofitable seruants and who can bring any profit to God who is vncapable of profit Hence is only proued that Allmighty God is no way beholden to vs but we to him for all our good works and therefore we are all to humble our selues before him and to acknowledge that all our merits are his gifts and the reward bestowed on them grounded in his free promesse and acceptation of them for the merits of Christ. The third Proof VVe are not saued by workes least any one should boast if righteousnesse come by the law then Christ is dead in vaine The Third mistake The word workes misunderstood The answer to Rom. 3. v. 28. c. is here to be applyed for he speaketh manifestly of the works of sinners before rheir first iustification as appeares v. 11.12.13.14 and of works done by force of the law only which he distinguisheth from the good works of the regenerate v. 10. For we are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes which God hath before ordayned that we should walke in them The fourth Proofe For the wages of sinne is death but the gift of God is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. if a full gift then no merit The fourth mistake The word wages and gift missapplied The true mearing of this text must be drawn from the greeke word here vsed where that which the English hath wages is in greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opsonia which properly signifies the base and ignoble stipend which was wont to be giuen to common souldiers as their ordinary pay and therefore it is fitly Vsed to expresse the wages of sinne which is death That which in English here is called a gift is in greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 charisma which signifyes a donatiue or noble an pretious reward which was vsed anciētly to be bestowed vppon such as had caried themselues famously and valiently where by they deserued it for some seruice of war aboue their ordinary pay and therefore was fit to be applyed to signify that high reward which shal be obtayned in heauen by such as shall haue perseuered in good workes till death Which could not bee signifyed by the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by reason of the basenesse and lownesse of it so that both these words doe properly signify a recompense the one a high and noble one and yet proceeding from the worthy and liberall disposition of the Prince and so happily exceeding the precise worth of the seruice as alsoe Allmighty God doth in rewarding our works qui remunerat vltra condignum who rewards beyond the condignity and worth of the merit as our Diuines teach and the other an ordinary low stipend due to common souldiers who haue noe particular worth in them Soe that the true meaning of this text according to the proper signification of the words in the original is this the base recompence and hirelings wages of sin̄ is death but the high noble and rich reward of God is eternall life and thus the text makes nothing against the merit of good workes but rather makes playnly for them Further if wee take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a pure free gift wee may answer with S. Austin and the Council of Trent now cited that because the good works merits themselues are the free gifts of God so also the glory of heauen which is deserued by them is called truly a gift as if one should giue any one a tree the fruit which it beare also may be called his gift who gaue the tree More ouer seing as we haue learned from the Council of Trent aboue cited that the primary title and right which all Gods childeren haue to eternall life is that of inheritaene which is a free gift of God before all merit of heauen eternal life may be properly called the gift of God as being absolutly decreed to be bestowed vppon them as his childeren before they had any merits to deserue it supposing that they dy in state of grace The Catholicke Position That the works of the regenerate are such as can deserue heauen I haue fought a good fight I haue finished my course I haue kept the faith Hence forth there is layd vp forme a crowne of righterusnesse iustitiae of iustice sayth the Greeke and Latin vvhich the Lord the righteous iustus the iust Iudge shall giue me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reddet shall restore vnto me at the last day the greeke at that day and not to me only but vnto them also vvho loue his coming By a crovvn of iustice he meanes a true reward or prize got by labour as appeares knovv ye not that those vvhich runne in a race runne all but one receiueth the prize so run that yee may obteyne and euery man that striueth for the mastery is temperate in all things novv they doe it to obtaine a corruptible crown but vve an incorruptible for our light affliction vvhich is but for a moment vvorketh for vs a farre more exceeding and eternall vveight of glory If our afflictions worke a crowne of eternall glory then they are a true cause of it which cannot be but by merit Gal. 6. v. 8. For vvhat things a man shall sovv those also shall hee reape for hee that sovveth to his flesh latin in his flesh from his flesh also shall reape corruption but hee that soweth in the spirit shall
haue had no punishment at all after this life and consequently he should not haue been rewarded according to his workes not suffering the condigne punishment which he truly deserued and God should haue proceeded vnequally in inflicting his punishments and haue had respect to his persone more then to that of Dauid neyther is Purgatory any way injurious to the iustice of God because though he forgiue the guilt of the sinne and the eternall punishment for which man is not able to satistisfie yet he reteynes a parte of the punishment which being finite and temporall may eyther by workes of penance and patience be remitted in this world or payed in the world to come or released by the prayers and penances of other faithfull Christians And this may satisfye for the point of Purgatory THE SIXT CONTROVERSIE Of the Reall Presence of the Body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist The Doctrine of the Church of Rome deliuered in the Council of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 1. SI quis negauerit in Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri verè realiter substantialiter Corpus Sanguinem vnâ cum animâ diuinitate Domini nostri IESV Christi ac proinde totum Christum sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo vt in signo vel figurâ aut virtute anathema sit If any one shall denie that in the most holy Eucharist is conteyned truly really and substantially the body and blood togeather with the soul diuinity of our Lord IESVS Christ and consequently whol Christ but shall say that he is in it only as in â— signe or figure or vertu let him be accursed Ibidem Can. 2. Si quis dixerit in Sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento remanere substantiam panis vini vnâ cum corpore Domini IESV Christi c. anathema sit If any one shall say that in the holy Sacrament of the Eucherist remaines the substance of bread and wine togeather with the body and blood of our Lord IESVS Christ c. let him be accursed Ibidem Can. 4. Si quis dixerit peractâ consecratione in admirabili Eucharistiae Sacramento non esse corpus sanguinem Domini nostri IESV Christi sed tantùm in vsu dum sumitur non autem ante vel post c. anathema sit If any one shall say that the consecration being done in the admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the body and blood of our Lord IESVS Christ but only in the vse whilst it is receiued and neyther before nor after c. let him be accursed Ibidem C. 6. Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum vnigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum c. anathema sit If any one shall say that Christ the only Sone of God in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is not to be worshipped with the worship of latria or diuine worship euen externall c. let him be accursed This is part of the doctrine of the Council of Trent in this point the rest may be seen in the Council as drawn from this To dispose the Reader to a right conceipt of this high mystery and to informe him vppon what ground the Church of Rome teaches this doctrine I thought it necssary to cite those texts of the new Testament which deliuer the institution of this SacrameÌ„t that the Reader may with one vew see how largely and clearly the holy Scripture if it be vnderstood according to the proper signification of the words speakes for this doctrine of the Reall presence And that I may not be thought to haue cited the words otherwise then Protestants admit of them I will cite the texts as I finde them in the Protestant English bible Mat. 26. v. 26.27.28.29 And as they were eating Iesus tooke bread and blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and said take eate this is my body And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and gaue it to them saying drinke ye all of it For this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes S. Marke c. 14. v. 22.23.24.25 And as they did eate Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake it and gaue to them and said take eate this is my body And he â—ooke the cup and when he had giuen thankes he gaue it to them and they all drank of it and he said vnto them this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many Luc c. 22. v. 19.20 And he tooke bread and gaue thankes and brake it and gaue vnto them saying this is my body which is giuen for you this doe in rememberance of me Likewise the cup after supper saying this cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for you S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. v. 23.24.25 For I haue receiued of the Lord that which also I deliuer vnto you that the Lord Iesus the same night in which he was betrayed tooke bread And when he had giuen thankes he brake it and said take eate this in my body which is broken for you doe this in remembrance of me After the same maner also he tooke the cup when he had supped saying this cup is the new Testament in my blood doe this as often as yee drinke in remembrance of me The Protestant discourse of the Eucharist begins thus Obiection 1. THe institution of this Sacrament is expressed in the 3 first EuaÌ„gelists S. Mathew Mark and Luke and also by S. Paul in all which they agree in these 4 thinges that IESVS tooke blessed brake and gaue bread for he that saith IESVS tooke bread blessed brake and gaue it saith plainely enough that he brake and gaue bread and not the species of bread as they hold Answer If this objection intend to proue as certainly it doth thar our Sauiour tooke blessed brake and gaue bread to his disciples so that that which he gaue them was bread remaining in the same substance of naturall bread which it had when he tooke it I deny that our Sauiour gaue bread to his disciples or that the three Euangelists and S. Paul cited agree in this the proofe that our Sauiour gaue naturall bread to his disciples because saith the objection he that saith Iesus tooke bread brake and gaue it saith plainly enough that he brake and gaue bread is grounded in a false translation or addition to the text of holy Scripture in the English Protestant Bibles for neither hath the greeke nor latin the word it and though the Protestant Bible of the yeare 1630. and 1632. haue these words Iesus tooke bread and blessed it and brake it and gaue it to his disciples all in the same letter and print as if the word it were no lesse in the originall then the others adioyned yet the latter Bibles and namely that of the yeare 1646. put the word it in a different letter to signify that it is nor in the originall but
added as they pretend for greater explication as appeareth in a thousand other places and in the Bibles of the yeares 1630. and 1632. S. Marke and S. Luke haue the words thus Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake it and gaue vnto them where the word it is not ioyned to blessed and gaue but only to brake and then the word it is put in a different smaller letter then the other words All which conuince that the word it is not in the originall and so is not holy diuine Scripture but an addition of men and so no solid argumenr can be drawn from the word it as from the word of God not being the word of God but of men And hence also appeares how cunningly the Protestant translatours detaine the ignorāt readers by putting in words seruing as they thinke to their own purpose in the very same print and letter with the rest whieh are ioyned to them and are in the originall as if they were in the Originall no lesse then the others which notwithstanding in othet editions translations and places of Scripture they signify not to be in the originall nor Gods word by printing them in a lesser letter after they were conuinced of fraud and falsity in the former And thus in some editions putting this and such like words in the same letter with the rest and in others in a different the vnlearned which are not able to examine what is and what is not in the Originall may be in doubt which of these translations is the true word of God and cannot be infallibly certain of either of them seeing the translatours of theyr Church which are of equall authority some of them put a word in their text in the same tenour as if it were no lesse Scripture then the rest and others in a different letter to signify that that word is not Scripture but added by them as they suppose for greater clarity If it should be answered that whether the word it be in the sacred text or no yet the argument will haue force for though the text runne thus Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake and gaue to his disciples yet it may seeme that he blessed brake and gaue no other thing then that very bread which he tooke remayning in its own substance and nature For certainly he must haue blessed and broken and giuen somthing to his disciples and what can that be imagined to be but what he tooke that therefore which he tooke hauing beene true naturall hread as the text expressly sayth Iesus tooke bread he must be supposed to haue blessed and broken and giuen true naturall bread to his disciples I answer that our Sauiour though he be supposed to haue blessed broken and giuen some thing to his disciples yet it follows not that he broke and gaue naturall bread for he might take bread remaining in its own nature and after breake and giue his Body wherinto the bread which he tooke was changed as in the marriage feast of Galilé after the vessells were filled with water and our Sauiour sayd draw now and beare to the gouernour of the feast certainly they drew and caryed and the gouernour of the feast drunk somthing yet it followes not that as they filled the vessells with water so they drew and carryed and the gouernour of the feast drunk naturall water but as it is sayd v. 9. water made wine or wine wherinto the naturall water wherwith the seruāts filled the vessells was changed yea though the word it had beene in the text or were supposed to be rightly ioyned to it could any one thence proue more that as our Sauiour tooke naturall bread so he brake and gaue naturall bread remayning the very same which he tooke then one can proue from the water of Galilé that as the seruants filled the vessells with naturall water so they drew and caryed and the maister of the feast drunk naturall water remayning the very same which was filled because the text sayes v. 8. and they caryed it and v. 9. the ruler of the feast knew not whence it was But the objection in preuention of this answer vrgeth the former argument yet further in this manner Obiection 2. For the actions of brake and gaue were before the words of consecration This is my Body and consequently not being changed it must be bread which he brake and gaue Answer This argument proceeds from misunderstanding and mistaking this text of Scripture for though it saith our Sauiour brake and gaue to his disciples and sayd This is my Body yet it sayes not as the objection would haue it say that our Sauiour after he brake and gaue to his disciples sayd This is my Body these being very different senses for though the Scripture first mentioneth brake and gaue and then sets downe that our Sauiour sayd This is my Body yet it may well stand with the truth of the words that at the same tyme and instant whilst he brake and gaue he sayd This is my Body and so gaue not bread till it was changed into his Body as if one should giue a peece of bread to a person in want one might say truly he tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to him and sayd take this almes though he spake these words take this almes at the very same tyme when he gaue it And that our Sauiour spake these words This is my Body whilst he was giuing what he gaue to his disciples and not after is manifest first because S. Luke affirmes it to be so he tooke bread and brake and gaue to them saying This is my Body that is whilst he gaue he was pronouncing these words and though in the institution of the chalice S. Marke sayes and he tooke the cup and when he had giuen thankes he gaue to them c. and sayd This is my Bloud of the new Testament which shall be shed for many Yet S. Luke saies Likewise the cup allso after supper saying This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud which shall be shed for you S. Paul also in the same manner also he tooke the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud Secondly because all as well Ptotestants as Catholikes agree that our Sauiour gaue his disciples a Sacrament and as they say a signe of his Body which was made a Sacrament by vertue of these words This is my Body therefore it were an impiety to say that our Sauiour gaue bread to his disciples before these words were pronounced for then he had giuen a meer peece of bread and neither Sacrament nor his Body nor signe of his Body Thirdly if our Sauiour had perfectly giuen that which he put into the disciples hands before he had pronounced the words of consecration the Scripture sayinge he tooke bread brake and gaue to his disciples and sayd This is my Body then it would follow by the same argument that our Sauiour gaue bread
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
Christendome tells vs that such commands as were giuen to the Apostles were neuer esteemed to oblige theyr successours Thirdly when the matter commanded is common to the Apostles and all other Priests and not limited by any circumstance mentioned or insinuated in Scripture to the Apostles only if the generall and continnuall practise of Christendome be not contrarie it is to be vnderstood to oblige not only the persons of the Apostles but all Bishops and Priests in succeeding ages such as are the preceptes of teaching the Gospell Baptizing absoluing from sinnes c. and of consecrating sacrifising and receauing this blessed Sacrament Fourthly when the matter of the precept in it selfe may be common to all Christians as was the washing of one an others feet the abstinence from blond and the receauing of both kindes and hath noe limitation to the Apostles or Priests only prescribed in the Scripture there can be noe other rule to know which precept obliges all Christians which not saue the constant and generall tradition of the Christian Church For by this only me know as well Protestants as Catholikes that the precept of washing of feet bindes not though it be vniuersally strictly inioineyd in Scripture without any limitation of time or persons and noe lesse though all Christians are of themselues capable to receaue both kindes and the command be giuen to the Apostles to teceaue them yet this command by the churches perpetuall tradition or permitting many lay Christians to teceaue in one only kinde by the Protestants coustome of not communicating little infants shew cleerly that this precept is not to be extended to all Christians without exception and if Protestants notwitstanding the word all limitate it only to such as are arriued to the yeares of discretion without any ground in the bare words of the text to exclude little children only because their own practise approues it why may not Roman Catholikes limit it to the Apostles then present hauing both a ground in the text because the words were spoken to them only and the vniuersall tradition of the Christian Church permitting many lay persons to communicate in one only kinde and little children eyther in one or neyther as I shall here after demonstrate Objection The second precept alleaged by reformists for communion vnder both kindes is in these words doe this in remembrance of me which being to be vnderstood of something commanded to be done not then but for insuing times as I haue already shewed are not to be limited as spoken to the Apostles only then present and so seeme to be extended to all Christians especially if they be limited to Priests only there will be noe command at-all in the institution obliging all Christians to receaue either both or either kind of this Sacrament Answer These words doe this in remembrance of me according to all that which is commanded in them cannot be extended to any more then Priests for here is euidently commanded the blessing consecrating offering sacrificing and administring of this Sacrament for it is to doe what our Sauiour then did which according to Catholiques comprehends all these particulars and according to Protestants some of them and if the consecrating and administration of this Sacrament were not commanded in these words there would be noe command at all for them in the whol institution nor very probabily in the whol new Testament Secondly if we stick closely to the bare words noe man can conuince from them only that all Christians are obliged to receaue this Sacrament vnder both or either kinde for the cleargy men might haue been obliged to consecrate and administer this Sacrament though the layity were not obliged to receaue it as they are bound to administer Priesthood and mariage when they are iustly required though noe man haue any absolute command either to be a Priest or to mary and consequently are not bound to receaue those two Sacraments Thirdly all that those words import as they stand may be satisfied probably if we say that not euery Priest or lay man in particular is obliged to consecrate or communicate by force of them but that they conteyne a precept giuen to the church in generall that what our Sauiour here commands be done as certainly there is a command giuen to the church to conferre Priesthood absolution and extreme Vnction c. and yet noe Bishop or Priest hath in particular any such absolute obligation by reason of his Priesthood only neither is any in particular bound to administer them by a positiue diuine precept giuen directly to them though accidentally they may haue a strickt obligation according to different circumstances to administer the said Sacrament Fourtly though it should be granted that these words doe this c. containe a precept obliging all Christians arriued to yeares of discretion to communicate sometimes yet this toucheth only the receauing vnder the forme of bread if we stand to the expresse words of the institution being said after the consecration of the host and before the chalice And the precept recorded by S. Paul after the chalice is not absolute to consecrate and receaue that but so often as it is drunke to doe it in remembrance of our Sauiour doe this as often as you shall drinke in remembrance of me said our Sauiour Lastly though from the sole force of these words doe this in remembrance of me considered as they stand in Scripture noe forcible argument can be drawn to proue a positiue precept in particular binding euery Christian to receaue sometimes this Sacramēt vnder either or both kindes and though the generall doctrine of the church be that there is noe diuine precept obliging more to receaue the host then the chalice and the coustome of the primitiue church was to giue to some the chalicc noe lesse without the host then to others the host without the chalice and that some late Learned Writers affirme that there is noe such precept conteyned in holy Scripture yet because S. Thomas and the common streame of doctours after him grant a generall precept of receauing this Sacrament to be conteyned in them and that S. Paul seemes to giue sufficient ground to thinke that this command doe this c. was to be extended to the actuall receauing of this Sacrament by the laity by mentioning drinking in the conditionall command of the consecrated chalice and deducing from the institution what preparation all Christians should make to receaue worthily this Sacrament as appeares v. 27. to the end of the chapter and mouued by this authority I grant that all Christians are here commanded sometimes in there liues to frequent this Sacrament yet so that lay people satisfie this precept by receauing one only kind or both according to the order prescribed by the holy Church as shee is mouued by different times or circumstances now to ordaine the receauing of both now of one alone to some the sole host and to others the chalice only for seeing this precept was giuen
of Christians to the whol and each particular to some part of this command For seeing there is noe more reason why one Christian should be more exempted from it then an other the concurring to it falls equally vppon all for though Priests when they consecrate and sacrifice haue each in particular an obligation to communicate yet according to a probable opinion they haue noe obligation in particular proceeding from any diuine precept to consectate or sacrifize but all their absolute obligation to communicate is taken from this and other like commands which we haue treated so that though noe particular Priest were bound by diuine precept to say masse yet they are bound to communicate by reason of these precepts which could not be vnlesse euery Christian were obliged in perticular to concurre to the performance of this generall command with an equall obligation Objection If it should be said that the church may sufficiently complie with the generall command by prouiding that it be still kept in execution by some particular persons as she complies with many others Answer In answer first that if should one staÌ„d meerely to the bare letter of Scripture in these precepts this might be said but if we take the sence of it according to the common straine of doctours euery particular will be obliged by them especially seeing that S. Paul extends this matter of communion to each particular Secondly as it was not in the power of the Apostels to exempt any of the twelf from concurring to the conuersion of all nation commanded by our Sauiour and to haue iâ— accomplished by the rest which they should haue appointed because each of them in particular was bound to labour in it by diuine precept where in the church cannot dispence so seeing we haue the same authority of doctours and tradition for the obliging each particular by this command vnlesse you eate aâ— each Apostle by that goe and teach all nations c. it may be denied that the church hath power to exempt any one from this precept by hauing it performed by other Christians appointed by her authority Thirdly had this Sacrament been left free as Priesthood and mariage were without any diuine precept that euery Christian csometimes in their liues receiue it the church neither would nor could haue obliged each Christian in particular to receaue it once a yeare as shee obliges none to receaue Priesthood or mariage because they were left free by our Sauiour Objection If it should be here objected that in the command of teaching c. each Apostle in particular could not conuert all and if each had been bound to teach and baptize all the command could not haue any conuenient sense but each Christian is able easily both to eate and drinke this Sacrament and so there is no parity in the command of teching with that of communicating Answer I answer first that this command is not instanced as like in all things but to this end that seeing this precept of teaching c. must he vnderstood of all in general and each in particular and that there be such commands in Scripture that though this of eating and drinking this Sacrament might haue been so vnderstood that each Ccristian is bound both to eate and drinke as being a rhing very feasable yet this Sacramentall precept may be vnderstood as the other must be and if it be possible to vnderstand it so our aduersaries will neuer be able to conuince thence the necessity for euery particular to receaue both kindes and yet there will be a necessity by vertu of these words to receaue one I Answer secondly that there is as great a necessity to vnderstand this precept in the foresaid manner drawn from the truth of Scripâ—ure as there is for vnderstanding the command of teaching drawn for the force of nature That which followes the text in the ensuing verses makes this matter quite out of question for though our Sauiour here declared the necessity in the plurall number Nisi manducauerith c. vnlesse you eate c. of eating his stesh and drinking his blood as belonging to the generallity of Christians the words in vobis in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you shall not haue life in you signifie according to the Greeke phrase very familiarly in Scripture amongst you which is referred to the whol congregation of Christians and not to each patricular Yet when he expressed himselfe in the singular number Qui manducat hunc panem qui manducat mâ— c. he who eateth this bread he who eateth me c. and addessed his speach to particular persons he attributes eternall life to the sole eating of him and that heauenly bread as appeares in the said text he who eateth me shall liue by me he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer c. and hence it is clearly deduced not only that these words vnlesse ye â—ate c. doe not euidently include ea necessity for euery particular person to rereceaue both kindes but that they cannot possibibily include any such necessity without a contradiction betwixt this text and the text following now cited for if he who eates the flesh of our Sauiour hath eternall life as those textes affirme then it can not be true that vnlesse each particular both eate and drinke he shall not haue life eternall and hence also appeares a necessity of vnderstanding these words that though all in generall be bound to receaue both amongst them yet none in particular is bound to receaue both but each is partially to concurre to accomplish this command as each Apostle was that of teaching and baptizing all nations Obiection Some happily may answer with Caluin that though eating be only named in the text now cited yet drinking also is there included and to be vnderstood as being connected with it in the former text vnlesse you eate c. Answer That more is vnderstood then is expressed in any place of Scripture is not vppon light coniectures to be supposed but to be prouued by solide and conuincing arguments otherwise each light headed nouelist might at his pleasure frame to himselfe certain apparent congruities to extend the words of Scripture and to make them import more then they signifie in themselues and so multiplie Synecdoches wheresoeuer it comes to his purpose Seeing therefore I haue shewed that there is noe necessity to strech these textes beyond the common and vsuall stgnification of the words by giuing at least a probable satisfaction to whatsoeuer they alleadge to proue the contrary let our aduerfaries make good that there it a necessity of the drawing these words beyond their naturall signification or that more words are supposed then are expressed in the text and we will yeeld to this explication But this discours of our Sauiour is so farre from giuing the least ground to any such like improprieties the common refuge of our Aduersaries when they eannot auoyd the sorce of the expresse words and proper sense of
good workes 162.163.164 concerning good workes 52.53 Concerning Purgatory 179.180 Of the reall Presence 189.190 c. Concerning communion vnder one kinde 317.318 to 322. The second Council of Nice concerning Images 83. Communion in one kinde supposes the reall Presence 323. How the cup is the fruit of the vine 257.258 c. D. â—he DIuinity of God neuer pictured by Romane Catholiques 72.73 Doe this c. Signified nothing to be done in time of the Institution Doe this c. cannot be extended to lay men 347. to 350. Doulia is indifferently taken in Scripture for the worship of God and of creature 33.34.35 Drinke yee all signifies not all Christians 34. to 346. F. FAith only Iustifieth not prouued by Scripture 143.144 c. Faith ioynd with other vertues the disposition to the first iustification 138.139 153. The flesh Io. 6. cannot signifie the flesh of Christ. 303. G. Some GLory may be giuen to creatures but not that which is proper to God 26.27 I. IF all worship of Image weere forbidden one place of Scripture would be coÌ„trary to annother 110.111 Image put for Idol 105. a grauen Image signifies a false God in the Protestant Bibles 119. The name of Iesus is as much worshipped by Protestants as the picture of Iesus by Catholiques 28. VVhat an Idol properly is 8.81 VVhat in Image properly is 80.81 The difference betwixt an Image and an Idol 82.83 How Images are to be worshipped 124.125 Grauen Image scarce euer put in Protestant Bibles but in place of words which signifie Idoles or false Gods Image-worship for Idolatry 105.106 Image added to Scripture 95.96 98.101 c. The worship done to the Image redounds to the persone represented proued by Scripture 132.133 Iustification not acquired but increased by good workes 152. VVhat relation Images haue to God the Fader and the holy Gost. 75.76.77 K. In one KInde is a true Sacrament conferring grace 326. to 3 n0 How these words onlesse yee eate c. Io. 6. declare the necessity of receiuing both kindes 351. to 355. L. LAy people are depriued of noe grace necessary to saluation by wanting one kinde 328.329 334. How one kinde is a compleate refection 332.333 How the actuall sacrament all graces of both kindes are giueÌ„ by each apart 335. 340. Noe lay man is bound some limes in his life to receiue vnder the forme of wine eyther ioynly with the other kinde or separately 397.398 How the Lamb is called the Passouer 289. to 293. Latria is allwayes vsed in Scripture when it is brought for religious worship for the worship dew to God only 32.33.34 How eternall life is a gift of God 171.172 Luther thought the words of consecration most cleare 313. M. MEdiatour and Aduocate of 2. sortes 60.91.62.63 Merit of good workes takes not a way humility 175. P. The Hebrew word Phesel Exod. 20. falssly translaeed Image 84.85 Phesel translated Idol in some Protestant Bibles Isay 44. 85. Protestants pray as much to sinners on earth as Catholiques to Saincts in heauen 58.59 Protestants worship bread and wine as much as Romane Catholiques worship Images 129.130 Protestants themselues esteeme it not necessary to saluation to communicate vnder both kindes Diuisions amongst Protestants and not amongst Catholiques in matter of the vnderstâ—ding Christ words 243.244 Protestants beare little or noe reuerence to the bloud of Christ in this Sacrament 367. Protestants frame a most meane opinion of the Body and the blood of Christ. 365.366 Noe Scripture against Purgatory 182.183 c. Proofes out of Scripture for Purgatory 187. Six mistranstations in Ex. 20.4 in the Protestant Bibles 91.92.93.94 R. REligion and Religious taken in 2. senses in Scriptuâ—re 21.22.23.24.25 That which our Sauiour gaue his Apostles in his last supper could be noe remembrance of his Body 222.223 c. How any thing may be a remembrance of it selfe 227.228.229 How the Rock is called Christ. 295. to 296. S. SAcraments according to theyr essentiall parts are to be receiued as they were instituted whensoeuer they are receiued 325. The bare institution of a Sacrament induces to necessity no receiue it 3. Saincts and Angels prayree to God for vs are herad only trough the merits of Christ. 58. 62. The worship of liuingâ—Saints as much forbiddeÌ„ in Scripture as of Angels 35.36 VVhensoeuer by praires we come to the Saints we come mediately but truly to Christ. 56.57 Iintreating the Saints to pray for vs is not a necessary meanes but a profitable helpe to saluation 1.2.3 65. Saints indowed with supernaturall graces 16.17.18 Saturday commanded to be Kept holy Ex. 20.116.117 The vvords of Scripture are allways to be vnderstood properly vvhen noe other article of faith compells vs to the contrary 315.416 The Scriptures allowes of praying to Saints departed and Angels 66.67.68 Noe text in Scripture saies expressly that vve are iustified hy faith only 149. c. Scripture mistranflated 78.79.80.81 88.89 and from 95. to 127.128 Scripture eyther mistranflated or misinterpreted or missapplied or misused or augmented or altered or reiected and generally mistaken one vvay or other by Protestants per totum The seauenth day not Sunday but Saturday and the Iewish Sabbath 116. All Seruice is not dew to God only 29.30 T. VVhat is meant by new Testament 235.236 c. Testament in my blood is not to fay signe of my blood 239. Threskia signifies not vvorshipping but Religion 45.46.47 Perpetuall tradition teaches that some allwayes receiued vnder one kinde 370. Objections drawn from naturall reason against Transubstantiation breefly answeared 306.312 The torment of dearh or of triall of malefactors touches not souls of the iust 158. W. WHat the word this signifies in these vvords this is my Body 107.108 c. VVords haue two significations ancient and now in vse 30. ciuil and Ecclesiasticall 31.32 VVords of Scripture are not to be extended beyond theyr ordinary signification vvithout necessity 361. to 364. VVhen vvords spoaken to the Apostles are to be extended to others and how farre 334.344 The vvords of consecration vvholy true according to Catholiques 245.246 The vvord est is cannot be signifies 301. VVhich are workes of the law 149.150 c. and 156.157.158 c. All Good workes and vvords are the gifts of God 164. God workes vvhich are fruits faith are pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ according to English Protestants 167. The difference betwixt vvorship serue 123. To vvorship God is not to vvorship him only 6.7.8.9 vvorship of 3. kindes 9.10.11 Religious worship strictly taken dew to God only 11.12 Taken in a large sense may be giuen to creatures vvhich are indewed vvith supernaturall graces 12.13.14 n 15.16.17 c. Creatures commanded to be vvorshipped 108.106 S. Iohn is as much forbidde to vveepe by an Angel as to vvorship 36.37 The vvorship vvhich the Romane Church giues to Saints and Angels cannot be giuen to God vvithout blasphemy and sacrilege 25.26 Creatures may be vvorshipped vvith the vvorship of Doulia 19.20 The vvorship of
Latria giuen in Scripture to God only The Angel Reuel 22.89 might forbid S. Iohn to vvorship him out of humility as S. Peeter did forbid Cornelius Act. 10. pag. 25.26.37.38.39.40 c. S. Paul forbids noe vvorshipping of Angels but vvhat makes them equall vvith Christ or superiour to him 48.49 Heathens vvorshipped as Gods the materiall Idoles vvhich vvere before them 84.85 c. FINIS Leuit. 19. v. 14. Ps. 31.23 Deut. 10.20 1. Tim. 6.15 1. Cor. 15.54 Lue. 18.19 Luc 2â— 25 Acts 11.23 Gen 49.8 Gen. 42.6 2. 4. Reg. 1.13 2. 4. Reg. 2.15 2. 4. Reg. 4.37 Exod. 3.5 Psal. 99.5 Reu. 3.9 Exod. 20.4 Gen. 49.8 Gen. 42.6 2. King 1.13 2. King 2.15 2. King 4.37 Iames 1.17 1. Ccr. 15. v. 10. Iohn 15. v. 5. Iohn 1.10 1. Cor. 12. v. 28.29 1. Cor. 12.4.5.6.7.9.10 Gallath 4.11.12 Rom. â— 23 Reuel 2.10 Mat. 19.18 1 Cor. 6.2.3.4 Reu. 5.19 Luck 9.26 Mare 8.36 Acts 7.53 Gen 19.1 Luc. 1·11 1. Mat. 20. Iosua 5.16 Exod. 3.5 1 King 21.4.6 Psal. â— 8 Ps. 10.4 Ps. 17.7 Mat. 23.17.18.19 Exod. Leuiâ— Numbers c. Num 19.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Religious pious according to scapula Deuouâ— in the proâ—estant Bibles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to scapula amongst Ecclesiasticall Authores Religious Pious the protestants translate iâ— Deuou◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Religious in protestaÌ„t Bibles Leuit. 7.6 Iames 1.17 Gen. 3.10 1. Kings 1 Acts Acts 5 â— Iohn 21. â—7 Gen. 25.28 Acts 20 37. Isay 42.8 Psal. 8.6 Isay 48 11.12.1â— Ephes. 6.7 Gen· 25.21 Rom. 9 12. Hebr. 9.9 Heb. 9.9 Luc. 2.37 Reuel 22. â— 8.9 Gen. 19.7.1 Iosua 5. v. 14. Act. 10. v. 25.26 2. Kings 4. v. 37. 4. Kings 4. v. 37. Reu. 5.4.5 Luc. 23.28 Act. 14. v. 10.11.12.13.14 Reu. 22. v. 9.9 Reu. 19. Coloss. 2. v. 18. Coll. 2. v. 18. Col. 2. v. 18. a Menander Saturninus Cethiani Caiani b Cerinthiani Matth. 11.2.28 Luke 11. v. 2. Iohn â—6 v. 23. Luke 11. v. 9. Concil Trid. sess can 1.2.3 Concil Trid. sess 6. c. 9 16.â— can 13.14.15 Matth. 11. v. 28. Matth. 8. v. 5.6 Luk. 7. v. 2.3.4.5 Concil Trid. sess 14. Luk. 11. Iohn 16. v. 23. Concil Trid. sess 24. Decret de Inuoc c. suprà cit Luke 11. v. 9. 1 Tim 15. Concil Trid. sess 24. cit 1. Io. 2. v. 1. 2. Concil Trid. sess 2. Decreto de Innoc c. Concil Trid. cit Contra Fanstum Manicheum l. 22 c. 21 Gal. 3.20 Psal. 119.1 Psal. 98.6 Acts 16. v. 25. Concil Trid. sess 24. ciâ— Rom. 3. v. 23. Deut· 4. v. 15.16 Concil Trid. cit Dan. 7. v. 9.13.22 Leuit. 26. v. 1. Elilim Exod. 20. v. 4.5 Exod. 2. v. 4. d. Exod. 20. v. 4. Rom. 11 v. 4. 1. Kings 11.5.33 Isa. 44.15.17 Luc. 19.3 Oseae 11.2 Mar. 32.16 Gen. 1.27 2. Cor. 4.4 1. Pet. 2.12 â— Par. 18.2 Item Lutherus impr Ienae 1589. pag. 117. Et Hus Norinbergae 1558. pag. 30. Bible 1629. Concil Trid. sess 24. c. 2. Rom. 8. Hebr. 11. Rom. 11. Ephes. 2. Tit. 5. Psal. 83. 2. Cor. 4. Coll. 3. Rom. 6. Apoâ— vlâ— Iames 2 v. 24. Rom. 4. v. 1.2.3 Iames 2. v. 22.26 Rom. 3. v. 28. Rom. 5.1 Rom. 1.17 Gal. 2.16 Concil Trid. siss â— â— 8. Rom. 8. v. 18. Luke 17. v. 10. Rom. 6. v. 23. 2. Tim. 4 v. 7.8 1. Cor. 9. v. 24.25 2. Cor. 4. v. 17. Dan. 9.7 Ps. 103.3 Deut. 9. v. 2. Mat. 5.3 2. Cor. 5. v. 1. Mat. 5.3 Ephes. 2. u. 19. 1. ep Io. c. â— 13. Wisd. 3. v. 1. Rom. 6. v. 23. Reu. 21 â—1 1. Pet. 1.17 Luke 22. v. 19. Luke 22. v. 20. 1. Cor. 11. v. 25. Iob 21. alibi Mark 14. v. 24. Matth. 26. v. 28. Iohn 15. v. 12. Iohn 15. v 12. Matth. 26 v. 28. Rom. 1â— v. 2. Liu. l. 1. Exod. 24. v. 8. Hebr 9. v. 20. Gen. 9.53 Ps. 54.21 Ps 29.34 Ps. 105.45 Eâ—od 24. v. 8. Hebr. 9. v. 20. Io. 2. v. 7.8.9 1. Cor. 11.20.28 Ioan. 6. Isay 53.5 Luke 22. v. 22 1. Cor 1â— v. 8. Mattk 26 v. 29. Marke 14 v. 25. Coloss. 1. v. 24. Gen. 17. v. 10.11 Hebr. 4. v. 11. 1. King 4. v. 7. 1. King 4 v. 8. 1. Cor. 10. v. 4. Gen. 41. v. 6. Gen. 41. v. 25. Gen. 3. v. 23.24 Ioan. 6. Ioan. 1. Ioan. 1. 1. Cor. 4. 1. Cor. â— 1. Cor. 4. 1. Cor. 6. Concil Trid. sess â—1 c. 3. Eccies 24. v. 29. Marr. 5.6 Wild. 7.11 Matth. 28. v. 19. Marc. 16. v. 13. Iohn 10.9 Iohn 6. Gal. 3.1 Iames 4.1 1. Par. 5.3 1. Cor. 1.10 Act. 25.2 Act. 17.22 Exod. 12. Dion Alex ep ad SabiÌ„a Beda Hist. lib. 4. c. 14. Prat. Spir. c. 79. Enas li. 4. c. 35. Euag. Matisco 2. c. â— 3. parte qu. 150. ar 2. cor