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-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
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
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
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
that there are two kinds of worship the one interiour the other exteriour the interiour is in the minde and soul only the exteriour is that interiour signifeyd by some humiliation of the body soe that though one may haue the inward of the soule without any outward or exteriour in the body yet one can heuer haue a true act of exteriour or bodily worship without an interiour worship in the soule thus the souldiers in the tyme of our Sauiours passioÌ„ though they bended their knees to him which is one part of exteriour worship taken Separately and absolutely in it selfe yet because it was not accompanied with the inward humiliation of the soule it was noe act of worship but of mockerie I say it followes that as the outward corporall humiliation is constitured an act of true worship by the inward intention of the minde Soe are the different kinds of worships distinguished only by the different intentions and humiliations of the soule For the very same externall comportment and prostration of the body may be vsed both when wee worship God an Angell a Saint an Apostle a Bishop a Priest a King a Magistrate a father a mother c. thus the very same hebrew and greeke word is vsed in these different worships the same bowing and kneeling is practised to them all as I haue allready proued But though the same externall gestures of the body may be vsed to all yet they bâ—ome different kinds of worships according to the different humiliations intentions and acknowledgments which he who worships desires to exptesse by those outward deportments of the body Thus if when I kneele I intend to exhibite worship to the Creatour and maker of all tkings that kneeling will be a diuine worship proper to God only If I kneele with intention to acknowledge only some ciuil dignity or morall exccllency in the person before whom I keele it will bc a meere ciuill worship but if I kneele before or to some other thing or person with intention to acknowledge in them 'a worth or dignity neyther infinite nor diuine but finite and createed neyther yet ciuil morall humane and naturall but christian spirituall and supernaturall such a kneeling will neither be an act of diuine worship proper to God only nor of ciuill worship proper to persons or things indued with meare humane and naturall excellences but will be an act of supernaturall and religious worship taken in a larger sense as I shall presently declare Thus wee see that the different intentions of the mynde make the same externall kneelings of the body to be differeÌ„t kinds of worships by intending there by to acknowledge a worth in that which is worshipped diuine Supernaturall or ciuill soe that all the difficulty in this matter consists in shewing clearly that there are these three different worths or excellencies to be acknowledged and honored by an act of worship Two of these to witt diuine and ciuill excellency the one found in God alone the other in the ciuill Magistrate all Protestans Acknowledge the difficulty therefore at the last comes to make it eleare that there is allso a third worth and excellency which is neyther infinite nor increated nor diuine nor yet humane or naturall but wholy spirituall and supernaturall inspired or communicated aboue all reach of naturall force and light from the holy Ghost and giuen to men through the only merits and by the authority of our Sauiour These heauenly excellencies I find to be of two sorts the one internall and iustifying graces and gifts or at the least giuen freely to men as other supernaturall things the other externall powers and authorities both which I will conuince out of holy Scripture to be such supernaturall gifts of God as I haue affirmed S. Iames speaking of the internall graces saith thus Euery best and perfect gift is from aboue descending from the father of light And S. Paul by the grace of God I am what I am and his grace was not voyd in me and that of our Souiour without me yee can doe nothing And S. Iohn Soe many as receiued him he gaue them the power to become the sones of God who are not born of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God And many like texts which euidently proue that all true grace and Sancttitie is a free gift of God aboue the force of mans nature vnderstanding and will and this Protestans commonly graunt and noe Christian can deny without falling in to Pelagianisme Concerning the externall authority dignity and preheminencie of Ecclesiasticall persones in the true Christian church they are as euidently ascribed to Christ and the holy Ghost as the former Thus S. Paul And some verily God hath set in the church first Apostles secondly Prophetes thirdly Doctours next miracles then graces of doing cures helps gouermens kinds of tongues Which he ascribes with many other heauenly gifts to the holy Ghost towards the begining of this chapter in the words following And there are diuisions of graces but the same spirit And there are diuisions of ministries but the same Lord. And there are diuisions of workes but the same God who workes all in all But to euery one is giuen the manifestation of the spirit to profit To one by the spirit is giuen the word of wisdome but to another the word of knowledge according to the fame spirit to an an other faith in one spirit to an other the worke of power to an other Prophesie to an other discretion of spirits to an other kinds of tongues to an other interpretation of speeches All these workes one an the same spirit diuiding to euery one as he will And to the Galathians And he that is our Sauiour hath giuen some to be Apostles others to be Prophets others to be Euangelists but others to be Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of the Saints into the worke of the ministry to the edifying of the body of Christ till wee all meete in the vnity of faith and the acknowledgment of the sone of God in a perfect man in the fullnesse of the age of Christ whence it is eleare that not only in the Apostles tyme but through all ages till the end of the world the dignities in the church were to be guifts of our Sauiour and not conferred by any authority purely humane and naturall And as those testimonies couince that both inward holinesse and ecclesiasticall dignities are gifts of the holy Ghost and conferred by the power and Authority deriued from Christ soe lickewise the worth and excellency of the Saints in heauen are to be accounted the highest and chiefest supernaturall gifts and graces of God Thus S. Paul The grace of God Protestants reade the gift of God is eternall life which all the Saints of heauen inioy And S. Iohn Be faithfull vntill death and I will giue the a crowne of life And S. Mat. Yee shall sit vppon
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
which hinders not but that there may be other aduocates and others who make intercession for vs in an inferiour kinde besides this text as the former speakes only of an aduocate and intercessour of redemption for sins as appeares by those words If any man sin we haue an aduocate c. and he is the propitiation for our sins and it is Christ that dyed c. which wee grant must be only one Thirdly thâ—â—e two texts speake of an aduocate and intercessour worthy to be heard for himselfe and his owne merits which is our Sauiour only not of other inferiour intercessours and aduocates who are not worthy to be heard for themserues or by vertue of any merits proceeding from themselues considered according to their owne naturall forces or dignities but haue only accesse through the dignity merits of Christ. This appeares by the words now cited that they speake of an aduocate worthy to bee heard for himselfe 1. Timoth. 2. v. 6. VVho gaue himselfe a ransome for all 1. Ioannis 2. v. 1.2 Hee is the propitiation for our sins it is Christ that dyed so that if in the title of this obiection when it is sayd Christ our only mediaâ—uor our aduocate and intercessour how dare wee admit of any other be meant how dare wee admit of any other mediatour aduocate or intercessour of redemption and propitiation for our sins and who is worthy to be heard for his own dignity and merits all Romain Catholikes vnanimously grant that wee dare not admitt of any other saue Christ but if by the same words be meant how dare wee admit of any other mediatuor aduocate or intercessour not of Redemption but merely of praying to Allmighty God for vs as his seruants and our friends and fellow seruants and that to be heard not for themselues but for Christ wee may returne the same question vppon Protestans and demaund of them how dare they permit their children euery night to kneele downe and beg of their pareÌ„ts that they will pray to God to blesse them for what is this but to be a mediatour aduocate and intercessour betwixt God and them not of propitiation or redemption but of praying to God for them through the metits of Christ The same practise amongst Protestants is of grand-children nephewes god-children c. nay of all generally amongst them commending themselues to the praires of others So that it is euident that such aduocates as these euen according to Protestants are not to be excluded by vertue of these texts vnlesse they will condemne themselues And this is the very same intercession that wee put amongst the Saints and Angells in heauen because both the one and the other pray to God for vs through the merits of Christ neither imports it for our present question of one sole aduocate c. that those to whom wee pray be in this world or in heauen for if there be but only one then no lesse those others on earth then those in heauen are excluded or if the intercession for vs vppon earth be not excluded by force of this text then Protestants must confesse that they themselues must acknowledge Christ not so to be our mediatour aduocate and intercessour but that they dare and doe admit of others and so are faulty themselues in what they aecuse vs or if they acknowledge no fault in this as indeed there is none then they must cease to accuse vs and vse the same distinction and explications of the texts here cited in the obiection with vs to wit that they admit only one mediatour or intercessour and aduocate of Redemption and Saluation where of the texts speake but more then one of praying vnto Allmighty God with vs and for vs by way of charity and society as S. Augustine sayes whereof the texts doe not speake or thus that there is but one only intercessour which is worthy to be heard for his own dignity and merits but more then one who are made worthy by the merits of Christ who is that only independent mediatour and all others depending of him and his merits Besides these are mediatours and intercessours to Christ as he is both God and man for vs which Christ cannot be to himselfe for à mediatour must be bewixt two as S. Paul saith The Third mistake It hath beene alwayes the practise of God's Saints in their troubles and at all tymes to call vppon him VVhen I was in trouble I called vppon the Lord and he heard me Moyses and Aaron and Samuel these called vppon the Lord and he heard them And in the night Paul and Silas being in Prison prayed and sung prayse to God so that the prisoners heard them The third proof mistaken These texts are cited to no purposse WEe grant all this as nothing at all against our doctrine or practice for who can deny that wee both teach and vse to pray to God in all occasions and in all our tribulations But if it be intended that these texts proue that wee are at all tymes to pray to God and so at noe time to any creature to pray to God through Christ for vs it is a pure mistake for the texts say noe such matter The fourth mistake BY all this is playne that it is the ancientest the best and the safest way to come only to God in our prayers and the contrary doctrine is both new and absolutely against Gods word This mistake discouered Noe such mater can be draun from the texts cited for by all that I haue answered appeares that Protestans themselues come not only to God in their prayers but haue recourse oftentymes one to an others prayers and desire others to pray to God with them and for them no lesse nor otherwise then do those of the Romain Church and therrfore this practice eyther must be ancient and agreeing with Gods word or the Protestants practice is new and against Gods word Here alsoe may be added as a further satisfaction to these aboue cited mistaken Proofes that there is an other maine difference betwixt praying to Christ the Blessed Trinity or any of the diuine Persons and our praying to an Angel a heauenly Saint or a good Christian yet liuing For our praires to God and Christ as our only Redeemer are stritly commaÌ„ded and are necessary meanes to Saluation and are acts belonging to the worship of God properly and primarily and soe are exercizes appertayning to the vertue of Religion taken presly and thus the inuocation or praying to eyther Angel Saint or liuing Chtistian is neyther vniuersally commanded nor a meanes absolutly necessary to saluation though it be a very great helpe towards it nor an act belonging immediarely and necessarily to the strict vertue of Religion or the worship of God bur an exercice good and profitable and necessarily to be esteemed as such by all true Christians as I haue allready deduced out of the Council of Trent which I thought fit to renew in the
in an odious and bad signification but it can neyther fitly nor truly be expressed by the word Images put absolutly and with our any adjunct as it is in those first ttanslations of English Protestants babes keepe your selues from Images for then the precept could not be indefinitly and vniuersally vnderstood as it must be to keepe themselues from all Images whatsoeuer for all Christians should be here commanded to keepe themselues from all monie because it hath Images vppon it and the husband to keepe himselfe from his wife because she is an Image of God nay Christians to keepe themselues from Christ because he is the Image of his father But if Protestants would vse the word Image in this text fitly and truly they must haue added some adiectiue to it which would haue tyed it to signifie something which is vniuersally vnlawfull thus Babes keepe your selues from false Images or from bad Images c. but this they refused to doe first because there was noe such adiectiue in the originall and and secondly because the addition of that adiectiue would haue made the text to haue had not soe much as any seeming force against the doctrine of the Romain Church for we should presently haue answered that our Images are neyther false nor bad but true and holy and soe not forbidden in that place Thus though the word desire be indiffereÌ„t to signifie as wel bad as good desires yet this would be a very absurd command keep your selues from defires for that were to oblige one to abstayne from all desires and therefore the Apostle when he giues a command about desires he speakes not indefinitly but expresses by the adiectiue which he adioynes what desires he meanes Abstinete vos à carnalibus desiderijs Keepe your selues from carnal desires all which are bad and vnlawfull whence appeares that Protestants by this theyr translation make S. Iohn and the holy Scripture to deliuer a commande not only false and senselesse but euen wicked and blasphemous for it must command Christians to keepe themselues from all Images and consequently not only from all Koyne and Company of men which are Images but euen from Christ himselfe who is the Image of his eternall father The like inconueniences follow from the other texts now cited where Image is put absolutly for Idoll for when the Apostle Ephes. 5.5 Reckons vp those hainous sinners who are excluded diâ—ng without repentance from the kingdome of heauen he calls an auaritious man an Idolater in the originall and the English Protestants make the text say an auaritious man which is a worshipper of Images now euery auaâ—itious man is truly called an Idolater because he commits spirituall idolarry in making his gould his God but an auaritious man cannot be truly termed a spirituall worshipper of Images absolutly taken for that supposes that all worshipping of any Image whatsoeuer is sinfull as all auarice is which notwithstanding is not only false but blasphemous for ciuil worship exhibited to the Image of some lawfull Emperour is not sinfull euen according to Protestants and diuine worship giuen to our Sauiour who is the Image of his father is not only not sinfull but most lawfull and holy The like follows from theyr translation of Gal. 5.20 where the Apostle giuing a catalogue of those capitall sinnes which vnrepented depriue a soul of eternall happinesse amongst many others names Idolorum seruitus in greeke Idolatry now as all the rest whensoeuer they are done are sinnes soe whensoeuer any kinde or act of Idolatry is committed it is a sinne but the Protestant changing Idolatrie into worshipping of Images must make the Scripture say that as whensoeuer any fornication adultery witchcraft idolatry or any other here named is commited sinne is committed soe when any kinde of worshipping of Images is committed sinne is committed which notwithstanding is manifestly false for neyther is the ciuil worship of an Emperours Image a sinne and much lesse the diuine worship of our Sauiour who is the Image of his father Thus is it made euident that whilst Protestants shew theyr vehement passions against holy Images they make the Scripture to speake not only falsities but euen blasphemies which the later TraÌ„slaters hauing obserued ashamed of soe foul errours haue corrected as any one may see theyr former and ancienter translations and haue restored Idoles Idolaters and Idolatrie to the respectiue texts which I haue aboue cited neyther is that which M. Fulk alleadges in defense of those ancient translations of any force at all for though the vulgar latinÌ„ translation translate the greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes simulacrum and some amongst the ancients not only heathens but Christians take that latin word in a good sense yet according to the acception which it hath through the whol latin Bible it is neuer taken for any thing saue an Idol neyther cites M. Fulk soe much as any one text of Scripture where simulacrum is not taken for an Idol where as the word Image in all languages is familiarly taken not only in all authours both Heathens and Christians but also in holy Scripture for true lawfull holy and diuine Images Notwithstanding all that I haue sayd in manifest and vndeniable proofe of the false translation of the commandement Exod. 20. v. 4. c. yet to shew how little force these texts haue euen as they stand in the Protestant Bibles Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image c. to proue any thing against the vse of holy Images practised in the Romain Church I most easily answer that if they vnderstand by grauen Image such as are also Idoles as it is taken Isay. 44.17 Ps. 105.19 Ps 78.5 Iudg. 18. where that which v. 17. 18. 20. is called a graueÌ„ a molten Image v. 24. is called Gods in the ProtestaÌ„t Bibles in different other places as I haue already shewed nay through the whol Protestant Bible the word grauen Image is neuer taken but for an Idol or a false God for as much I euer could yet discouer in it then I grant that such Images are neither to be made worshipped nor serued but this concludes nothing at all against the Romain Church who abhorres detests and anathematizes all such Images with the wotshipping and worshippers of them But if they vnderstand by grauen Image an Image wich is no Idoll but a true representation of some holy person now in heauenly blisse such as where the images of the two Cherubins Exodus the 25. then I deny that such grauen Images are forbidden either to be made or worshipped according to the explication already deliuered Now the reason of this answer and distinction is cleare for if true Images of holy things and persons were forbidden Exod. 20. v. 4. then that place of Seripture would be contrary to the others Exodus the 25. which command them and if all kind of reuerence respect and worship be here forbidden to holy Images then this text Exod. 20. v.
4. would be contrary to the Psal. 98. alias 99. v. 5. where we are commanded to worship or adore the footstoole of God which was nothing but the Arke of the Testament with the two goulden Cherubins in the holy of holyes Adore or worship his footstoole saith there holy Dauid where the very same hebrew word and phrase is vsed which is in Exod. 20. v. 4. Some ignorant reader may happily say that those pictures of the Cherubins Exod. 25. were commanded only to the Iewes and to be vsed in the old law and so tutch not christians any thing I answer first the forbidding of Images is also only in the old Testament Exod. 20. v. 4. c. Secondly that command Exod. 25. to make some Images was brought to shew that all kind of Images were not forbidden Exod. 20. v. 4. and consequently that some images might be lawfully made and seeing there is now no prohibition forbidding all Images giuen to Christians it is lawfull for them to make holy Images like to the Cherubins Exod. 25. Seeing therefore one place of holy Scripture cannot be contrary to another for then the one should be false and so could not be the word of God as it is supposed to be they must necessarily be reconciled and made to agree And seeing the Images of the Cherubs are so expresly commanded to be made by Allmighty God himselfe that there is no way to deny or avoyd it if a christian will reconcile and agree these two places he must grant that all kind of Images euen such as are no more Idols nor lesse truly sacred and holy Images then those Cherubs in the Tabernacle were are not forbidden in the commandement Exod. 20. v. 4. for if they were then God should forbid Exod. 20. what be commands Exodus 25.18 and so contradict himselfe And what is sayd about the vnderstanding of the word grauen Image is respectiuely to be applied to the word worship for if all kind of worship of Images be forbidden in the commandement Exod. 20.4 then holy Dauid will contradict Gods command when be commands the Israelites to worship his footstoole where those Images of the Cherubs were There is therefore no other possible meanes to reconcile those two commands but by saying that Exod. 20. forbids not all kind nor can be vnderstood of that which holy Dauid commandes but only such a worship as is wholy vnlawfull superstitious and Idolatrous wherby the creature is worshipped and prayed to as God and the Image made an Idol or a false God wich is neither commanded nor allowed in any place of holy Scripture but alwayes forbidden and condemned Neither can it be sayd that Allmighty God Psal. 98. dispensed with his command giuen Exod. 2. for if there were forbidden all kind of Images as being superstitious and Idolatrous and iniurious to Gods honour and so of themselues or intrinsecally as the schoole speakes vnlawfull and all kind of reuerence or worship exhibited to them as in it selfe dishonorable to God as ProtestaÌ„ts vnderstand this command Then it cannot be sayd without most high blasphemy that God dispensed with this command for then he should dispence with men to commit superstition Idolatry and dishonour to him by a command to do them which were to make him not only authour but euen fauorer and commander of sin Neither can it auayle Protestants to say as some others haue sayd that the making all kind of Images and all reuerence to them was forbidden to the Iewes Exod. 20. v. 4. though not vnlawfull in themselues by reason of the great danger they were in to be broughr into Idolatry by them as appeares in the brazen serpent and their perpetuall falling vppon euery light occasion into Idolatrie This I say nothing auayls Protestants first because I haue already shewed that it is Idolatry only and Idols which are here forbidden Secondly because if this command of forbidding all kind of Images and worship of them though good and holy in themselues was only directed to the Iewes as long as they were in so eminent danger of falling by reason of them into Idolatry superstition c. then it cannot be pressed now against Christians whom it touches not they being not in any such danger of committing heathenish Idolatry but destroying it and rooting it out through the whole world and so it will be lawfull for them to make and worship according to my former explications holy Images as hauing no command to the contrary From what I haue now sayd will easily appeare how little reason the Romain Church hath to blot those words Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any Idol c. out of the commandement as vulgar Protestants are made beleeue by a most false aspersion of their ministers for if they make nothing at all against her as I haue shewed why should she blot them out But that I may giue a full and coÌ„pleat answer to this mistake of common people which I haue learned by long experience to be one of the greatest stumbling blocks that hinders them from imbracing Catholike Religion because say they we leaue out the second Commandement I will breefly cleare this poynt and conuince euidently that it is a mere deuise to catch the ignorant hauing neither truth nor substance in it For first there neuer was yet so much as one sole Bible of ours in whatsoeuer language place tyme or edition which hath not these words which Protestants call the seeond commandement as fully and compleatly as any Protestant Bibles haue and I challenge the best versed amongst them to produce one only in the whol world which hath them not and that the more ignorant who vnderstand English only may haue what assurance they are capable of in this particular let them presse their ministers to shew them the Remish Bible set out by Romain Catholike Diuines and there Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. they shall find all the sayd words fully an intyrely Secondly not only in all our Bibles but in our larger and fuller Catechismes this whole commandement is expressed So Catechismus Romanus set out by order of the late Councill of Trent parte 3. pag. 298. n. 8. and Canisius his Catechisme de Charitate Decalogo 1. q. 5. p. 74. 75. where setting down the commandements he puts the first thus Non habebis Deos alienos coram meâ—non facies tihi sculptile vt adores illud Thou shalt haue no other Gods before me thou shalt not make to thy selfe any Idol to adore it and then cites the commandements all at large as fully as they stand in the Protestant Bibles Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. And in an English Catechisme called a Summary of Controuersies composed by P.C. of the Society of Iesus and printed in the yeare 1639. The third edition chap. 3 q. 5. pag. 68. hath it thus Thou shalt not haue any strange Gods before me thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image to worship it And in the same maner are they
forbid one capitall sin nor one two sinnes This our diuision strictly obserues but that of our aducrsaryes not so for their two first commandements forbid only the sin of Idolatry as being the capitall sin forbidden in them both and so can be but one commandement as we put them and their last prohibites two maine distinct sinnes the desire of adultery thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife and the desire of theft thou shalt not couet thy neighbours goods c. which are as different in thought as adultery and stealing are in act if therefore as they acknowledge there be two commandements to forbid them in all reason there must be two to forbid the desires of them and this reason is pressed by S. Augustin in the place alleadged It is further most manifest that these which are made two commandements by the Protestants can be noe more then one and the same commandement for in the 2. of Kings 17. v. 35. the whole substance of that which Protestants call the second commandement is put in one single senteÌ„ce togeather with the first in these words you shall not feare strange Gods neyther shal you worship them neyther shall you serue them neyther shall sacrifize to them now what is meant by those strange Gods is declared v. 40. and the 41. How be it they did not harken but they did after theyr former maner soe these nations feared the Lord and serued theyr grauen Images whence it is euident that that which is called strange Gods v. 35. is called grauen Images v. 41. and soe to forbid the seruice and worship of strange Gods which is in the Protestants first commandement and to forbid the seruice and worship of grauen Images is the same command as forbidding the same thing Hence also appeares that the word Phesel vsed Exod. 20.4 and is also vsed here v. 41. signifies an Idol or a strange God as I haue often said and noe lesse is manifest from these words thâ—t the seruice which is here mentioned to those grauen Images Pheselim v. 41. was to feare them and sacrifice to them as strange Gods v. 35. And moreouer thus these which are here called strange Gods v. 35. were materiall Idoles or as Protestants terme them grauen Images is most cleare v. 33. They feared the Lord and serued theyr own Gods after the maner of the nations whom they carried away from thence for they could not carry with them any other Gods saue such as these from one place to an other That nothing may me wanting to the full satisfaction of the Reader I haue here adioyned the hebrew words as they stand in the originall of this text which is so violently and frequently pressed against vs. Exod. 20. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 5. v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which words out of what I haue allready alleadged may be thus translated Thou shalt not make to thy sâ—lfe an Idoâ— any figure which is in heauen aboue or in the earth beneath or in the water vnder the earth thou shalt not bow down to them nor serue them or thus· Thou shalt not make to thy selfe an Idol of any figure which is in heauen aboue for the Protestants themselues giue the like translation to the like phrase Deut. 4. v. 16. and Pagninus giues for the first signification of Moun or Temounach figuram a figure not only artificiall but naturall or apparent as when angels appeare in the figures of men Deut. 4.15 Psal. 17.15 I shal be satified when I awake with thy likenesse Temounacb which is nothing but the substance and essence of God conceiued clearly in our vnderstanding as we commonly say in our language let him appeare in his likenesse that is in his own shape figure or persone Soe that the meaning of these words as they ly in the 20. of Exod. and 5. of Deutronomy compared with the 2. of Kings 17. where a strange God a grauen Image are the same thing as I shewed iust now can only haue this sence that Allmighty God here forbids that we should haue any strange Gods before him that is that we should not make an Idol according to any visible figure whieh wee see eyther in the materiall heauens or in the earth or in the waters worshipping and seruing that is fearing those very Idoles and sacrifizing to them as to things indewed with life power vnderstanding diuinity which horrible Idolatry is as farre from the doctrine of the Romain Church which in the beginning of this controuersie I cited out of the cleare words of the Council of Trent as darckenesse is from light To correspond to the desire of other Readers I haue also thought it conuenient to cite the Greeke text of the 70. Interpreres Exodus 20. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where they doe not only translate it serue but shew that it is a seruice proper to God which is here forbidden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thou shalt not serue them with a diuine or highest seruice as I shewed in the begining out of Scripture to be vnderstood by the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. Augustin q. 61. vppon Genesis confirmes the same Now that the difference betwixt worshipping and seruing may be better vnderstood and that worship may in some true sence be attributed to things inanimate and without knowledge but not seruice the Protestants themselues grant that ciuill worship may be giuen to te chayre of state or picture of a temporall King but seruice only to his Royall person not to his picture so that no man can be rightly sayd to serue the Kings chayre of state or his picture but to serue the Kinge and yet they may be and are sayd truly to worship or honour by some externall signe his chayre of state c. In the very same manner with proportion one may truly be sayd to worship or reuerence the picture of our Sauiour or his Saints as things known and esteemed to be as indeed they are wholy dead and inanimate without any power att all in themselues to heare vs or helpe vs merely because they represent those holy persons whose pictures they are but we cannot be sayd in any true or proper sence to serue them so long as we make only this esteeme of them And hence it is that the reuerence or worship wich we yeeld to holy Images is not intended to them or to begge any fauour of them or thinke that any help can be conferred vppon vs by any power in them and no Romain Catholike is to doe otherwise But we pray before them that we hauing them before our eyes may better and more attentiuely thinke of those whom they represent and the reuerence and honour which we giue to them is in a double respect first we giue them that reuerence which is due to holy things dedicated and consecrated or tending to the worship of God as are altars holy vessells and
the sayd chalice and after it was made a Sacrament as all do and must grant they did and so there will not be two actuall breakings but one actuall or mystycall or Sacramentall togeather signifyed by these two words breake and broken for you which happened after consecration But if we say that the first breaking was before consecration and the second broken for you signifyed somthing done after consecration that is the giuing of Christs Body for the remission of sinnes as the Euangelists seeme to signify then it will not be necessary that either the bread should haue beene twice visibly broken or that broken for you should haue relation to the bread broken before he sayd This is my Body as the obiection contends Obiection But to proceed from his actions to the words IESVS added Take eate this is my Body The vnderstanding of these words depends principally vppon the explication of the word this we say by the word this Christ meant that which he held when he spake the word this because transubstantiation is not yet made till the words following This is my Body be fully pronounced They expound all the fower words This is my Body thus vnder the species is my Body but enquire of them what is it which was vnder the species when Christ spake only the word this and they confesse that it was as yet bread which is the same that we mayntaine against them It is bread then and by consequence this there signifyes bread that I hold and these words This is my Body are as much as this bread is my Body Answer The maine diffiulty here vrged is about the word this in the words of consecration This is my Body I demand first when our Sauiour changed water into wine in the mariage of Galilee whether he could truly haue sayd these words vppon the water this is wine and by vertue of these words changed the water into wine the water remayning when the word this was pronounced by him and changed into wine when the whole proposition this is wine was spoaken as wee hold it happens in the change of bread into the Body of our Sauiour in the Eucharist I scarce thinke that any Protestant will be se bold and temerarious as to deny that God can do this and yet all the difficultyes that are inuented and vrged against the word this in the words of consecration are the very same here as is manifest So that the obiection about the word this proues not only if it prooue any thing that the Body of our Sauiour is not de sacto put really in the place of bread by vertu of these words This is my Body but that it is wholy impossible for our Sauiour to worke any such change by vertu of these words for if whilst the word this is pronounced water being only there actually must necessarily be signifyed by the word this as the obiection contēds then it is impossible by vertu of this proposition this is wine that water should be changed into wine for the signification of this proposition this is wine would require the presence and continuance of water by reason of the word this which is supposed to signifie water and the change of water into wine would require the absenec or non existency of water it being supposed to be changed into wine and so water would be and not be at the same tyme which is a formall contradiction and acknowledged by all to be wholy impossible So bold are Protestants in restrayning and limiting the Omnipotency of God to defend their own groundlesse phantasies who oppose the Romane Church in this manner And therefore the more moderate and considerate amongst them grant this to be possible and soe vrge not this argument because it proues either too much or nothing Secondly demand when our Sauiour sayd this is my command that yee loue one another what was meant by the word this either somthing or nothing was meant by it if somthing that was either the cōmand which he gaue after the pronuntiation of the word this and so somthing which was not when he pronounced the word this was vnderstood by it And then in our present question why cannot by the word this somthing be vnderstood which was not at that instant when he pronounced the word this Or by the word this in the former speech of the command was vnderstood somthing which was not his command but this is absurd for then he should haue sayd that which is not my command is my command if it be sayd that nothing was vnderstood by the word this it will follow that the word this signifyed nothing and so his command was nothing or nothing was his command or the word of God signifyed nothing all which is absurd Hence therefore it euidently followes that the word this in the text This is my command that yee loue one another c. cannot haue any other sense saue this This which I am presently to say to you to wit that yee loue one another is my command and this sense and manner of speech is so ordinary both in holy Scripture and common discourse that there can be no difficulty in the vnderstanding of it for it is not necessary that the thing which is signifyed by the word this in such manners of speech be then existent or in being when the word this is pronunced for ir may be either past or to come thus it is ordinary to say in the day tyme I hope to sleepe well this night that is the night to come or in the morning I haue slept well this night that is the last night past and this not only by reason of the thing it selfe whereof we speake but also in regard of the meaning and intention of the person who speakes for words were not instituted to signify thinges and obiects only but also and that more immediatly the thoughts and affections of him who speakes and hence it comes to passe when the same word signifyes many things it is to be explicated and taken in that sense only which appeares to haue beene intended by them who speake hence therefore it happens that seeing things not yet in being when the word this is pronounced may be vnderstood by it we must gather that a thing not yet existent is to be vnderstood when it appeares by other cleare circumstances that the meaning and intention of the speaker is to signify somthing which is not actually when the word this was pronounced but after is to be Thus in the forenamed example where our Sauiour sayd This is my command that yee loue one another it is cleare that his meaning was by the word this to signify that which he was presently after to say and not what was iust then when he sayd the word this for then no command was giuen And that this signification of the word this is most common and familiar euen in ordinary discours is manifest in a thousand
or to adde any thing to it of their own yet presently vppoÌ„ it in the very next objection the word of God is glossed and somthing added which is their own and not God's word Christ saith the objection hauing said that that which he gaue was his Body added prâ—sently that it is a remembrance or coÌ„memoration thereof where I pray you in the whole Scripture finde you that our Sauiour sayd in expresse and plaine words as you affirme he saith that which I sayd was my Body is a commemoration or remembrance of my Body or where stands this written in God ' word This is a commemoration of my Body or where in the whole Bible find you that our Sauiour so much as once pronounced these words The commemoration of my Body Certainly in the whol new Testament no such expresse words as these are to be found Seeing therfore our Sauiour sayes in expresse and plaine words This is my Body and neuer sayes in as expresse termes that is to say a commemoration or remembrance of my Bady nor so much as once names the commemoration of his Body is it not to glosse the word of God and adde some thing of your own to affirme that he says what he neuer sayd nor named in the whole new Testament If therefore you stick to your rule iust now deliuered of beleeuing the expresse word of God without all glosse or addition you must stedfastly beleeue without all scruple that out Sauiour gaue his true Body to his disciples seeing what you say of the commemoration of his Body is no where our Sauiours expresse words but your own glosse and addition to them If you answer that though he says not in as expresse words that what he gaue to his disciples was a commemoration of his Body as he says This is my Body yet that may be gathered to be his meaning by other words giue me leaue to reply first that supposing any such matter could be gathered from his words which I will presently proue to be false yet the consequence or collection drawn from an others words is not to be preferred before his direct cleare and expresse words to the contrary and if you will follow the rule of good interpreters you must expound the more obscure words by the more cleere and expresse and not the coÌ„trary as you doe here Secondly when you draw from other words of our Sauiour this consequence that he meant that that which he called his body was as much as to say commemoration or remembrance of his Body either you haue some expresse place of Scripture which warrants that consequence to be good and that place must be alleaged which will he as hard to find as the other proposition this is a commemoration of my Body neither the one nor the other being any where in Scripture or you must beleeue some thing with a Christian faith as you professe to beleeue this consequence which not withstanding is not in Scripture which is contrary to your own principle of beleeuing nothing which is not in the written word of God and if this consequence be not in the written word of God then it is framed only by your own discours and iudgement what impiety then would it be to preferre your own discours before the expresse words of our Sauiour and to expound them and draw them from theyr own naturall proper and direct sense to an improper and figuratiue by a coÌ„sequence gathered by humane discours only neither expressed nor warranted to be good expressely in any place of Scripture Thirdly that I may giue a full and compleat answer to this objection so frequently in the mouth of euery ProtestaÌ„t I denie that our Sauiour euer speake or meant our could possibly meane that that which his Apostles did eate and he affirmed to be his body was only a commemoration of his Body or that by these words my Body is vnderstood a commemoration of my Body That this may appeare I only contend for the present that in time of our Sauiours institution of the Sacrament at the last super that which the Apostles did then receiue and eate was for that time not affirmed to be a remembrance of his Body nor did our Sauiour speake any words in the said institution where by he signified that he gaue then to his apostles a remembrance or commemoration of his body which if I proue I conuince euidently against the obiection that our Sauiour not hauing euer said or meant it to be a commemoration of his body and so these words doe this in remembrance of me being noe explication of the former word This is my Body gaue his true and reall body substaÌ„tially present vnder the forme of bread to his Apostles in his last supper and consequently that it is still giuen in the same manner to all true Christians in this Sacrament I haue proued and the obiection it selfe confesses that these words taken in themselues and without relation to any thing going before are to be vnderstood of the reall body of Christ and that our Sauiour said that the thing which he had in his hands was his body I will now proue that this plane and cleere signification of these words as they sound is not hindred or taken away by any thing following these words The maine ground where vppon is built the obiection for the figuratiue explication of these words is this that our Sauiour sayes This is my Body which is gIuen for you this doe in remembrance of me and S. Paul This is my Body which is broken for you doe this in remembrance of me From these textes the obiection gathers this consequence that our Sauiour saith that that which he calles in the former part of the senteÌ„ce in expresse words his Body in this latter he calles by way of explication the remembrance or commemoration of his Body So that by these words my Body he meant the remembrance or commemoration of my body and indeed if our Sauiour had expressely said thus This is usy Body that is the cowmemoration or remembrance of my Body the difficulty had beene at an end but this was neither said nor meant by him but imposed vppon him by a false glosse and grosse mistake of Protestants for to say doe this in remembrance of me and to say this is a remembrance of my Body are as different as to say when one friend lends a booke vnto an other read this in remembrance of me and this is a remembrance of my Body which euery child will see to be quite different and if any one should say that these two sayings were the same in meaning and signification he would either be thought to haue no wit or to haue lost what he had for the one speakes of an action which passes doe or read this the other of a thing permanent this thing or this booke the one speakes of a worke done in remembrance the other affirmes a thing to be a remembrance the one speakes
of a person of me the other of a Body which is but one part of the person who consists both of soul and body vnited so that the whol proposition is quite different the one from the other Secondly though these propositions had not beene so different as they are yet our Sauiour cannot possibly be thought to haue meant by these words my Body a mere remembrance of his Body because this explication must be verified of the bread which was consecrated by our Sauiour in his last supper as it is euident For he speakes of that euen according to Protestants now that could not be a remembrance of his body for nothing is said according to Protestants to be a remembrance of a thing which is actually and visibly present as the body of our Sauiour then was to the Apostles being seene heard by them neither could it be a remembrance of his passion because we remember things past not to come as the passion of our Sauiour then was and so it should haue been a type of our Sauiours death as the ceremonies of the old law were before he dyed and not a remembrance or commemoration Therefore it is euident that by the thing which he called his body in his last supper could not be meant a remembrance of his body as Protestants would haue it and so this explication is very false Therefore when our Sauiour commanded his Apostles in these words doe this in remembrance of me he could not meane any action or thing then present or done at that time but an action which he enioyned the Apostles and their successors to doe afterwards in the Christian Church in remembrance of his passion principally which is cleerely deliuered by S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. v. 26.27 This is the new testament in my bloud this doe as often as you drinke in remembrance of me where the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies shall drinke quotiescumque bibetis doe this so often as you shall drinke and so it is translated by Beza in his latin translation quotiescumque biberitis as often as you shall drinke and should haue been by our English Trāslatours had they closely followed the greeke text as they pretend to doe but here it made not for theyr pourpose and soe they put it eyther falsly or at least obscurely soe often as you drinke which euidently shews that our Sauiour meant by doe this not any action which was done in time of the last supper or institution and receiuing of the Sacrament by the Apostles but what they were to doe in the future and that our Sauiour in these words doe this in remembrance of me did not command the present action of eating and drinking when our Lord celebrated his last supper is euident because had it been of the present action it would follow that he twice commanded the same action to be done at the same time for he commanded his Apostles to doe what was then to be done when he said take eate drinke c. therefore to free our Sauiour from a nedelesse tautologie must be vnderstood the command of doing some thing else and at some other time to be conteined in these words doe this in remembrance of me especially considering that the mention of remembrance could not be vnderstood of any thing then visibly present or after to come as I said before These words therefore being to be vnderstood of the consecrating and frequenting of this Sacrament for the future only cannot possibly be an explication of the former words this is my Body which speake only of a thing that is then present as is euident and consequently those words according to the obiection are plainely simply to be beleeued as they sound without any glossing of the words of our Sauiour there being no ground in this place of Scripture for any such figuratiue glosse as I haue prouued and each Christian must beleeue that that thing which our Sauiour gaue his Apostles was his very body as his affirmed it to be If happily not withstanding that this were granted some Protestants should gather from these words doe this in remembrance of me that this Sacrament in times insuing after our Sauiours death was only to be a remembrance of his body and so not his body whatsoeuer is to be said of rhat Sacrament in the first institution I answer that though some ancient heretiques haue been of this opinion yet I neuer heard of any Protestant who held that the Christians after our Sauiours time receiued not the same which the Apostles did from his hands and so this obiection is to noe purpose for the Protestants Yet that I may cleare all difficulties which may probably occurre against what I haue said in this matter I answer that this is noe good consequence our Sauiour would haue this Sacrament celebrated and frequented in remembrance of him therefore the hoast after the consecration is only a remembrance of his body and not his true body or thus therefore that which Christ called his body in the institution is now amongst Christians only the remembrance of his body for if these words doe this in remembrance of me were not an explication of those others This is my Body in the first institution they will neuer be any explieation of them and so there will be noe reason to say that the meaning of thesc words this is my Body is this this is a remembrance of my Body by reason of these words doe this in remembrance of me for these words only signifie that the action here commanded doe this is to be in remembrance of me not that the thing conteyncd in the Sacrament was to be a remembrance of him now who can doubt but the same person may doe one action in remembrance of himselfe that is of some action which he had done before how ordinary is it for any one to write his own workes and what he himselfe hat done or suffered did not S. Faul doe this and was not this done in remembrance of himselfe doing or suffering such things and shall any thence make this consequence S. Paul writ this in remembrance of himselfe therefore he was a remembrance of himselfe therefore it was not S. Paul who writ it for nothing can be a remembrance of it selfe who sees not how false and childish this discours is may we not say the same of our Sauiour when he appeared to S. Thomas whom he put in remembrance of himselfe suffering vppon the crosse when he commanded him to put his hand into his side and looke vppon his hands and feet c. and shall we then say that our Sauiour was not himselfe or that is Body was not that which suffered because it did something in remembrance of his body crucified what Christian will dare to discours in this manner if then our Sauiours own body that suffered vppon the crosse can doe something to put vs in remembrance of the same body crucifyed once for vs why should we denie
vnder this or vnder these species if they grant that the word this signifies bread as they must needs being spoken before consecration will they make it signify nothing after consecration can it both be somthing and nothing If the word this signifie bread then we must vnderstand that this bread is my Body but no other thing can they make it signifie but bread not the species of bread why because yet it was not when he sayd this not his body for his body could not signify his body neyther as yet was it consecrated when he sayd this they must therefore confesse it to signify bread or nothing if bread then of bread he sayd This is my Body which is as much as to say this bread is my body Answer Here is only a repetition of what hath been objected before wherfore I referre the reader to my former answer wherin I auoide all these difficultyes by replying that the word this iust when it was pronounced by our Sauiour neyther signified the species of bread nor vnder the species of bread nor bread nor that which he precisely then held in his hands before he pronounced the other words nor yet nothing but this which I am presentely to giue you and you are to take and eate is my Body and this well considered let any man iudge whether opinion is lesse forged and more naturall ours which puts a plaine proper obuious signification both to the word this the subiect the word is the copula and the word body the predicate of this proposition This is my Body agreeing with the wholl context and intention of our Sauiour or theyrs which will haue signifyed a mere peece of naturall bread not yet made a Sacrament by the word this â—nd by is my body is a commemoration of my body â—nd that not only without all ground in Scripture but contrary to the plaine text contrary to the mystery here instituted and contrary to common sense discourse all which I haue already proued Obiection Now that it is discouered what our Lord brake and gaue what he bad them take and eate and what he sayd was his body none need doubt but that the disciples did eate that which he tooke blessed brake and gaue and which he bad then eate it was bread by their own rule for as yet he had not sayd it is my Body if they did eate that which he sayd was his body what can any conceiue it to be but bread for what sayd he was his body was it not bread which he tooke blessed brake and gaue and bad them eate saying it was his body if they could disproue the Protestant church in this poynt they could neuer maintayne transubstantiation by the words of institution which in all circumstances words and actions of our Sauiour is agreeable to what we beleeue but we may safely conclude that the Apostles did eate bread and that it remaynes bread after consecration both by that which hath beene sayd c. Answer Here the same thing seemes to be repeated twice or thrice ouer and altogeather is nothing but a new repetition of what hath been answered before only here seemes another objection to be pointed at which may be framed as it is more clearly by other Protestants in this manner That which our Sauiours tooke blessed brake and gaue was bread for certaine it is that which he tooke was bread and is confessed to haue been so by both sydes but that which he tooke he blessed that which he blessed he brake that which he brake he gaue therefore from the first to the last that which he gaue his disciples was bread I answer that all this is true for it was bread in denomination both which he tooke blessed brake and gaue but the bread which he tooke was bread remayning in its own nature the bread which he gaâ—e was bread made his body and yet it was the same bread in denomination for the very same bread which was yet in its own nature when he tooke it was made his body when gaue it Now if one should reply that this is sayd gratis and seemes to be a mere shift for obscuring and inuoluing the matter to escape the difficulty or rather an explication destroying and contradicting it selfe I will shew that this is sayd with great ground euen in Scripture it selfe for if an Infidell should oppose the change of water into wyne in the second of S. Ihon with the like argument say that that wherewhith the seruants filled the vessels at our Sauiours command was that which they drew out of the vessels that which they drew out was that which they carryed to the maister of the mariage-feast that which they carryed to him he drunke but that which the seruants filled the vessels first withall was water therefore that which the maister of the feast drunke was water A Christian vnto such an objection may answer that all this is true if we respet only the name or denomination of the thing for that which was put into the vessels the maister drunke and as it is true that water was put into them so is it true to say that the master of the feast drunke water but the very same water which remayned in its own nature when in was put into the vessels was denominated water made wyne when the maister drunke it And that this may appeare to be no fiction of myne all that I affirme herof is plainly deliuered in the Protestant Bible the words are these Iesus saith vnto them fill the water-pots with water here behold water was to be put into them and they filled them to the brimme see here is water put into them by the seruanrs and he sayd vnto them draw out now and beare to the gouernour of the feast and they bare it marke yet here the seruant bare it that is that which they had put into the vessells which was water when thc Ruler of the feast had tasted the water which was made wyne and knew not whence it was behold it is still called water not water remayning in its owne being but water made wyne but the seruants which drew the water knew still it is called watcr and the water that is the very same that it was in denomination when it was put in but changed into wyne Apply this in each particular to the present mystery and it will appeare how light the objection is fit only to deceiue vnlearned people who are not acquainted with such subtilityes and sophismes as such like objections conteyne Obiection And likewise that S. Paul called the consecrated bread bread three tymes after consecration for as often sayth he as you eate this bread and so let him eate of this bread and whosoeuer eates this beead vnworthyly but we do not eate till after consecration it is then bread after consecration Answer I haue giuen iust now a full answer to that which is objected here that S. Paul calls the hoast bread three
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
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