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
amici Dei ac domestici facti euntes de virtute in virtutem renouantur vt Apostolus inquit de die in diem exhibendo ea arma iustitiae in sanctificationem per obseruantiam mandatorum Dei Ecclesiae in ipsâ iustitiâ per Christi gratiam acceptâ cooperante fide bonis operibus crescunt atque magis iustificantur sicut scriptum est Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc Being therefore thus iustified and made the friends and of the houshold of God going on from vertu to vertu they are renewed as the Apostle saith from day to day and vsing those armes of iustice to sanctification by the obseruance of the commandements of God and the Church theyr faith cooperating with theyr good workes they increace through the grace of Christ in the iustice which they haue receiued and are iustified more and more as is it written he who is iust let him be iustified still Conc. Trid. ibidem can 9. Si quis dixerit solâ fide impium iustificari ita vt intelligat nihil aliud requiri quod ad iusticationis gratiam consequendam cooperetur nullâ ex parte necesse esse eum suae voluntatis motu praeparari atque disponi anathema sit If any one shall say that a wicked man is iustified by faith only soe that he meanes that nothing els is required which may cooperate to the obtayning the grace of Iustification and that it is noe way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his will let him be accâ—rsed From these authorities of the Council it is manifest that in this matter of Iustification the Church of Rome theaches 1. that noe workes done by the mere naturall force of our freewill 2. nor by the sole doctrine or knowledge of the diuine law can iustifie a sinner in the sight of God Can. 1. 3. That noe vniust persone can without the preuenting inspiration of the holy Ghost doe any thing as it should be done to obteyne the grace of iustification can 3. 4. That neyther faith nor workes done by the inspiration of the holy Ghost before Iustification can merit Iustification for it is a free grace of God giuen not of workes but by the sole mercy of God and for the sole merits of Christ. cap. 8. 5. That though the iustification of a sinner cannot be merited yet a soul may be disposed prepared to instification by acts inspired by the holy Ghost c. 6. 6. That we are not thus disposed by faith only but also by other good motions of our will preuented and assisted by the grace of God can 9. 7. That being thus freely iustified become the childeren of God through the assistance of Gods grace in Christ we may doe good workes and by them accepted through Christ's merits become more and more iust in the sight of God cap. 10. where in cheefly consists the Roman doctrine of Iustification by good workes This doctrine supposed we will now take a vew of those texts which Protestants vsually presse out of Scripture mistaken against it hauing first proued the Roman doctrine The Catholicke Position Faith only iustifyeth not YOu see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only which must needs be vnderstood of a true and internall iustification before Allmighty God for it must be that iustification which comes by faith but that is true and internall iustification as appeares by all the texts cited hereafter in the paper for proofe of iustification by faith only that the iustification which S. Iames speakes of here is the very same with that which comes by faith is most cleare out of the words themselues Yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only For it would be quite contrary to common sense to vnderstand a iustification before men in the first part of this sentence yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and a true internall iustification in the sight of God in the latter part and not by faith only For the word only clearly demonstrates that the same iustification is to be vnderstood in both parts of the sentence Now that the iustification common to both members of this place must necessarily be meant of a true iustification only in the sight of God is out of all question to such as ponder what is deliuered in it for it would be most false were it vnderstood of a iustification only before menâ— no lesse then this manner of speech yee see that this man is vnderstood by his words and not by his thoughts only would be wholly false were there only mention made of a man's being vnderstood amongst men for amongst them he is not vnderstood at all by his thoughts and so the latter part of this proposition would not be true and therefore to verify this manner of speech it must of necessity be meant of a man's being vnderstood by Allmighty God who only by his own power vnderstands both thoughts and words and so it is truly sayd yee see that a man is vnderstood to wit by Allmighty God by his words and not by his thoughts only And for the very same reason this proposition of S. Iames wee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only cannot be vnderstood of a iustification before men for we are no more iustifyed by saith before men then we are vnderstood amongst them by our thoughts and therefore it must be interpreted of a iustification before Allmighty God who only vnderstands our faith as he does our thoughts by his own power and knowledge and can only see whether our faith be true sincere and iustifying or no faith being nothing else but a thought assent or iudgement of the soul. And as all Protestants in the ensuing texts vrged for iustification by faith only vnderstand an internall iustification in the sight of God so must they will they not be vnreasonably and willsully partiall vnderstand the same by iustification by faith in this place of S. Iames which is cleared v. 2. was not Abraham our father iustifyed by worket when he had offered Isaac his sone vppon the altar for this hauing beene done priuatly in the desert could not when it was done iustifie him before men and yet more clere v. 22. seest thou not how faith wrought with his workes and by workes was faith made perfect what is here spoken of but the operation of faith and workes in the soule iustifying in God's sight For faith cannot be truly made perfect but declared to be perfect by workes soe farre as they iustifie only before men And it is further demonstrated v. 23. And the Scripture was fulfilled which sayth Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse and he was called the friend of God Can any Protestant deny this to be meant of an imputation of righteousnesse as they terme it or a iustification before Allmighty God seeing it is the very
our Religion and tending finally to the acknowledgment of God and our Sauiours honour as authour of our faith and Religion Soe that hauing these references to Gods honour though those Acts of Religious worship tend immediately to the acknowledgement of some created supernaiurall excellence in that which wee worshipp by them yet that hinders not theyr beeing Religious acts in this larger sence As appeares by these following texts of Scripture where Moyses is commaunded to prescribe certaine ceremoniall rites in Sacrifices Holocausts amongst which one was that the brest right Shoulder of that which was offered in sacrifice should be giuen to the Priests as belonging to them by right and ordinance of God The giuing of these two parts of the thing offered to the priest was an action done immediately to a pure creature and not to God and yet it is called Religion as appeares by the words These things God commaunded to be giuen to them that is to Aaron and his ofspring as it is in the precedent words from the children of Israell by a perpetuall Religion in theyr generations Secondly S. Iames. Pure and vndefiled Religion with God and the father is this to visite the orphanes and widowes in theyr tribulation and to keepe himselfe vnspotted in this life where a worke of mercy to the pore is called Religion that is a worke proceeding from Religion and belongrg to Religion though done to creatures such as are orphanes and wedows All that I haue cited out of Scripture in the discouery of this second mistake will I hope haue coÌ„uinced the iudicious and well minded Reader that there is a Supernaturall created excellency communicated liberally from Allm God to some creatures infinitely below the diuine excellency of God and yet far aboue all naturall and ciuill worth which therefore must deserue honour and worship seeing that naturall and ciuill excellencies euen according to protestants though far inferiour to them deserue it which worship seeing it is done in acknowledgment of the Spirituall and supernaturall dignities which are only proper to Gods true religion and soe are religious excellencies may be rightly termed a religious worship in the fore named sense For seeing the humble acknowledgmeÌ„t of diuine perfections is deseruedly termed diuine worship and of ciuill perfections rightly styled ciuill worship soe the humble acknowledgment of religious perfections for the like reason is to be named Religious worship which will yet seeme lesse strange to an indiffereÌ„t eye if one consider that the some different degrees may be found in Acts of other vertues which are here fouÌ„d in worships I haue allready proued from Scripture that there are different kinds and degrees of feares and loues whence it followes that when one feares the iustice and wrath of some ciuill Prince or magistrate it may be called ciuill feare but when one feares the iustice and authority of an Apostle a Prophet c. whose power is drawn from Religion it may be named a Religious seare Thus the feare of Adam hiding himselfe from God was a diuine feare The feare of Adonias flying from king Salomon was a ciuill feare but the feare of the Primâ—tiue Christians of S. Peeter when Ananias fel down dead at his feete was a Religious feare And the same distinction is in differeÌ„t ordres of loue S. Peeter loued our Sauiour as his God and Redcemer with diuine loue Ifack loued Esau with a ciuill loue but the Primitiue Christians loued S. Paul with a Religious loue And in the same manner as I haue allready Proued Moyses worshipped the infinit maiesty of God with a diuine worship the children of Iacob worshipped the power and excellency of Ioseph with a ciuill worship but rhe Sunamite worshipped Elizeus and the captaine of fifty men Elias whose authorities were deriued known and acknowledged only from faith and Religion with Religious worship And the giuing such a Religious worship as this which I haue described to a creature is soe far from derogating any thing from the due worship of God or from ascribing any worship proper to him to any creature that it would be an insufferable iniury to God And horrid Sacriledge to affirme that he is to be worshipped with any such worship for that were to acknowledge in him only a created finite imperfect excellencie which were to make him an Idoll a false God Neyther can his honour be any thing diminished by exhibiting this kinde of Religious worship to a creature indued with spitituall graces for his honour cannot be iniured but by giuing to a creature the wotship proper and due to him only seeing therefore this is no worship due to him neyther only nor at all it cannot be any way a preiudice to his honour For as ciuill and religious feare and loue commanded to be giuen to creatures is no way preiudicious to the diuine feare and loue which we-owe to God Soe neyther can ciuill nor religious worship commaunded to be exhibited to creatures as I haue proued be preiudicious to the highest diuine worship which we owe to God And thus much Allm God seemes to say by his Ptophet Isay. I am the Lord this is my name I will not giue my glory to any other nor my praise to Idols where he saith not I will not giue glory to any other for that would be contrary to the words of the Psalmist speaking of man in his first creation Thou hast crowned him with glory and honour but I will not giue my glory to an other that is that infinite glory which properly belongs to God only wich is specifyed in the precedent words I am the Lord this in my name soe that God wil neuer giue that which is his proper name and title to be Lord of all things to an other which is yet more expressely set down by the same Prophet And I will not giue my glory to an other heare o Iacob and Israell whom I call I I my selfe am the firrst and I am the last And my hand also layd tbe foundarions of the earth and my right hand measured the heauens c. This is that glory proper to him alone of being the eternall God creator of heauen and earth which he will not giue to an other which soe long as he keepes inuiolable to him selfe all vnder glories limited and created which are like soe many little motes compared with the infinite extent and light of his glory he both liberally giues himselfe and wills they should respectiuely be giuen to his creatures If not withstanding all these euidences both of Scripture and Reason any one should remayne soe strangely willfull and immouable by force of education and continuall custome from his infancie as to deny all kind of Religious worship in how large a sence soeuer it be taken to be lawfully exhibited to any saue God alone I say if any such should be found soe long as he yeelds to the thing it selfe that is to
same iustification which is mentioned by S. Paul to the Romanes which they mainly contend to be a true iustification in the sight of God or if they will haue it here a iustification only before men they must acknowledge that the same mentioned to the Romanes is no other then before men and so by endeauoring by such shifts to weaken the force of this text against themselues they take away all force from that of Rom. 4. to conclude any thing against vs. Besides this iustification of Abraham here mentioned by S. Iames can be no other then that which is true and interuall before God for as it followes in the text he was called a friend of God and that truly for he was indeede as he was called a friend of God and hence it follows ineuitably that the iustification which S. Iames deduces from that of Abraham by works and not by faith only as appeares by the word then wee see then c. is a true intrinsecall iustification in the sight of God for no other saue that could be rightly inferred from the former And indeed though we had none of the foresayd euidences to conuince the true meaning of S. Iames yet what man of iudgment can imagine that this holy Apostle would labour so much to proue that Christians are iustifyed by their good works before men when that is a matter too cleare and known to need proofe and too light and friuolous to deserue it or what considerate man can thinke that this Blessed Apostle or the holy Ghost by whose inspiration he writ this would so earnestly exhort Christians to abound in good works to the end that they may be iustifyed before men seeing corrupt human nature is too too prone to doe good workes for such by endes as these and hath more need of a bridle then a spurre in this particular and rather to be deterred from it then put vppon it as our Sauiour did the Stribes and Pharisees who did their works to be seene and consequently to be praysed and iustifyed before men This text therefore hauing been demonstrated to be meant of iustification before Allmighty God by works and not by faith only seeing S. Paul inspired by the same holy Spirit in what is cited out of him in the insuing text cannot possibly contradict S. Iames here as he must needs be thought to haue done if he sayd as Protestants would haue it that we are iustifyed in the sight of God by faith only and not by good works working with faith and perfecting it informing and vinificating it as S. Iames describes them here we will now see in what sense S. Paul's words are to be vnderstood and reconcile them with this text of S. Iames. The Protestant Position Iustification by faith only This is proued by Scripture mistaken Therefore wee conclude that a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law Being iustifyed by faith we haue peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ. For therein is the righteousnesse of God reuealed from faith to faith as it is written the iust shall liue by faith Knowing this that a man is not iustifyed by the works of the law but by the faith of Christ Iesus that we might be iustifyed by Iesus Christ and not by the works of the law for by the works of the law shall no liuing flesh be iustifeyd The first mistake The word only is not found in any of these texts In all these texts is not once the words faith only to be found which is put in this Protestant Position was to be proued by them Neither iâ— iâ— consequent a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law therefore a man is iustifyed by faith only no more then this follows a man is nourished by bread without the grasse of the field therefore a man is nourished by bread only for though the grasse of the feeld do not nourish vs yet many other things besides bread de nourish vs. in like manner though the woreks done by force of the grace of God and not by force of the law do iustify vs and so we are not iustifyed by saith only nor at all by the works of the law but by faith and good works done by the grace of Iesus Christ and not by the kâ—owledge of rhe law The Second mistake The workes of the law misunderstood That S. Paul here vnderstands only by works of the law such works as are done by force and knowledge of the law before the faith of Christ infused into a soul or that it is inlightned and assisted by his grace and by this law is vnderstood the law written in the books of Moyses both morall in the ten Commandements and ceremoniall as circumcision and other rites and ceremonyes of the Iewes That by works of the law I say are vnderstood by S. Paul only such works as are done by force of knowledge of the law befotc the inlightning of the faith and grace of Christ is euident out of this chapter Rom. 3. v. 14. Now we know that what things soeuer the law sayth it sayth to thcm that are vnder the law that euery mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God Here he speakes of the law speaking or teaching what is to be done according to it and then adds presently as a conclusion from that knowledge got by the law v. 10. therefore by tbe deeds of the law no flesh shall be iustifyed in his sight for by the law is the knowledge of sin The reason why the deeds of the law iustify not is because they come from the knowledge of the law by the law is the knowledge of sin wherunto he opposes the tighteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ vnto all in the first texts following verses 21. but now the righteousnetre of God without the law is manifested being witnessed by the law and Prophets v. 22. euen the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all and vppon all them that beleeue for there is no difference This is the known doctrine of all Roman Catholikes against the Pelagians that no worke can iustify which comes only by doctrine and light of the written law but all iustifying works must come from the faith and grace of Christ so that we all confesse and conclude with S. Paul that a man is iustifyed by faith vvithout the vvorkes of the lavv that is wirhout such works as are meerly of and from the law as are opposed here by S. Paul to the grace and faith of Christ. Secondly by the law in this place is vnderstood both the motall law written by Moyses in the ten Commandements and the ceremoniall conteyned in the bookes of Leuiticus Deuteronomij c. for the morall law Protestants themselues doubt not that the Apostle speakes of it and that the ceremonial is here meant is euident in the two next following Verses
liuing spiritually by faith hinders not his liuing by good vvorks for as breath meate and drinke concurre to his temporall so faith an good works concurre to his spirituall life and euen Protestants themselues must confesse that this text the iust man liueth by fatih cannot possibly inferre that he liueth by faith only for S. Paul saith Rom. 3.24 being iustifyed freely by his grace and v. 18. euen so by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came vppon all men to the iustification of life So that according to S. Paul the iust liues by grace and by the righteousnsse of Christ as well as by faith and so not by faith only Neyther can it bee answeared that faith it self is that grace where of the Apostle speakes and consequently this objection of myne is to noe purpose for though faith be a gift and grace of God yet there are many more gifts and graces besides it signified by the word grace and particularly that preuentinge grace or diuine light and inspiration which the holy Ghost infuses into mans hart as the principles and causes of diuine faith in vs which is bestowed vppon vs purely gratis and out of mere mercy The 4. text Gal. 2. v. 11. Knowing that a man is not iustifyed by the vvorks of the law but by the faith of Iesus Christ that vvee might be iustifyed by the faith of Christ and not by the vvorkes of the law for by the vvorks of the law shall no flesh be iustifyed This text is mistaken These words prooue as little as any of the former that is nothing at all for iustification by faith only For as it is most manifest by the whol precedent context in the chapter the whol matter there handled is about Circumcision and obseruation of the ceremoniall law of the Iewes as different from the life and practice of the Gentills see v. 2.3.5.7.8.12.14 and chap. 4. v. 10. Yee obserue dayes and monthes and tymes and yeares saith S. Paul reprehending the Christians for returning to those empty elements of the ceremoniall law v. 6. and the like chap. 5. v. 1.2.3 about circumcision stand and be not held in againe vvith the yoke of seruitude behold I Paul tell you that if yee be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing and I testify again to euery man circumcising himselfe that he is a debtour to the whol law Now neither Romane Catholike nor English Protestant beleeue that they are iustifyed by the ceremoniall law of the Iewes which only is touched in this chapter And it is no lesse cleare that there mention is made of the first iustification wherby a sinner becoms a child of God v. 10. VVe sinners by nature Iewes and not of the Gentiles Nay the text it selfe obiected Gal. 2. v. 16. speakes clearly of the first iustification of a sinner to the state of grace for by the workes of the law shall no flesh be iustified the word flesh signifijng most familiarly in S. Pauls Epistles that which is not yet spirituall but carnall vnder the guilt of sin and corruption of nature For though such as are already iustified retayne the concupiscenses of the flesh in them yet because they resist and subdue them so long as they remaine iustified they are not called flesh by S. Paul but rather spirituall men And that he speakes of the law as known by its own force light and doctrine is euident also v. 16. For if by the law be righteousnesse then Christ is dead in vayne which is most true if we speake of the law as known to vs and working in vs by its owne force wholy independent of the grace and illumination of Christ but can haue no true sense if we speake of the law as iustifying by the grace of Christ for then Christ will not haue dyed in vaine because by his death he merited that grace and light by vertu of which only the law iustifyes And chapter 3. v. 2. Haue yee receaued the Spirit by the vvorks of the law or by the hearing of faith wherby is manifest both that he speakes of the workes of the law as working before the receiuing the holy Ghost and of the first iustification or receiuing of the Spirit by the faith of Christ. and v. 18. For if a lavv vvere giuen vvich could viuificate righteousnesse vvere truly from the lavv which shewes euidently that the Apostle speakes of the law as considered in it selfe and its proper force for if we consider it as illuminated by faith and the grace of Christ it is able to viuificate and consequently to iustify as the Apostle here plainly affirmes And that he speakes of the law as preceding the faith of Christ is out of all question v. 23. Before faith came we were concluded vnder the law into that faith which was to be reuealed Therefore the law was our schoolmaster in Christ that we might be iustifyed from faith THE FOVRTH CONTROVERSIE Of the merit of Good workes The Doctrine of the Roman Church deliuered by the Council of Trent in this Point Sessione 6. THe Couneil of Trent hauing deliuered as appeares in the former Controuersie that noe worke truly pleasing to God which only we vnderstand by good workes esteemed by vs meritorious can possibly be done eyther by the force of nature or of the law without the inspiration of the holy Ghost nor that any good motion of the will assisted by such Inspirations can merit the grace of our first Iustification the Council supposes that none can produce any good worke truly meritorious of heauenly blessings but such as are allready iustified and in state of grace and soe deliuers the insuing doctrine Sessione 6. c. 16. Bene operantibus vsque in finem in Deo sperantibus proponenda est vita aeterna tanquam gratia filiis per Christum Iesum misericorditer promissa tanquam merces ex ipsius Dei promissione bonis ipsorum operibus ac meritis fideliter reddenda Eternall life is to be propounded to those who doe well and hope in God both as a grace mercifully promised through IESVS Christ to childeren and as a reward faithfully to be rendered through the promesse of God to theyr good workes and merits And yet the Council giues an other ground of Christian merits Ibidem c. 26. Si quis dixerit iustos non debere pro bonis operibus quae in Deo fuerint facta expectare sperare aeternam retributionem à Deo per eius misericordiam IESV Christi meritum â—i bene agendo diuina mandata custodiendo vsque in finem perseuerauerint anatheme sit If any one shall say that iust men are not to expect and hope for an eternall recompence for theyr good workes which were done in God through the mercy of God and the merits of Christ if they perseuer to the ende in doing well and keeping Gods commandements let him be accursed And the full reason of this doctrine is giâ—en Sess. 6. c. 16. Cùm enim ille
tymes after consecration for it follows no more that therefore it should be pure bread remayning as it was before the words of consecration then that the water remained in its own nature after it was made wyne because after the change it is called water Neither doth yet S. Paul if his words be well marked say that the consecrated hoast is naturall and common bréad such as it was before fit to be eaten at an ordinary table as the Protestants must grant it not to be for at the least it is sacramentall bread and consecrated to a religious and holy vse according to them and therefore though he had put the same word bread before and after consecration yet it follows not that the signification of that word after consecratiâ—n should be the same with the signification of the same before consecration for before it signifyes common ordinary naturall and vsuall bread but after sacramentall significant coÌ„memoratiue holy diuine bread according to Protestants and therefore if Ptotestants must confesse that though the word be the same yet the signification is not the same why blame they Romane Catholicques if they giue the same answer saying that by the word bread in S. Paul before consecration or blessing is meant the substance of naturall and vsuall bread but after consecration supernaturall heauenly spirituall diuine bread which our Sauiour termeth himselfe to be in the sixt of S. Iohn six or seauen different tymes and which euery Christian chiefly begs of God in the Pater noster or Lords prayer saying giue vs this day our dayly bread for it is to be noted that bread in greeke familiarly in holy Scripture is taken for all manner os meate and not for bread only as it is distinct from all other meates But to make it yet clearer that S. Paul did not meane naturall bread remaning in its own substaÌ„ce as it was before when he called the Sacrament bread after it was consecrated or designed for a part of that holy mystery it is particularly to be reflected on that in this acceptioÌ„ he neuer calls it absolutly bread but allways with in article determinatiue or restrictiue referring it to that which consecration had made it and so he calls it this bread this cup that bread that cup to wit which was held for a Sacrament and mystery amongst Christians by force of our Sauiours words and to put vs out of all doubt that it was not that naturall bread and wine which it was before it was consecrated he clearly calls it the bread of our Lord and the cup of our Lord v. 29. wherfore whosoeuer shall eate this bread and drinke this cup of our Lord vnworthily c. and as we gather Ioan. 6. v. 48. that when our Sauiour termed the bread whereof he spoke there the bread of life he meant not naturall and visible bread but supernaturall and diuine in the same manner are we to gather from the words of S. Paul that by the like phrase the like bread is signifyed and as our Sauiour termes that bread wherof he spake Io. 6. v. 51.58 this bread to distinguish it from naturall and vsuall bread and to signify that he thereby meant his true body so also doth S. Paul here neyther can it more be gathered from the being tetmed bread by S. Paul that is naturall and substantiall bread then it can be gathered from the canon of our masse that wee beleeue it to be the substance of bread because it is often called bread in the said canon after consecration Objection If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should vnderstand flesh were not he worthy to be blamed to entertayne the people in errour since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence that it is bread which man naturally beleeues would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspension and to beleeue that it is his flesh though it seemeth bread then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses calling it alwayes bread without any explication Answer We are not to prescribe to the holy Ghost what he is to disclose to the writers of diuine Scripture he could haue deliuered many other mysteries of our faith in clearer words in the holy Scripture then he hath done if it had seemed good in his diuine Prouidence and therefore though he command vs not here in expresse termes to deny our senses and to beleeue that it is his flesh though it seeme bread as some holy fathers haue done with in the first fiue hundred yares yet he calles it as expressly the body of Christ as he calls it bread and seeing we finde bread often to be taken in a spirituall sense in holy Scripture for the food of out soules but neuer finde the body of Christ which is giuen for vs to be any other then his reall true Body one would thinke that the darker or more doubtfull word should in any reasonable mans iudgement yeeld to the more cleare and certaine and be interpreted by it then the contrary which is here alleadged and though our Sauiour call his flesh bread twice as often as S. Paul calls that which was consecrated bread here Ioannis 6. yet no man dare from thence argue that his flesh was not true flesh but corporall and materiall bread And if S. Paul by calling it so often bread after consecration should ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses as the opponent here affirmes he would draw vs also to thinke that it is mere naturall and vsuall bread after consecration as it was before and therefore we may apply the same objection in almost the same wordes against Protestants which here is brought against vs in this manner If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should vnderstand a Saerament or mystery as it is beleeued to be amonst all Christians were he not worthy to be blanted to entertaine the people in errour since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence that it is vsuall and common bread which man naturally beleeues would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspention and to beleeue that it is sacramentall and spirituall bread though it seeme vsuall bread then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses calling it always bread without any explication Thus whilst Protestants frame arguments fitter for Infidells then Christians against vs they neuer consider what force the like arguments haue against themselues But it is very vntrue that S. Paul called it bread without any explication or that he any way draws vs to what our senses would iudge if they were left to themselues but eleuates our thoughts vnto faith telling vs that it is panis calix Domini the bread and cup of our Lord which our Sauiour confesses himselfe to be Iohn the sixt and besides that he who eats this bread and drinketh this cup of our Lord vnwortily shall he guilty of the body and
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