of Christians to the whol and each particular to some part of this command For seeing there is noe more reason why one Christian should be more exempted from it then an other the concurring to it falls equally vppon all for though Priests when they consecrate and sacrifice haue each in particular an obligation to communicate yet according to a probable opinion they haue noe obligation in particular proceeding from any diuine precept to consectate or sacrifize but all their absolute obligation to communicate is taken from this and other like commands which we haue treated so that though noe particular Priest were bound by diuine precept to say masse yet they are bound to communicate by reason of these precepts which could not be vnlesse euery Christian were obliged in perticular to concurre to the performance of this generall command with an equall obligation Objection If it should be said that the church may sufficiently complie with the generall command by prouiding that it be still kept in execution by some particular persons as she complies with many others Answer In answer first that if should one staÌ„d meerely to the bare letter of Scripture in these precepts this might be said but if we take the sence of it according to the common straine of doctours euery particular will be obliged by them especially seeing that S. Paul extends this matter of communion to each particular Secondly as it was not in the power of the Apostels to exempt any of the twelf from concurring to the conuersion of all nation commanded by our Sauiour and to haue iâ— accomplished by the rest which they should haue appointed because each of them in particular was bound to labour in it by diuine precept where in the church cannot dispence so seeing we haue the same authority of doctours and tradition for the obliging each particular by this command vnlesse you eate aâ— each Apostle by that goe and teach all nations c. it may be denied that the church hath power to exempt any one from this precept by hauing it performed by other Christians appointed by her authority Thirdly had this Sacrament been left free as Priesthood and mariage were without any diuine precept that euery Christian csometimes in their liues receiue it the church neither would nor could haue obliged each Christian in particular to receaue it once a yeare as shee obliges none to receaue Priesthood or mariage because they were left free by our Sauiour Objection If it should be here objected that in the command of teaching c. each Apostle in particular could not conuert all and if each had been bound to teach and baptize all the command could not haue any conuenient sense but each Christian is able easily both to eate and drinke this Sacrament and so there is no parity in the command of teching with that of communicating Answer I answer first that this command is not instanced as like in all things but to this end that seeing this precept of teaching c. must he vnderstood of all in general and each in particular and that there be such commands in Scripture that though this of eating and drinking this Sacrament might haue been so vnderstood that each Ccristian is bound both to eate and drinke as being a rhing very feasable yet this Sacramentall precept may be vnderstood as the other must be and if it be possible to vnderstand it so our aduersaries will neuer be able to conuince thence the necessity for euery particular to receaue both kindes and yet there will be a necessity by vertu of these words to receaue one I Answer secondly that there is as great a necessity to vnderstand this precept in the foresaid manner drawn from the truth of Scripâ—ure as there is for vnderstanding the command of teaching drawn for the force of nature That which followes the text in the ensuing verses makes this matter quite out of question for though our Sauiour here declared the necessity in the plurall number Nisi manducauerith c. vnlesse you eate c. of eating his stesh and drinking his blood as belonging to the generallity of Christians the words in vobis in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you shall not haue life in you signifie according to the Greeke phrase very familiarly in Scripture amongst you which is referred to the whol congregation of Christians and not to each patricular Yet when he expressed himselfe in the singular number Qui manducat hunc panem qui manducat mâ— c. he who eateth this bread he who eateth me c. and addessed his speach to particular persons he attributes eternall life to the sole eating of him and that heauenly bread as appeares in the said text he who eateth me shall liue by me he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer c. and hence it is clearly deduced not only that these words vnlesse ye â—ate c. doe not euidently include ea necessity for euery particular person to rereceaue both kindes but that they cannot possibibily include any such necessity without a contradiction betwixt this text and the text following now cited for if he who eates the flesh of our Sauiour hath eternall life as those textes affirme then it can not be true that vnlesse each particular both eate and drinke he shall not haue life eternall and hence also appeares a necessity of vnderstanding these words that though all in generall be bound to receaue both amongst them yet none in particular is bound to receaue both but each is partially to concurre to accomplish this command as each Apostle was that of teaching and baptizing all nations Obiection Some happily may answer with Caluin that though eating be only named in the text now cited yet drinking also is there included and to be vnderstood as being connected with it in the former text vnlesse you eate c. Answer That more is vnderstood then is expressed in any place of Scripture is not vppon light coniectures to be supposed but to be prouued by solide and conuincing arguments otherwise each light headed nouelist might at his pleasure frame to himselfe certain apparent congruities to extend the words of Scripture and to make them import more then they signifie in themselues and so multiplie Synecdoches wheresoeuer it comes to his purpose Seeing therefore I haue shewed that there is noe necessity to strech these textes beyond the common and vsuall stgnification of the words by giuing at least a probable satisfaction to whatsoeuer they alleadge to proue the contrary let our aduerfaries make good that there it a necessity of the drawing these words beyond their naturall signification or that more words are supposed then are expressed in the text and we will yeeld to this explication But this discours of our Sauiour is so farre from giuing the least ground to any such like improprieties the common refuge of our Aduersaries when they eannot auoyd the sorce of the expresse words and proper sense of
amici Dei ac domestici facti euntes de virtute in virtutem renouantur vt Apostolus inquit de die in diem exhibendo ea arma iustitiae in sanctificationem per obseruantiam mandatorum Dei Ecclesiae in ipsâ iustitiâ per Christi gratiam acceptâ cooperante fide bonis operibus crescunt atque magis iustificantur sicut scriptum est Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc Being therefore thus iustified and made the friends and of the houshold of God going on from vertu to vertu they are renewed as the Apostle saith from day to day and vsing those armes of iustice to sanctification by the obseruance of the commandements of God and the Church theyr faith cooperating with theyr good workes they increace through the grace of Christ in the iustice which they haue receiued and are iustified more and more as is it written he who is iust let him be iustified still Conc. Trid. ibidem can 9. Si quis dixerit solâ fide impium iustificari ita vt intelligat nihil aliud requiri quod ad iusticationis gratiam consequendam cooperetur nullâ ex parte necesse esse eum suae voluntatis motu praeparari atque disponi anathema sit If any one shall say that a wicked man is iustified by faith only soe that he meanes that nothing els is required which may cooperate to the obtayning the grace of Iustification and that it is noe way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his will let him be accâ—rsed From these authorities of the Council it is manifest that in this matter of Iustification the Church of Rome theaches 1. that noe workes done by the mere naturall force of our freewill 2. nor by the sole doctrine or knowledge of the diuine law can iustifie a sinner in the sight of God Can. 1. 3. That noe vniust persone can without the preuenting inspiration of the holy Ghost doe any thing as it should be done to obteyne the grace of iustification can 3. 4. That neyther faith nor workes done by the inspiration of the holy Ghost before Iustification can merit Iustification for it is a free grace of God giuen not of workes but by the sole mercy of God and for the sole merits of Christ. cap. 8. 5. That though the iustification of a sinner cannot be merited yet a soul may be disposed prepared to instification by acts inspired by the holy Ghost c. 6. 6. That we are not thus disposed by faith only but also by other good motions of our will preuented and assisted by the grace of God can 9. 7. That being thus freely iustified become the childeren of God through the assistance of Gods grace in Christ we may doe good workes and by them accepted through Christ's merits become more and more iust in the sight of God cap. 10. where in cheefly consists the Roman doctrine of Iustification by good workes This doctrine supposed we will now take a vew of those texts which Protestants vsually presse out of Scripture mistaken against it hauing first proued the Roman doctrine The Catholicke Position Faith only iustifyeth not YOu see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only which must needs be vnderstood of a true and internall iustification before Allmighty God for it must be that iustification which comes by faith but that is true and internall iustification as appeares by all the texts cited hereafter in the paper for proofe of iustification by faith only that the iustification which S. Iames speakes of here is the very same with that which comes by faith is most cleare out of the words themselues Yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only For it would be quite contrary to common sense to vnderstand a iustification before men in the first part of this sentence yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and a true internall iustification in the sight of God in the latter part and not by faith only For the word only clearly demonstrates that the same iustification is to be vnderstood in both parts of the sentence Now that the iustification common to both members of this place must necessarily be meant of a true iustification only in the sight of God is out of all question to such as ponder what is deliuered in it for it would be most false were it vnderstood of a iustification only before menâ— no lesse then this manner of speech yee see that this man is vnderstood by his words and not by his thoughts only would be wholly false were there only mention made of a man's being vnderstood amongst men for amongst them he is not vnderstood at all by his thoughts and so the latter part of this proposition would not be true and therefore to verify this manner of speech it must of necessity be meant of a man's being vnderstood by Allmighty God who only by his own power vnderstands both thoughts and words and so it is truly sayd yee see that a man is vnderstood to wit by Allmighty God by his words and not by his thoughts only And for the very same reason this proposition of S. Iames wee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only cannot be vnderstood of a iustification before men for we are no more iustifyed by saith before men then we are vnderstood amongst them by our thoughts and therefore it must be interpreted of a iustification before Allmighty God who only vnderstands our faith as he does our thoughts by his own power and knowledge and can only see whether our faith be true sincere and iustifying or no faith being nothing else but a thought assent or iudgement of the soul. And as all Protestants in the ensuing texts vrged for iustification by faith only vnderstand an internall iustification in the sight of God so must they will they not be vnreasonably and willsully partiall vnderstand the same by iustification by faith in this place of S. Iames which is cleared v. 2. was not Abraham our father iustifyed by worket when he had offered Isaac his sone vppon the altar for this hauing beene done priuatly in the desert could not when it was done iustifie him before men and yet more clere v. 22. seest thou not how faith wrought with his workes and by workes was faith made perfect what is here spoken of but the operation of faith and workes in the soule iustifying in God's sight For faith cannot be truly made perfect but declared to be perfect by workes soe farre as they iustifie only before men And it is further demonstrated v. 23. And the Scripture was fulfilled which sayth Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse and he was called the friend of God Can any Protestant deny this to be meant of an imputation of righteousnesse as they terme it or a iustification before Allmighty God seeing it is the very
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
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
likenesse of our Sauiours Passion with them and so giuing the reuerence of kneeling to it they properly worship an Image or similitude or remembrance of our Sauiours death And if any should answer that they worship not the bread and wine in the Lords supper nor kneele to them but only to God when they receiue them I demand presently whether they exhibite any kind of reuerence to the bread and wine as a representation of our Lords Passion or no if they answer that they giue none at all to them why then doe they make an exteriour shew and that by way of command and obligation of exhibiting reuerence and respect to those signes seeing that in the exteriour none who see them can iudge that they giue not some reuerence euen to them againe if they giue no reuerence at all to them what greater respect doe they beare to the Lords supper then they doe to their own in their houses so that if a zealous brother would kneele to God at the same tyme when he eates his supper he whould shew as much respect to a brown loafe as he does to the Lords supper when he kneeles only to God in receiuing it And yet further if one who goes to their communion had no maw to adore God at that tyme but should put it of to some other when he found himselfe more moued by the spirit why could not he receiue sitting or standing and that without any externall reuerence at all to what he receiues visibly Nay how could he in conscience receiue kneeling ' or shewing any externall reuerence If they answer that they exhibit some reuerence to the externall signes as representations of our Lords death I demand whether it be a ciuill or a religious reuerence to say it is a ciuil reuerence were absurd for that is in matters of state and ciuill authority only and this is in matter of Religion If they say that it is a religious reuerence then I haue my intent that euen Protestants doe exhibite Religious reuerence to signes figures and representations of our Sauiour no lesse then Catholikes and then I demand further by what externall signe they make profession of such a reuerence to the signes of their communion certainly they will find no other which shewes it more clearly and fully then their kneeling or whatsoeuer they name it is an externall exhibition of religious reuerence which is nothing but worship in a true and Christian sense whence appeares that Protestants themselues are guilty of what they accuse vs that is of giuing woiship to an Image or figure of our Sauiour dying vppon the crosse for vs. That which I haue answered to the 20. of Exodus is in like manner applyable to the 26. of Leuiticus v. 1. and to the 6. v. 73. for they speak only of Idols and false Gods from which all Roman Catholikes abhorre far more then Protestants It is not my intention here to enter into any schoole questions which can neyther easily be made plaine enough to be rightly conceiued by all those whom I intend to informe in this treatis nor are they necessary to be known by all Catholicques nor if they were known is it necessary to beleeue them So long therefore as the doctrine of the Council of Trent cited in the beginning of this controuersie is beleeued and obserued noe more will or can be required for soe much as belongs to this point of any one who eyther is or intends to be a Child of the Roman Church which doctrine is not only without all danger but euen without all possibility of Idolatrie for seeing an Idolatrous worship must acknowledge a diuine power and vertu in that which it worships and the Council expressely theaches that noe such diuine power is to be acknowledged in any Image it is impossible to follow this doctrine and to commit Idolatrie in the worship we giue to any Image all therefore which is required to vnite a Protestant in this particular to the doctrine of the Roman Church is only this that he beleeue noe more that there is eyher life vertu or diuinity in any Image then he now beleeues there is in the name of IESVS spoaken or written that he put noe more confidence nor hope in the picture then he now puts in the name that he pray noe more to the picture then he now prayes to that name if kneeling before the name of IESVS grauen vppon some stone he pray to our Sauiour but as he now puts of his hat and boweth his knee or body when he sees or heares that name he hold it lawfull to exhibit the same reuerence when one sees the picture of our Sauiour and as he may now kisse that sacred name in deuotion to our Sauiour soe he hold it lawfull to kisse our Sauiours picture in deuotion to him or in his regard If a Protestant should demande whether there be as cleare proofs of Scripture for the worship of Images as there are for the worshipping the name of IESVS I answer there are That some Images may be lawfully made is cleare in the Brrazon serpent Num. 21.8.9 That they may lawfully be put in places dedicated to the seruice of God is euident in the two cherubins of gould Exod. 25.18 That they may haue a reference to diuine seruice and be ordinances helonging to it is manifest Hebr. 9.1.5 That it is lawfull to exhibite some worship to them is all ready proued Ps. 99.5 Adore his footstoole That the worship which is done to the Image of another tends as much to his honour whose Image it is as the worship done to his name tends to the honour of him-whose name it is is vndeniably prouued Reu. 13. v. 15.16.17 And he had power to giue life to the Image of the beast that the Image of the beast should both speake and cause that as many as would not worship the Image of the beast should be killed and he causeth all both small and greate rich and pore free and bond to receiue a marke in theyr right hand or in theyr foreheads and that noe man might buy or sall saue he who had the marke or the name of the beast or the number of his name whence is manifest that the worship of the Image of this accursed creature tended to his honour otherwise he would neuer haue compelled men to worship it and that he was honored noe lese in this if not more then in carijng his marke and his name which can be deduced from no other principle then this that all worship done proportionally to the Image is an honour to him who is represented by it and consequently that in this our Sauiour and the Saints are honoured as truly as any other in theyr Images If any Protestant demand farther whether there be any expresse command in the new Testament to worship holy Images I answer there is noe expresse command If it should be replied that nothing is to be held or practized by Christians
which is not set down in expresse words in the new Testament I answer that that is manifestly vntrue and must be confessed to be soe euen by Protestants themselues for they can neuer find any expresse mention in the new Testament that nothing is to be beleeued or practized lawfully by Christians saue that which is expressed in the new Testament 2. that any churches were made or to be made amongst Christians distinct from dwelling houses 3. that fonts for baptisme were put in those churches 4. that childeren were euer actually baptised in those fonts 5. that God-fathers and God-mothers were to be vsed in Baptisme of childeren 6. that any spirituall kindred arises by vertu of Baptisme betwixt those God-fathers and God-mothers on the one side and the childeren Baptized theyr Parents respectiuely on the other If therefore none of those can be found mentioned expressely in the new Testament with what shew of reason can Protestants demand that the worship of Images should be mentioned in the new Testament seeing they practice these particulars noe lesse then we the worship of Images But in these and such like religious practices it is sufficient euen according to the Protestant Principle of sole Sctipture that eyther there be expresse mention made of them eyther commanding or allowing them in the old Testament which is neuer reuoked or dissallowed in the new as is that of the worship of Images or at least that the lawfullnesse of them can be deduced from the old or new Testament by a good consequence drawn according to the rules of right reason as the worship of Images is manifestly from the 13. of the Reuel now cited for if the worship of the Image tend to the honour of him who is represented by it as is there euident and that it is lawfull to doe all that which tends to the honour of our Sauiour then it follows ineuitably that the worship of his Image is lawfull and the like is of the Images of Saints Thus haue I indeauored to discouer the different mistakes of Protestants in the texts of Scripture cited by them against the vse of holy Images taught and peactized in the Romane Church and with all the strange mistranslations inuented by them to make holy Scripture speake to the vulgar against the doctrine and practice of the Romane Church in this particular and this may sfuffice for the second Controuersie THE THIRD CONTROVERSIE Concerning Iustification The Doctrine of the Roman Church deliuered in the Council of Trent touching this Point Sess. 6. can 1. SI quis dixerit hominem suis operibus quae vel per humanae naturae vires vel per legis doctrinam fiunt absque diuina per Iesum Christum gratiâ posse iustificari coram Deo Anathema sit It any one shall say that a man can be iustified by his workes which are done by the force of humaine nature or by the doctrine of the law without diuine grace through our Lord Iesus Christ let him be accursed Ibidem can 2. Si quis dixerit ad hoc solùm diuinam gratiam per Iesum Christum dari vt facilius homo iustè viuere ac vitam aeternam promereri possit quasi per liberum arbitrium vtrumque sed aegrè tamen difficulter possit anathema sit If any one shall say that diuine grace through Iesus Christ is giuen only to this end that a man may more easily liue iustly and deserue eternal life as if he could doe both though with labour and difficulty by his freewill let him be accursed Ibidem can 3. Si quis dixerit sine praeuenienâ—e Spiritus sancti inspiratione atque eius adiutorio hominem credere sperare diligere aut poenitere posse sicut oportet vt ei iustificationis gratiâ conferatur anathema sit If any one shall say that without the preuenting inspiration of the holy Ghost and his assistance a man can beleeue hope loue and repent as he should doe to haue the grace of iustification bestowd vppon him let him be accursed Here I demand vppon what ground the 13 of the 39 English Protestant Articles speakes thus of the scoole men of the Roman Church Workes done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his spirit are not pleasant to God for as much as they spring not of faith in Iesu Christ neyther doe they make men meet to recriue grace or as the schoole Authors say deserue grace of Congruity I would gladly haue those schoole Authours named and cited who affirme contrary to the expresse words of the Council of Trent so great a semi-Pelagian Heresie as this is whereof they are here accused And if none attall can be produced how great an vntruth is conteyned in this article where it is said not as some of the schoole Authours but as the schoole Authours say that is eyther vniuersally or commonly affirme whence may clearly be collected that those new Prelates and Doctours who composed those 39 articles which haue been euer since they were composed esteemed the summe and substance of the Protestant Religion and faith in England were eyther grosly ignorant in the doctrine of the schoole Authours and exceeding temerarious in affirming that of them which they neuer vnderstood or insufferably deceiptfull and malitious in accusing them against theyr own knowledge and conscience of holding generally an errour which not soe much as any one of them euer held but the quite contrary Conc. Trid. ibidem cap. 8. Cùm verò Apostolus dicit iustificari hominem per fidem gratis ea verba in eo sensu intelligenda sunt quem perpetuus Ecclesiae Catholicae consensus tenuit expressit vt scilicet per fidem ideo iustificari dicamur quia fides est humanae salutis initium fundamentum radix omnis iustificationis sine quâ impossibile est placere Deo ad filiorum eius consortium peruenire gratis autem iustificari ideo dicamur quia nihil eorum quae iustificationem praecedunt siue fides siue opera ipsam iustificationis gratiam promeretur si enim gratia est iam non ex operibus alioquin vt idem Apostolus inquit gratia iam non est gratia When the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by fayth and gratis or freely those words are to be vnderstood in that sence which the perpetuall consent of the Catholicque Church allwayes held and expressed to wit that we are said to be iustified by faith because faith is the beginÌ„ing of mans saluation the foundation and roote of all iustifieation without which it is impossible to please God and to come into the number of his childeren But we are said to be iustified gratis because none of these things which goe before iustification whether it be faith or workes deserue the grace of iustification for if it be grace it is not of workes otherwise as the same Apostle says grace would not be grace Conc. Trid. ibidem cap. 10. Sic ergo iustificati
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
explicitenesse of words for we haue noe where expressed in Scripture that the bread our Sauiour did eate was conuerted into his flesh as we haue that the rod of Moyses was conuerted into a serpent and notwhithstanding euen Protestants must beleeue it so though we haue it not in expresse termes that bread is changed into the flesh of our Sauiour in this Sacrament as we haue that Moyses rod was conuerted into a serpent yet we must heleeue it because the truth of Scripture cannot stand vnlesse this be granted for seeing our Sauiour sayd This is my Body and it is wholy impossible and implying contradiction that a piece of bread remaining in its own nature should be the true and reall body of our Sauiour as we haue shewed that those words must import it followes necessarily that the nature and substance of bread cannot be vnder those visible species and therefore bread must cease to be out of the force of Christs body which must succeed in place of bread vnder the same species which is nothing else then to haue bread changed into the hody of our Sauiour Objection Why should they only take these words This is my Body in a litterall sense and noe other doth he not as well say I am a dore I am a vine doubtlesse he was able to transforme himselfe into a dore or a vine but did he therefore doe so he said to his disciples yee are branches yee are sheep did they therefore become so in respect either of his power or words Answer I Answer that there is a maine difference betweene these propositions and the other where of wee treate This is my Body both in the subiect and in the predicate that is in the first and last word of them for the first word or subiect in the former is I yee which signifie determinately and expressely our Sauiour and the Apostles to whom he spake But in the latter the first word or subiect is This which neither expressely nor implicitly signifies bread but this which I am about to giue you as I haue already said the last words also doore vine vinebranches sheép in the former propositions are indetermined and fit to take a spirituall mysticall and metaphoricall sence for he doth not say I am a doore made of wood and boardes which is vsed to shut and open in visible houses nor I am a vine which visibily springes from the earth and beares such grappes as men vse to make wine of neither said he that his Apostles were such sheepe as feed in the fields as beare wool to make cloath of as are boyled and rosted to be eaten at the table nor such vine branches as are cut of from the vine and either rot or are burned or beare grappes in the vine visibly c. For it had been an impossibility and a plane contradiction to affirme that liuing men remaning in there own nature as they did should be such things as those truly and really and therefore those last words dore vine sheepe vine branches being not determined in Scripture to these materiall and visible things which we commonly vnderstand by these words giue full scope to interpret them of things in a spirituall and mysticall sense in which only these propositions are true but in these words This is my Body the last word body is not left indeterminate and applyable to a metaphoricall sense as it is in holy Scripture and the discours of our Sauiour expresly determined it to signifie his true naturall materiall substātiall body which was there present before the Apostles for if our Sauiour had only said these words This is my Body and added noe further explication some scope might seeme to haue been giuen to haue interpreted it either of his reall or mysticall body which is his church whereof S. Paul speakes but he takes away this liberty when he addes presently This is my Body which is giuen for you This is my blood which shall be shed for you which cannot b◠vnderstood of his mysticall body but only of his true reall body blood which only were giuen shed for our redemption so that the subiect or first word of the former proposition I yee being wholly determinate to those particular persons of Christ and the Apostles and the predicate or last words dore vine sheepe vinebranches being wholy indeterminate in themselues neither expresly naming corporall nor spirituall seeing it is contrary to all reason and wholly impossible that thereby those things in a corporall sense should be affirmed of our Sauiour and his Apostles as I haue faid those propositions must make this sence which is true and orthodoxe I am a spirituall dore or vine yee are spirituall vine branches or sheepe c. but on the contrary the indetermination or indifferency of the first word or subiect of this proposition This is my Body being considered in it selfe making it noe way limited to bread and the last word or predicate Body which is giuen you being expressly determined to the reall and substantiall body of Christ it must make this sense This which I am about to giue you is my reall and substantiall body which is a true and Catholike proposition and not this This bread is my true and reall Body which implies as much contradiction and impossibibility as this other that Christ is a dore of wood c. For it is as impossible that a peece of bread actually existing should be the reall body of Christ as that Christ should be a wooden dore nay if we consider it in greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latin hoc disagreeing with bread in gendre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 panis which are both masculine it cannot be referred to bread Now to shew out of Scripture it selfe that our Sauiour calls himselfe the dore in a spirituall mysticall and metaphoricall sense only is cleare out of S. Iohn c. 12. v. 9. I am the dore if any man enter by me he shall be saued c. which is not true of a naturall dore of wood for all such as enter in by such a dore are not saued but such only as enter by the spirituall dore of there soules which is our Sauiour so also when he calls his Apostles sheepe he shewes clearely that the speakes of metaphoricall or spirituall sheepe for he affirmes that they heare his voyce or know him and hence appeares also by the way another mistake contrary to theyr own English Bible which Protestants ordinarily vrge against vs mistaking the words of the Gospel they tell vs that our Sauiour said he was a dore a vine a way which he neuer sayes according to their English Bible but thus I am the dore the vine the way c. which determines the words to a spirituall and metaphoricall sense as when he sayes I am the bread of life I am the good fheapherd c. and when he calles his disciples sheepe he vseth alwayes this restraining and limiting particle my sheepe which
before the consecration of the chalice though it induce noe more neccssity of receauing the host then the chalice yet it shewes euidently that if the host alone be receaued this precepte is satisfied and by a manifest paritie and equalitie betwixt the two kindes that if it be sufficient to satisfie this precept to receaue the sole host it will also be sufficient to receaue the chalice without the host the one containing nos lesse the whole essence of this Sacrament then the other as I haue already declared So that in this command doe this in remembrance of me the word this seemes to signifie according to S. Thomas now cited whatsoeuer our Sauiour then did as necessarily appertaining to the essence substaÌ„ce of this Sacrament and though this absolute preecpt was giuen before the chalice yet the ground of it being the very same in the host and chalice it is equally to be applyed to the receauing either of them yet disiunctiuely only that is that this Sacrament is to be receaued by euery one either vnder each or both kindes as the church shall determine Obiection The maine difficulty therefore comes at last to that text Ioh. 6. vnlesse c. which as it deliuers an absolute necessitie of receauing this most holy Sacrament so seemes it in expresse termes to impose the same necessitie of receauing vnder both kindes making mention of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of our Sauiour as necessarie to saluation Verily verily I say unto you vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you Answer I am not ignorant that Catholique doctours giue different answers to this text which I leaue to be perused in theyr particular treatises of this point I answer breefly and clearely that in this text is comprehended a necessity both of eating and drinking that is there is a generall command giuen to the whol gencrality of Christians to receaue the body of Christ by way of eating and his blood by way of drinking and consequently of receauing vnder both kindes which must alwayes be performed by the generall body of Christians that they may haue life in them and that this may be performed there is a particular necessitie put vppon euery particular Christian to concurre to the execution of this generall command not that euery one in particular is obliged both to eate and drinke really this Sacrament but that some eating others drinking others doing both each particular conferres to the performance of this command of eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ wherevnto the generallity is absolutly obliged so that this whol command is to be performed by all as ioyntly and vnitedly considered and that it may be thus ioyntly done by all each particular is obliged to some part of it thereby concurring partially to the whol performance Thus when our Sauiour commanded his Apostles to teach and baptize all nations he gaue a generall and vniuersall command to them and theyr successours to performe this worke ioyntly amongst them not commanding each one in particular to preach and baptize the whol world for that neither was nor could morally speaking haue been done but that this might be done by all each one in particular was obliged to performe his part and to coÌ„curre to the conuersion and instruction of all nations so that though noe one was bound by vertu of this command either to conuert all nations or any one in particular each one was obliged to labour towards the conuersion of some part or other of the world so that by the labours of each at last the whol worke might be accomplished Thus our Sauiour sent his disciples saying goe and cure all diseases c. that is each one curing some all might be cured amongst them thus after his resurrection he foretold what cures and miracles should be done by his disciples not that each should doe all these miracles but that amongst them such miracles should be done and thus the holy Euangelist affirmes that the Apostles of Christ preached euery where not that each preached euery where but that all of them togeather were spread ouer the whol world and in the same manner may it now be said that Christians eate the flesh and drinke the blood of Christ not that each doth both but that it is done amongst them by reason that each in particular is obliged either to both or either of them and so the whol precept will be performed amongst them Neither seemes the context of S. Iohn to exact more then this for in what goes immediately before the doubt which the Iewes had there to which our Sauiour answers in this text was not whether it was necessary to saluation for euery one both to eate the flesh and drinke the blood of Christ for he had as then made noe mention at all of drinking his blood but they only doubted how his flesh could be really eaten how can this man say they giue vs his stesh to eate so that our Sauiours answer to this doubt of theirs was fully sufficient by telling them that it was not only possible but necessary to saluaâ—ion to eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the sone of man that is that those two actions should be really and truly done amongst such as were to haue eternall life but seeing their doubt was not supposing the reality of this eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ amongst such as were to haue eternall life whether it were necessary that euery one in particular were both to eate and drinke for they neuer so much as dreamed of this question it is noe way necessary to affirme by vertu of this context that our Sauiour defined there that it was necessary for euery one in particular to performe both but it was sufficient that both these actions were truly and really so to be accomplished in his church that the generalitie was to doe both and each Christian in particular to concurre either by performing one or both to the accomplishment of this iniunction for if each in particular had not been obliged to concurre to the performance of this command the wholâ— church would not haue been bound to correspond with it seeing their is noe more reason to binde one then another to the performance of it as in the command of teaching and baptizing the whol world by the Apostles each particular was bound to performe his part seeing that our Saoiour had commanded it should he done amonst them and there was noe reason that one should be more obliged to doe it then an other And though there be many other commands giuen by our Sauiour to the church in generall which oblige not each particular Christian to the performance of any part of them but only the gouuernours of the church to see that by some or other they be put in execution yet this precept is of an other nature binding the whol community
willfull and vngrounded importunity But Roman Catholiques beare both a tender loue to this most pretious blood of our Sauiour and so indeauour all they can to preserue it from all irreuerences and preuent all occasions as much as is possible of indangering the least drop of the consecrared chalice to be spilt or lost and frame a most high esteeme of his sacred body as conteyned vnder the formes of bread to be alone sufficient to feed them to eternall life Imitating in both these the care and esteeme of the primitiue church which both imposed very heauy and seuere penances vppon all such as permitted any the least quantity of the sacred chalice to be spilt and was accoustomed to giue this Sacrament sometimes in forme of bread only both to hermites in the wildernes pilgrimes in theyr iournies sicke persons in theyr beds laymen in theyr houses and children in the church and in forme of wine only to little infants in their cradles which cleerely conuinces that the primitiue church had noe beleefe or knowledgement of any absolute necessity or diuine precept to receaue alwayes both which not withstanding as it read as diligently so vnderstood it more clearly and obserued more punctually the laws and commāds of Christ then our aduersaries now doe Some there are who being conuinced of the reall presence and that there is neither necessity nor command in Scripture of receauing allwayes both notwithstanding for the precedent places objected say that euery particular Christian is obliged sometimes in his life to communicate vnder both at the same time and thus they esteeme themselues both to agree with those places of Scripture now cited which affirme that by eating alone eternall life is acquired and auoid those inconueniences which happen to the blood of our Sauiour amongst such multitudes of Christians so frequently communicating by granting that this Sacrament ordinarily may be receaued vnder the formes of bread only and agree with the practise of the primitiue Christians who though they often receiued vnder one priuately or when the other could not conueniently be had yet at other times they receiued publickly vnder both and on the other side conforme themselues both to the institution of our Sauiour and those other precepts of receiuing both by doing it sometimes in their liues when the precept obliges This opinion though it seeme fairely to compose all difficulties yet the newnesse and vnhardnesse of it where there nothig else render it suspect of superficiality and falshood for how is it possible that each Christian should haue so weighty an obligation and neither any doctour in the moderne Roman Church so much as dreame of it nor any amongst her present aduersaries once presse it against vs or thinke of it themselues or if we looke to the late fiue hundred yeares before vs where in it hath been the coustome in many particular churches to communicate publickly vnder the formes of bread only without the least reflection or practise of any such precept as S. Thomas wittnesses those churches always communicating the laity vnder one kinde only or if we ascend to the primitiue times there is noe step nor impression to be found of any such precept for then they not sometimes only or euer by way of diuine precept for so much as can be gathered from the authours of those times but frequently in publick celebrations of those mysteries communicated vnder both and those childeren which communicated vnder one only kinde we neuer read to haue communicated vnder both though they died in their childhood which not withstanding they should haue done had the Christians of the primitiue times beleeued any such need as is here conceiued of sometimes communicating vnder both how I say is it possible that this opinion should be true solide seeing neither moderne nor ancient nor primitiue times nor friends nor aduersaries of the Roman Church so much as once mention it but beside the newnesse it hath other reasons enough to conuince it of falshood for first when the primitiue Christians communicated little infants presently after baptisme vnder the formes of wine only they neuer are read to haue giuen it vnder both if they came to be in dāger of death when they had acquired strength enough to receaue both which notwithstanding they had been obliged to doe had there been any diuine precept obliging all Christians to receaue both sometimes or at least once in their liues Secondly the same difficulty may be pressed against this new hatched opinion of children arriued to the age of six or seauen yeares who being accoustumed in the primitiue Church to consumate the particles or reliques of the sacred hosts raceaued vnder the formes of bread only for there is not a step imprinted in antiquity of conferring both kindes to them when they came to dy about that age The like is of hermites who liued perpetually in the deserts and had the coustome of taking with them the most blessed Sacrament vnder the formes of bread only But that which discouuers most cleerely the non existency of this new fangled opinion is that it hath noe ground in holy Scripture for when our Sauiour saith Ioh. 6. he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer whosoeuer holds this opinion must say that he who receaues deuoutly vnder the forme of bread only receaues grace and spirituall life in his soul suppose therefore that still perseuering in that grace receaued he come to die before he teceiue vnder both kindes certainly he will be saued which shewes euidently that the receauing of both kindes before death is not necessaty to saluation necessitate medij as the schoole speakes that is so necessary that saluation can noe more be acquired without it then it can be without faith or the grace of God neither can communion vnder both kindes be said to be necessary to saluation necessitate praecepti or by diuine precept for these words of S. Ioh. c. 6. nisi māducaueritis carnem filij hominis c. being a mere declaration of a truth cānot properly be said to be a precept or command and rather seemes to include necessitatem medij then precepti and whatsoeuer command may be deduced from those words or pressed from any other place of Scripture I haue allready shewed to be of noe force to put a necessitie vppon all Christians to receaue vnder both kindes either all wayes when they frequent this Sacrament or at any time in their liues What I answer to this opinion will easily preuent the forging of an other of the like nature that might happily occurre to some quaint nouelist that though there should be noe necessity of euer receauing both kindes at the same time yet these words of S. Iohn Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you import a necessity of both eating and drinking at the least at seuerall times now doing the one and then the other which being done each
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