are here excluded from ordinary sermons to common people and all curiosities forbidden The Protestant Position That the soules of the faithfull in theyr departure are happy wee often read but noe newes of Purgatory This is proued by Scripture mistaken Blessed are the dead who dye in the Lord from hence sorth saith the spirit that they may rest from theyr labours and theyr workes follow them The first mistake The text saith not they rest presently after theyr death They are not sayd here to rest presently after theyr departure but that they may rest and yet they may be termed blessed as our Sauiour calls the pore in spirit blessed in this world and in theyr misery because the Kingdome of heauen belongs to them as it does to those in Purgatory The second mistake The word labours misapplyed They are not sayd to rest from all labour but from their labours that is such labours persecutions afflictions sorrowes temptations mortifications troubles anxietyes as they suffered in this world from all which they rest after death By theyr labours also may be fitly here vnderstood theyr good workes and patience in suffering the miseries of this life with hope of eternall reward so that they are sayd to rest from their labours because the recompence and crown of their former labours are alloted to them as certainly to follow as the next words declare opera enini eorum sequunturillos for their morkes that is their labours follow them and yet in some of them it may happen that they may not presently receiue the reward of them which hinders not the resting of their labours because they are not to haue any reward for what they suffer after this life The second proofe out of Scripture mistaken For wee know that if the eartly house of this tabernacle were dissolued wee haue a building of God a house not made with hands eternal in heauen This text is mistaken These words say not that presently after death they shall goe into that heueauenly house How follows it hence that so soone as they depart they must goe into this house prepared for them seeing that many may haue houses that are hindred to liue in them especially in these distracted tymes and our Sauiour saith Blessed are the pore in spirit for theirs is the kingdome of heauen euen whilst they are liuing in this world And the Apostle Now therefore yee are no more strangers and furainers but fellow citizens vvith the saints and of the houshold of God And yet more clearly S. Iohn these things I writte vnto you that yee may know that yee haue life euerlasting yee who beleeue in the name of the sone of God That is in full hope and expectation not in actual possession which yet iâ— sayd more clerely to belong to those in Purgatory who haue an infallible certainty of life eternall The third proofe from Scripture mistaken But the soules of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them Mistake The word torment misvnderstood The Latin hath it non tanget illos tormentum mortis the torment of deach shall not touch them which is most true of all the iust departed because they shall liue eternally but Protestants regard not the vulgar Latin translation The greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which according to Scapula particularly signifyes a torment to which malefactours or suspected to be so are put to make them confesse the truth or to try whether they be guilty or no as are the racke or such like Now no such torment as this shall tuch the soules of the iust departed because God hath sufficiently tryed them and approued of them in this life as apeares v. 5. and hauing beene a little chastised they shall be greatly rewarded for God proued them and found them vvorthy of him selfe Which is a playne place for merits but when it is against Protestants it is only apocryphal If any shall demand whether the word Purgatory be expressed in Scripture I answer that it is as much expressed as the word trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diuine Petson which not withstanding are beleeued by Protestants If it be replied that at least the substance or meaning of those words are expressed in Scripture I answer the same of Purgatory which I demonstrate in this maner Purgatory is nothing else according to the Council of Trent now cited but a place where temporall punishments are suffered by iust persones after death vvich they deserued in this life Now if any iustified soul be and often is liable after death to suffer such punishments then certainly there must be some certaine place where they must be suffered But iustified soules may be and often are liable to suffer such punishments after death ergo there must be such a place where in they are to suffer them That iustified soules may be and often are liable to such punishments I proue thus Iustified persones yet liuing after the remission of theyr sinnes and consequently of eternall torment are liable to some temporall punishment therefore souls departed of iust persones may and often are liable to the like I proue the antecedent out of the 2. Sam. 12. v. 13.14 And Dauid said vnto nathan I haue sinned against the Lord and Nathan said vnto Dauid the Lord also hath put away thy sinnes thou shalt not dy Howbeit because by this deed thou hast giuen great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme the child also which is borne vnto the shall surely dy whete for that very sinne which was put away and forgiuen Dauid was punished by the death of his child because thou hast giuen by this deede c. the child shall dy The same is proued by the example of Adam whoe after his sinne was forgiuen him was notwithstanding liable to the punishment of death which is the wages of sinne as are also all iust persones for the same reason The antecedent therefore being clere I proue the consequence by this argument Seeing God is noe respecter of persones and that he rewards euery one according to theyr workes whosouer deserues the like punishmeÌ„t that Dauid deserued shall surely be punished as Dauid waâ—slet vs therefore put this case that at the same time with Dauid there had been an other Person guilty of sinnes as greate as were those of Dauid who should haue also repented with the same degree of sorrow and consequently obteyned pardone of his sinne as Dauid did this sinner must haue been liable to the same temporall punishment that Dauid was now suppose that this other sinnerâ— should haue died the very instant after his sinne was forgiuen him according to the doctrine of the Romane Church he should haue been punished temporally in the other world with a punishment correspondent to that of Dauid and soe God should not haue been a respecter of persones but haue rewarded euery one according to theyr workes but according to Protestants he should
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
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
set down in an other English Catechisme which I haue seene and read in a publike auditory of Protestants The ground therefore of this false imposition if it may be termed a ground may happily haue beene some small short Catechismes made for little children and new beginners for the help of their memories to be learned by hart wherin this commandement as all the rest of the longer commandements set down Exod. 20. Deut. 5. is abridged and brought to so many words as merely serue to expresse the substance of them omitting the rest thus 1. I am the Lord thy God thou shalt not haue any other Gods before me 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vayne 3. Remember thou sanctify the festiuall dayes 4. Honour thy father and mother where not only many words adioyned to the command against adoring false Gods or Idols Exod. 20. Deut. 5. but to the three ensuing also are here for breuity's sake omitted setting down in few words the substance and making no mention of the reasons and amplifications found in Exodus and Deuteronomy least were they all sett at large as they are there both the memory of yong children might be ouercharged and their weake vnderstandings confounded not being able to distinguish the substance of the command from the reasons and amplifications of it Now if we deliuered the commandements with this preface as Protestants do in their common prayer booke The same which God spake in the 20. chapter of Exodus saying c. we were obliged to put them all word for word as they are found there For otherwise the commandements would not be answerable to the Title But seeing we find them in other places of Scripture set down in a much briefer manner then they are there and find no precept neither in Scripture nor in the Church to deliuer them to Christians as they are deliuered in Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. rather then in other places our aduersaryes can no more condemne vs of falsefying them when we put them briefer then they can the holy Scripture it selfe for abbreuiating them more in other places then they are in Exodus now cited and Leuiticus That they are thus abbreuiated in Scripture is manifest Leuit. 19. v. 1.2.3 And the Lord spake vnto Moyses saying speake vnto all the congregation of the children of Israel and say vnto them yee shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy yee shall feare euery man his father and his mother and shall keepe my sabbaths I am the Lord your God yee shall not turne vndo Idols nor make molten Gods I am the Lord your God c. where that which our aduersaryes account the second commandement is put euen shorter then many of our catechismes haue it Turne not your selues vnto Idols nor make vnto your selues molten Gods as it is in Exod. 20. v. 23. Yee shall not make vnto your selues Gods of siluer neither shall yee make Gods of gould Neither indeed is it any way conuenient to deliuer the commandements publikely and generally to Christian people word for word as they stand Exod. 20. Leuitit 26. because therby they are indangered either to take sunday to be saturday or the Iewish Sabbath or must hold themselues obliged to obserue Saturday with the Iewes that alone being dies Sabbati the Sabbath day wherin only God rested after the creation of the world which only he also Sanctifyed and commanded to be kept as clearly appeares by the words of the commandement soe that it is not any seuenth day or one indeterminately euery weeke which God commands to be kept holy in this precept but one only and determinately that is the same seuenth day where in God rested from the worke of the creation as appeares Gen. 2.1.2.3 Et benedixit diei septimo sanctisicauit illum quia in ipso cessauerat ab omni opere suo quod creauit Deus vt faceret And God blessed the seuenth day and sanctified it hecause that in it he had rested from all his workes which God created and made now it is most euident that God rested only vppon one determinate day and that noe other then the Iewish Sabbath or Saturday or if they vnderstand well what day is meant in the commandemenr they must needs be scandalized to see a commandement vniuersally deliuered to them of keeping the Iewish Sabbath which is and euer was Saturday and yet neuer obserued by any of them but Sunday in place of it Hence therefore we see in generall that it is very inconuenient to propose Gods commandements publikely to Christians word for word as they stand in Exodus and so wee can neuer be iustly condemned if we put some of them as they are more briefly deliuered in other places of Scripture or now to be in obseruance amongst Christians But there is an other poynt boggeled at chiefly by the ignorant about the diuision of Gods cōmandements Yee obiect they against vs put the two first commandements into one and diuide the last into two I answere that a Catholike seeing their diuision may with much more reason tell Protestants yee put the two last commandements into one and diuide the first into two Briefly therefore to cleare this poynt it is to be noted that though it be expresly declared in Scripture that Gods commandements were ten in number and written in two tables yet through the whole Bible neuer is it declared which is the first second third c. nor so much as one word spoken concerning the diuision of them but this was left either to tradition or to the prudent determination of Doctours so that howsoeuer they are prudently diuided there will be nothing contrary to Scripture so long as the whol substance be expressed and the number of them be obserued Hence in and euen before S. Augustins tyme as he witnesses there was a double diuision of the commandements amongst Christians some diuiding them as we doe and others as our aduersaryes Yet both S. Augustine himselfe q. 71. in Exod. and S. Hierome Comment in Psalm 32. and Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 6. Stromatum follow our diuision S. Augustin prouing it very largly to be the better and putting in the first commandement Idol not Image and serue not worship and S. Hierome setting down the three commandements conteyned in the first table as short or shorter then any of our Catechismes doe and from them euen to our tymes it seemes to haue beene the receiued diuision at least in the westerne Church and should haue beene followed by those of our nation who euer before the breach were estemeed a part of it and yet pretend to be so had not the spirit of contradiction against the Romain Church induced them to the contrary Now as we haue authority so haue we solid reason to prefer this diuision before that of our aduersaryes for certaine it is that each different commandement forbids a different maine sin so that neither are we to make two
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
any signes or figures of our Sauiours bloud as the opponent here imagines that hence is drawn a most forcible argument that as in Exodus there was shed and dispersed true reall bloud and not a signe or figure of it which was called the bloud of the testament so hcre also must needs be vnderstood the true bloud of our Sauiour as it is called by him both Moyses and our Sauiour vsing the same maner of speach as I haue shewed and such a solemne leâ—gue or testament as this was requiring no lesse but rather much more to be confirmed by true bloud then that in Exodus or in other ancient times And hence may clerly enough be gathered first that our Sauiour himselfe held the cup of his bloud to confirme this league or pact betwixt him and mankinde of his part as the Apostles tooke it and drunke it to confirme it of thâ—yrs and so it is called as it is his bloud of the new testamens that is whereby the testament of the law of Grace was stregthned confirmed and accomplished on both parts Secondly that as in a testameÌ„t an authenticall instrument drawn of any dying mans wili witnessed subscribed sealed c. is rightly and ptoperly called his last will and testament so in our present occasion the couenant or will of our Sauiour testifyed or confirmed by his bloud is rightly called the new Testament of Christ and that sacred bloud of his as testifying and confirming this will and decree is most properly termed by our Sauiour in S. Luke and S. Paul the new Testament in his his bloud that being the authenticall instrument wherby this will of his was confirmed and testifyed And hence euidently appeares how vaine false the explication here giuen by the opponeÌ„t is for if here by new TestameÌ„t be only to be vnderstood a signe of the new Testament then Exod. 24. by Testament should be only vnderstond a signe of the Testament then made betwixt God and the Isrealites the very same phrase being vsed in both places which were ridiculous Objection He called the cup is bloud in the same maner as he called the bread his body Answer Still more glosses additions and mistakes where did our Sauâ—our call the cup is bloud where read you these woades this cup is my bloud he saith indeede haiung taken the cup this is my bloud of the new Testament but neuer this cup is my bloud he sayd this cup the new Testament in my bloud but he neuer sayd this cup is my bloud no more then he euer sayd This bread is my Body Such propositions as these therefore are not to be put vppon our Sauiour vnlesse you can eyther shew them in Scripture or proue them euidently out of it Obiection And if the cup must be the Testament or signe of his bloud wy should not the bread be the Testament or signe of his body Answer The cup was iust now called the new Testament according to the opponent for that it is a holy signe of the new Testament now it is called the new Testament or signe of his bloud so that new Testament now signifyes a figure of the new Testament and then a signe of our Sauiours bloud what it pleases the opponent according to different apprehensions and phantasies framed of it without Scripture or ground so inconstant are Protestants in theyr assertions neither is therefore new Testamenr here a signe of tha new Testament nor a signe of our Sauiours bloud as I haue proued but his bloud is the bloud of the new Testament and the cup the new Testament in his bloud as he declares expressely in the Gospell and if that which he called here his bloud must needs be as I haue shewed his true reall bloud why should not that which he called his body be his true reall body whether his body here may be termed the new Testament c. seeing we haue nothing in Scripture or fathers concerning it I will not determine it is a curious and needlesse question and we see that the leagues betwixt persons were confirmed by bloud yet seeing it was the custome both in antiquity and in Exodus c. 14. now cited to kill and sacrifice the bodyes of those creatures whose bloud they sprinkled and that as it seemes in confirmation of the couenant betwixt them and that here our Sauiour made a true sacrifice of his sacred body putting it as Diuines tell vs mortuo modo in the maner of a dead body exhibiting it as separate from his bloud and his Apostles receauing it from his hand it might happily be termed his body of the new Testament or the new Testament in his body vnbloudily sacrificed but then will follow that here must be no lesse his true body then were the true bodyes of those creatures sacrificed in Exodus the 24 or then I haue prooued his true bloud to be there by the like argument but I will not be authour of any such new maners of speech and so conclude nothing in this particular as conducing little to the poynt in question Obiection They will not indure any figure or impropriety of speehe in these wordes this is my Body though in affect they themselues wrest them for whether by this word this they vnderstand vnder this or vnder those species or that they will that this word this signifyes nothing present c. Answer I am not obliged to defend euery mans different opinion each hath his particular reasons and wayes to maynteyne his own it is sufficient that I defend what before I haue answeared and demonstrated out of Scripture that our Sauiours meaning by the word this was to signify nothing precisely present by way of a Sacrament when the word this was pronounced but what was to be present when the Apostles tooke and ate it or presently before that is so soone as the wholl proposition this is my Body was pronounced which sense by way of instance may be gathered out of the expression vsed here by the opponent when it is sayd for whether by this worde this and or that they will by the worde this for when the obiection sayes this word not hauing yet set down the word which is meant by it but presently after to witt this certainly the opponent cannot signify any thing present precisesy when these two words this word were written but what was presently to be set down to witt this so that by the opponents own writing is conuinced that the word this may doth ordinarily signify something not present when it is pronounced or written but presently after to be set down or spoken Objection Or whether by this word is they vnderstand shall become or shall be transubstantiated surely these distractions can be no testimonyes of truth Answer Here again the objection puts the word this and that which is signified by it to wit is follows after it To this objection I answer that it is a mere calumnie forged by Caluin and from him
tymes after consecration for it follows no more that therefore it should be pure bread remayning as it was before the words of consecration then that the water remained in its own nature after it was made wyne because after the change it is called water Neither doth yet S. Paul if his words be well marked say that the consecrated hoast is naturall and common bréad such as it was before fit to be eaten at an ordinary table as the Protestants must grant it not to be for at the least it is sacramentall bread and consecrated to a religious and holy vse according to them and therefore though he had put the same word bread before and after consecration yet it follows not that the signification of that word after consecratiâ—n should be the same with the signification of the same before consecration for before it signifyes common ordinary naturall and vsuall bread but after sacramentall significant coÌ„memoratiue holy diuine bread according to Protestants and therefore if Ptotestants must confesse that though the word be the same yet the signification is not the same why blame they Romane Catholicques if they giue the same answer saying that by the word bread in S. Paul before consecration or blessing is meant the substance of naturall and vsuall bread but after consecration supernaturall heauenly spirituall diuine bread which our Sauiour termeth himselfe to be in the sixt of S. Iohn six or seauen different tymes and which euery Christian chiefly begs of God in the Pater noster or Lords prayer saying giue vs this day our dayly bread for it is to be noted that bread in greeke familiarly in holy Scripture is taken for all manner os meate and not for bread only as it is distinct from all other meates But to make it yet clearer that S. Paul did not meane naturall bread remaning in its own substaÌ„ce as it was before when he called the Sacrament bread after it was consecrated or designed for a part of that holy mystery it is particularly to be reflected on that in this acceptioÌ„ he neuer calls it absolutly bread but allways with in article determinatiue or restrictiue referring it to that which consecration had made it and so he calls it this bread this cup that bread that cup to wit which was held for a Sacrament and mystery amongst Christians by force of our Sauiours words and to put vs out of all doubt that it was not that naturall bread and wine which it was before it was consecrated he clearly calls it the bread of our Lord and the cup of our Lord v. 29. wherfore whosoeuer shall eate this bread and drinke this cup of our Lord vnworthily c. and as we gather Ioan. 6. v. 48. that when our Sauiour termed the bread whereof he spoke there the bread of life he meant not naturall and visible bread but supernaturall and diuine in the same manner are we to gather from the words of S. Paul that by the like phrase the like bread is signifyed and as our Sauiour termes that bread wherof he spake Io. 6. v. 51.58 this bread to distinguish it from naturall and vsuall bread and to signify that he thereby meant his true body so also doth S. Paul here neyther can it more be gathered from the being tetmed bread by S. Paul that is naturall and substantiall bread then it can be gathered from the canon of our masse that wee beleeue it to be the substance of bread because it is often called bread in the said canon after consecration Objection If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should vnderstand flesh were not he worthy to be blamed to entertayne the people in errour since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence that it is bread which man naturally beleeues would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspension and to beleeue that it is his flesh though it seemeth bread then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses calling it alwayes bread without any explication Answer We are not to prescribe to the holy Ghost what he is to disclose to the writers of diuine Scripture he could haue deliuered many other mysteries of our faith in clearer words in the holy Scripture then he hath done if it had seemed good in his diuine Prouidence and therefore though he command vs not here in expresse termes to deny our senses and to beleeue that it is his flesh though it seeme bread as some holy fathers haue done with in the first fiue hundred yares yet he calles it as expressly the body of Christ as he calls it bread and seeing we finde bread often to be taken in a spirituall sense in holy Scripture for the food of out soules but neuer finde the body of Christ which is giuen for vs to be any other then his reall true Body one would thinke that the darker or more doubtfull word should in any reasonable mans iudgement yeeld to the more cleare and certaine and be interpreted by it then the contrary which is here alleadged and though our Sauiour call his flesh bread twice as often as S. Paul calls that which was consecrated bread here Ioannis 6. yet no man dare from thence argue that his flesh was not true flesh but corporall and materiall bread And if S. Paul by calling it so often bread after consecration should ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses as the opponent here affirmes he would draw vs also to thinke that it is mere naturall and vsuall bread after consecration as it was before and therefore we may apply the same objection in almost the same wordes against Protestants which here is brought against vs in this manner If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should vnderstand a Saerament or mystery as it is beleeued to be amonst all Christians were he not worthy to be blanted to entertaine the people in errour since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence that it is vsuall and common bread which man naturally beleeues would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspention and to beleeue that it is sacramentall and spirituall bread though it seeme vsuall bread then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses calling it always bread without any explication Thus whilst Protestants frame arguments fitter for Infidells then Christians against vs they neuer consider what force the like arguments haue against themselues But it is very vntrue that S. Paul called it bread without any explication or that he any way draws vs to what our senses would iudge if they were left to themselues but eleuates our thoughts vnto faith telling vs that it is panis calix Domini the bread and cup of our Lord which our Sauiour confesses himselfe to be Iohn the sixt and besides that he who eats this bread and drinketh this cup of our Lord vnwortily shall he guilty of the body and
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
reason why it may not now be so in this Sacrament is because I haue shewed that according to the first institution it was our Sauiours will to change bread into his body and so not being at all it could not be his body figuratiuely neither can a figuratiue sense stand with the truth of this proposition This is my Body which is giuen for you That which is lastly added that bread is a Sacrament of his body cannot stand with the Protestant doctrine for they define in the little catechisme in the common prayer booke a Sacrament to be an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace now certaine it is that our Sauiours body was as outward and visible to the Apostles in the first institution as was the bread it selfe and so neither an inward nor spirituall grace and consequently it could not be a Sacrament of it and if noe Sacrament it could be noe signe of it for Protestants acknowledge noe other signe here then a sacramentall signe and though after our Sauiours ascension we cannot actually see his body by reason of the distance betwixt vs yet that makes it not an inward spirituall grace for then Rome and Constantinople would be spirituall to those that liue in these climates because for the same reason they cannot see them and yet much lesse could the body of our Sauiour either in the first institution or at any time after be termed an inward grace according to Protestants and yet we are not coÌ„strained to acknowledge that there is not a Sacrament for it signifies that heauenly anâ— diuine grace which by vertu of it is giuen to nourish our soules which is truly inward anâ— spirituall and that which sensibly appeares in it and is called by diuines Sacramentum tantum is a sacramentall signe of our Sauiour sacred body inuisibly but truly existent vnder those shewes or species in this Sacrament and nourishing our soules and bodyes and so may be truly and properly called a spirituall grace or gift and that inward also when it is sacramentally receiued And noe lesse is it now â— sacramentall commemoratiue signe of the passion death and sufferings of our Sauiour which are long since past and so become now inuisible working mysteriously and meritoriously in this holy Sacrament If here should be replyed that hence would follow that this Sacrament might also in the first institution haue been a signe of our Sauiours death sufferings representing them as presently to follow and so these words This is my Body might haue this sense this bread is a representatiue signe of my body as instantly suffering and dying vppon the Crosse which death and sufferings were then inuisible because they were not then existent I answer that our Sauiour might haue pleased according to his absolute power to haue instituted such a Sacrament but because we haue neither â—n Scripture nor tradition that he instituted â—ere any such and the words of the instituâ—ion This is my Body are properly and litterally â—o be vnderstood when there is nothing that â—onstraines vs to the contrary we denye that â—ny such typicall or empty signe as this was â—ctually constituted by our Sauiour in the inâ—titution of this Sacrament especially seeing â—hat the paschall lamme represented much â—ore liuely and perfectly the passion of Christ â—hen the bread and wine and that such typiâ—all representations were proper to the old â—aw which was the shadow of things to come And for Protestants they must confesse that â—hey haue noe ground in Scripture for any other signe of our Sauiours passion then by way of commemoration or remembrance which supposes his suffering and death past â—nd not to come as I haue already prouued And though it were gratis admitted that in this Sacrament such a prefiguratiue signe of our Sauiours passion was exhibited in the first institution yet this would noe more hinder the reall presence necessarily required by vertu of this proposition this is my Body c. â—hen it s being now a commemotatiue signe of his said passion as I haue declared and proued already Obiection In the old and new Testament it is vsual to call the signes by the names of that they signifie why then should it be thought strange that our Sauiour in this Sacrament calling bread his body and wine his blood should speake in the same manner Answer I haue now shewed against Protestants in these principles that there was noe sacramentall signe of the body of our Sauiout in the first institution of this Sacrament Christs body hauing been then as visible and present as the bread and consequently noe signe at all and if noe signe the true and reall body as the opponent hath granted Though therefore where the Scripture giueth cleare euideÌ„ce that there is a signe or that it may be clearely gathered thence that the signe should be called by the name of the thing signified yet there is great reason where noe such euidence is but rather to the contrary that our Sauiour should not speake in the same manner neither is it yet conuinced by all the textes alleadged presently by the opponent that signes are called by the names of the things signified or be that which they doe signifie as will appeare by the particulars Objection Circumcision is called the couuenant with God This is my couuenant betweene me and you now â—hat the word couuenant must be taken for a signe of the couuenant the line following â—heweth where God said And it shall be a signe of the couuenant betweene me and you Answer There were two couuenants or pacts made betweene God and Abraham in this chapter the first ver 1.2.4.6.7 8. which was of the fauour of God promised to Abraham and his seed The second v. 9.10.11 c. which was of Abrahams obedience and his childreÌ„s towards God whereto he obliged them in taking circumcision now this second couuenant was a confirmation signe or seale of the first on Abrahams part and so though being considered absolutely in it selfe it was a true and reall couuenant yet in regard of the former couuenant it was a signe or scale as S. Paul calls it and so it is called here both a couuenant and a signe of the couuenant that is of the first as if one should make a couuenant with an other of inferiour note first that he would fauour and patronize him in all things and then that the other might shew his gratitude and acceptation of this couuenant on his part he makes an other that once a yeare he should come and wayte on him at his table This second couuenant would be as true reall a part of the couuenant or agreemeÌ„t between them as the first and yet would be a confirmation ratification signe or seale of the former Now that this second was a true couuenant is euident out of the words for it is a true command obligation or iniunction of God accepted of by Abraham which being done God of his part obliged himselfe to
correspondent to those which are found in any or in all other meates and drinkes togeather so that not only habituall iustifying and sanctifying grace necessary to saluation and actuall Sacramentall graces correspondent to that of meat by way of spirituall nourishment in the host and of drink by way of spirituall exhileration in the chalice but both these graces are conferred by each kind apart that proper to meat primarily by the host and to drinke primarily by the chalice but yet secondarily and by way of a superabundant vertu and efficacy in this diuine refection the host exhilerates comâ—orts and the chalice nourisheth and strenghteneth correspondent to all corporall meates and drinkes and conferred separatly by them are ioyntly receaued by each of these apart and thus as that of the hymne of corpus Christi is most true dedit fragilibus corporis ferculum dedit tristibus sanguinis poculum he gaue the food of his body to the infirme and the cup of his blood to the sad whereby are designed the primary effects of the host by way of strenghtâ—ning and the chalice by way of exhilerating so it is also true which is affirmed in the same office Panem de caelo praestitisti eis omne delectamentum in se habentem thou hast giuen them bread from heauen hauing all delight and comfort in it whereby seemes to be assribed to the sacred host the essect of delighting and exhilerating such as worthily receaue it and noe lesse those other versicles which follow in the same feast cibauit illos ex adipe frumenti de petra melle saturauit eos he hath fed them with theâ— fattnes of wheat where the delightfull nourishmeÌ„t of the soule is expressed and satiâ—ted them with honny from the rock which expresseth the sweet feeding of the soul by the sacred chalice much more might be said of this particular were it to be disputed in the schooles but in this occasion I iudge noe more necessary seeing the question it selfe is not necessary for the defence of Catholike faith in this point Thus farre I haue answered the difficulties which can be drawn from the bare institution abstracting from the command of our Sauiour expressed either in the institution or else where concerning this Sacrament which I will now answer very breefly Objection Our Sauiour saith drinke ye all of it therefore he commands all Christians to drinke of the cup in this Sacrament Answer Our Sauiour saith Iohn 13. If I haue washed your feet your Lord and maister you must also wash one anothers feet therefore all Christians are commanded by our Sauiour to wash one an others feet or thus our Sauiour Marc. 16. Goenig into the whol world preach the Gospel to all creatures and Matt. 28. Goe and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the father c. therefore he commands all Christians to teach the Gospel and baptize all nations or thus to come somthing nearer to this matter in the drinking of a cupp Luc. 22. our Sauiour saith before the Sacrament was instituted and he tooke the cupp and said take and diuide amongst you c. therefore all Christians are commanded to take and drinke wine which is noe sacrament yea before they receaue the sacrament as our Sauiour commanded the Apostles to doe here or lastly thus to instance in the institution it selfe Matth. 26. our Sauiour saith Take and eate this is my Body therefore he commanded all Christians to take the host into theyr hands and then eate it as he did the Apostles many such like instances might be giuen whence if we stand to the sole and bare word of scripture it will be as easily deduced that all Christians are commanded many things which Protestants say they are not bound to doe as from this command drinke yee all of this giuen to the Apostles can be drawn that all Christians are commanded to dtinke of the chalice because the Apostles were then commanded to doe it If it should be replyed that in the other commands alleaged is not found the word all drinke ye all of this as we finde here and therefore are not so generall to comprehend all Christians I answer that the word all as appeares hy S. Marke and they all drunke of it only signifies all the Apostles there present none excepted for our Sauiour said not let all Christians drinke of this but drinke ye all of this If it should be demanded why should our Sauiour say drinke yee all of this more then eate yee all of this adding the word all only to the chalice and not to the host but only to shew the vniuersall necessitie of drinking I answer first that all cannot possibly be added for that reason for Protestants confesse that there is as vniuersall necessitie for all Christians to eate the bread comprehended in these words take eate this is my Body without the word all as of drinking the cup in these drinke yee all of this Secondly I answer that the reason of adding the word all more to the chalice then to the host was because our Sauiour hauing broken the host into differeÌ„t peeces gaue to each Apostle one and so there was noe necessitie to command them all to eate of the same particle but hauing giuen but one cup amongst them it was more necessary for the full declaration of his minde which was that all the Apostles there preseÌ„t should drinke of that cupp to expresse himselfe in these termes drinke ye all of this Secondly I answer to the maine objection that if we stand ptecisely in these words of Scripture it can neuer be conuinced that any precept is contained either in these take eate or in these drinke yee all of this for they are capable to signifie a meere inuitation or intreaty as great persons ordinarily are accoustomed when they haue other inferiours at theyr table to say eate or drinke of this or that not commanding but inuiting and it belongs to ProtestaÌ„ts who stand so strictly to the bare expresse words of Scripture to conuince by the sole expresse words the contrary Thirdly if wee either by vniuersall tradition of Christians or by some other expresse commands in scripture of communicating grant that euen in these words eate drinke c. a strickt command was giuen seeing some commands oblige all Christians others all Bishops Priests and others the Apostles only we can notwithstanding giue a reason why these words drinke yee all of this binde the Apostles only and extend not themselues to all Christians for the declaration of this when the circumstances are such that the command can haue noe place but for that present time when it is giuen it is cleare that what our Sauiour spake to the Apostles is giuen to the Apostles only as when our Sauiour said to S. Peeter putt vp thy swod into the scabbard or to the three Apostles rise let vs goe c. and a thou sand such like Secondly when the common tradition of
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
Scripture that it rather confirmes the proper and natiue signification of these words he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer when he saith as I liue by my father so he who eateth me shall liue by me whence is at the least more probabily then Protestants can proue the contrary inferred that as our Sauiour liues totally and compleately by his father without the addition of any thing else so Christians liue by worthily eating this heauenly bread without the addition of drinking or any other action necessary to giue life as a part of this Sacrament But that I may make the exposition which I haue giuen of these words yet more plaine and forcible I will propose an instance of a command of this kind giuen to the Israelites euen in matter of a Sacrament where they are in generall commanded by families to celebrate the passeouer by taking killing and shedding the blood and sprinkling it vppon the posts of their dores rosting and eating the paschall lambe c. not that euery one in particular was obliged to performe all these actions but some to one and others to others with decency and proportion though absolutly speaking euery one in particular must haue concurred with the rest to the performance of them all and yet the whol familly by concurring partially were obliged to the performance of all and happily this mystery beeing a figure of the Eucharist the only command of eating without any mention of drinking may giue some aduantage to the coustome of eating alone amongst Roman Catholiques but this only by the way as a congruence And yet to come nerer to our present Question when our Sauiour in the command giuen in the institution doe this c. commanded that what he had done as substantially belonging to this Sacrament should be done in his church that is that this mystery should be celebrated the host and chalice consecrated the body and blood of our Sauiour vndloodily be sacrifized and receaued yet noe Christian dare affirme that all these actions here commanded were to be performed by euery Christian in particular for then all Christian men weomen and children were to performe the office of Priests but that euery one was to concurre to the performance of this precept by doing what belongs to his degree and calling and seeing all these actions now mentioned were not to be performed by each Christian how can it be euer prouued that each was both to eate drinke seeing that by performance of either of these actions separately each might partially concurre to the accomplishment of that precept as they may also to this nisi manducaueritis vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man and drinke his blood you shall not haue life in you that is vnlesse you concurre each in particular to the performaÌ„ce of this command either by eating alone or drinking alone or performing both togeather each respectiuely to his calling office and order prescribed by the church you shall not haue life amongst you that is these actions are necessary that life may be found in the Church of Christ or amongst Christians for this is à command which must be fulfilled amongst them and all are bound in particular to concurre one way or other to the fulfilling of it seeing there is noe reason that one should be more obliged then an other and so if any one were not obliged none in particular would be bound to fulfill it and then euery one in particular might lawfully abstaine and consequently there would be noe performance of this command amongst Christians which would make the command to be void and of noe effect quite contrary to the expresse words and intention of our Sauiour From this whol discours may appeare what an vnworthy and base esteeme our aduersaries frame of the most sacred body and blood of our Sauiour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit and capable to conferre sauing grace to such as deuoutly receaue them which cannot buâ— derogate insufferably from that infinite worth and dignity which all Christians haue euer conceaued in them for as it is a most certaine and receaued tenet that not only the shedding of the least drop of his most precious blood but the least action or motion of his most sacred body was abundantly sufficient for the redemption of the whol world and a million of worlds more why should they now call in Question the sufficiency of the same body and blood receaued apart each of them to communicate ineffabâ—le fauours and graces all grounded in his sacred passion to the worthy receauers of them Obiection If they answer that they doubt not of the worth and power of each of these but of the will of our Sauiour whether he ordained that they separately or only ioyntly should conferre grace or commanded that allwayes both should be receaued Answer I answer that seeing noe lesse the body then the blood of our Sauiour as separately taken in the Eucharist is abondantly in it selfe fit and able to sanctifie the soule of him who dewly receaues it and that there is noe cleere text in Scripture which conuinces that one of them alone can not sanctifie or rather that there be most cleere texts which proue that one alone can doe it and that there is noe expresse command giuen in Scripture to all patticular Christians to receaue both and the coustome both of the primitiue ancient late and moderne church is euidently to the contrary I cannot see what can haue mouued ouâ— aduersaries to thinke that one kinde suffices not saue a low and meane esteeme they haue of the vertu and force of our Sauiours body and blood considercd separately in themselues in this Sacrament The second defect of respect and reuerence which our aduersaries shew to the sacred blood of Christ in this particular is the little care they haue how much of that diuine chalice and how often it be spilt vppon the ground sprinkled vppon the cloarhes of communicants cast out of the sacred vessels abused lost trod vnder foot by a thousand indiscretions irreuerences negligeÌ„ces mischances by reason of the great multitudes of people of all most all ages sexes conditions who not only once or twice a yeare as amongst the new reformers but each month forttnight and weeke communicate through out the whol Roman Church as dayly experiences teach and especially in the former age in Bohemia where leaue hauing been granted for the Catholiques to receaue both kindes for theyr comfort they found not withstanding all the diligences which morally could be vsed so many and great inconueniences in this kind both to the communicanrs and Priests that they quicly grew weary of it and were compelled to leaue it of But our aduersaries eyther not beleeuing it is his precious blood or little regarding what becomes of it if they beleeue it will and must haue the vse of the chalice though it be affected with a thosand irreuerences to satisfie theyr
eius Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum qui solus noster Redemptor Saluator est ad eorum orationes opem auxiliumque confugere THe holy Synode commands all Bishops and the rest which haue the office and care of teaching that they diligently instruct faithfull people teaching them that the Saints which raigne togeather with Christ offer vp theyr praires to God for men that it is good and profitable humbly to inuoke them and to haue recourse to theyr praires helpe and assistance to obteyne benefits of God through his Sone Iesus Christ our Lord who alone is our Redeemer and Sauiour Whence it is cleare that according to the Council of Trent to whose doctrine all those of the Romain Church hold themselues obliged to subscribe first that wee pray not the Saints That they Should procure any blessings by theyr sole force and vertu independant of God but only that they present theyr praires to God to obteyne them of him for vs orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offerre which plainely cleares vs from all idolatry in this particular both they and wee praying to the same one only God And secondly we haue not recourse to theyr praires to God as if they were to be granted for the worth and dignity of the Saints imdepedently of Christs merits but only through and for his merits ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per Filium eius Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum to obteyne benefits of God through his Sone Iesus Christ our Lord excluding the Saints from being eyther our Redeemers or Sauiours which we all acknwledge to be christ alone qui solus noster Redemptor Saluator est as this holy Council here teaches vs which makes vs vndeniably free from the least shaddow of injury done to our Sauiour and his infinite merits when we inuoke the Saints Thirdly we are here taught to giue reâ—ence and worship to the Saints in heauen suppliciter eos inuocare to inuocque them humbly deuoutly suppliantly neyther as Gods nor as sauiours but as pure creatures reigning with Christ and as dependent of God and Christ as we are our selues as appeares by the former words of the Council now cited Lastly we are here taught that this humble inuocation of the Saints and the same is of Angels is good profitable but the Council teaches not neyther giues any generall commaÌ„d to inuoke them nor that the actual practice of it is absolutly necessary to Saluation or that noe man can be saued who has not thus humbly inuoked the Saints for theyr praires are only furthering helpes not necessary meanes to Saluation soe that noe man is bound to beleeue any absolute necessity of it but in rigour it is sufficient not to reiect it as bad or hurtfull but to allow of it as good and profitable leauing the practice or not practice the greater or lesse use of it to euery ones particular piety and deuotioÌ„ This I say not to induce any one to thinke that it were eyther laudable or allowable in such as beleeue the goodnesse and profit of this inuocation as all Romain Catholicques must doe neuer or very seldome to practice it for this were to be supinely negligent in vsing the helpes which wee beleeue to be profitable for our spirituall good as the same appeares in desiring the praires of Gods seruants whilst they liue here on earth which is nor absolutly necessary but yet good and profitable but I say it only that all may know distinctly what the Council here teaches as necessary and what only as good and profitable and to dissabuse vulgar Protestants who thinke that the Romain church teaches that it is as necessary to saluation to inuoke and worship the Saints as to inuoke and worship Christ himselfe Hauing thus declared the doctrine of the Romain church deliuered in the Council of Trent let us now see what Protestants alleadge aganist it out of Scripture mistaken The first Protestant Position Thus framed by the opponent God only to be worshipped therefore neyther Saint nor Angell This is proued by Scripture mistaken Mat. 4.10 It is written thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue saith Christ. The first mistake The words of this text affirme not that God only is to be worshipped THe text saith thus thou shalt worship the Lord thy God from which cannot be proued thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only that word only being not ioyned in this text to the worship of God as no Protestant can or does proue that God only is to be feared from the like text of Scripture Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God seeing that à wife is commanded to feare her husband Ephes. 5.25 And subiects to feare theyr Magistrates and Gouernours Rom. 13.4 Neyther is any one soe senslesse to affirme that God only is to be loued because Dauid saies O loue the Lord all yee his Saints for if God only that is none saue God were to be loued then noe man were to loue his neighbour which not with standing is most strictly commanded as all know nor husbands to loue theyr wiues which S. Paul commands Ephes. 5. v. 25. and how come they then to proue that God only is to be worshipped because the Scripture here cited commands vs to worship God but commands noe more to worship him only then the former texts to feare and loue him only How come they I say to vrge such à text as this without the least appearance of proose but by à pure mistake of the words of Scripture especially seeing that the Scripture in an other place commaÌ„ds vs as clearly to worship something beside God as it commands to feare and loue others beside God Psalme 99.5 worship his foorstole where the very same Hebrew and Greeke phrase and words are vsed which are in this text cited Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God howsoeuer that text Psal. 99. is mistranslated by Protestants as I shall shew here after Ande the Prophete Isay foretels that the enimies of Hierusalem should worship the steps of her feete Isay 60.14 but what soeuer be meant by those steps certainly it cannot be God therefore the text of Scripture cited Mat. 4. commands not that God only should be worshipped If any Protestant shoud say that though the word only be not ioyned to worship yet it is ioyned to serue in the text cited Mat. 4. and him only shalt thou serue which seemes to be of as much force as if it were ioyned to worship I answer that if the Opponent had framed the Protestant position thus God only to be serued therefore neyther Sainct nor Angell the latter part of the text hauing and him only shalt thou serue there might haue beene some shew of proofe in alledging these words Mat. 4. But seeing the position runs thus God only to be worshipped and the text saith not thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only but thou shalt worship the Lord
thy God who sees not that there is noe shew at all of proofe in it as when the Scripture sayth Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue one might at least seemingly proue from this sentence that God only is to be serued but one shall neuer proue by the force of those words that God only is to be feared If a Protestant should reply that worship and serue seeme to signify the same thing and soe only being added to serue is as much as if it were added to worship I answer that if wee haue regard to the Greeke text in which only the difference betwixt worship and serue in Mat. the 4. v. 10. is clearly discouered there is a large difference betwixt those two words the one signifying properly and by mere force of the word worship in generall and soe vsed familiarly in holy Scripture to signify both rhe worship due to God and to men Saincts and Angells and the other a seruice due to God only and neuer applyed to the religious seruice of any creature which I shall here after make manifest Beside serue signifies more largely then worship for wee serue God by faith hope charitie obedience and all good workes done to his honour but wee worship 〈◊〉 him only by an act of Religion As appeares Hebr. 12.28 let vs haue grace wereby we may serue God acceptably with Reuerence and Godly feare MISTAKE II. Worship missapplied in this text Mat. 4.10 I Haue allready proued that this text commands not that God only should be worshipped because it saies not thou shallte worship the Lord thy God only but though it had said soe yet it were to be vnderstood not to forbid the exhibiting of all kind of worship to any saue God but only such worship as is proper to God alone and which without Sacrilege and Idolatry cannot be giuen to any but to God Thus though Saint Paul say that God only hath immortality yet that must be vnderstood of a most diuine infinite and vncreated immortaliâ—y proper to God alone and not of all kinde of immortalities for then S. Paul would contradict him selfe when he saith that our mortall bodies shall put on imusortality Thus when our Sauiour said none is good saue one that is God it must only be vnderstood of an essentiall incomprehensible goodnes for otherwise that text would be contrarie to S. Luke saying and behould there was a man named Ioseph which was a counseller a good man and a iust and to that of the Acts which speaking of S. Barnabas saith that he was a good man and full of the holy Ghost Now as there are different kinds of Immortalities and goodnesses the one infinitely perfect diuine essentiall and vncreared the other imperfect humane accidentall and created soe that the scriptures ascribing the one to God only and the other to creatures are easily reconciled and playnly vnderstood without any shew of contrariety or contradiction amongst them selues or iniury to God soe are there in Scrtpture different kindes of worships the one acknowledging and exhibiting honour to an Infinite diuine vncreated immortality and goodesse in the Person which he worships and the other a creaded and finite Thus in the text cited Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God though the word worship considered in it selfe signifie properly both these kinds of worships yet as it lyes here it must be taken for the first kinde of highest and cheifest worship only but the very same word both in hebrew greeke latine and English in other places of Scripture must be taken for the Second kinde of lower and inferour worship acknowledging and intending only to expresse an imperfect limited and created goodnesse in the persoÌ„s or things worshpped Thus we read in Genesis The sones of thy father shall adore or worshipp thee Saith Iacob blessing his sonne Iuda And of the btetheren of Ioseph saluting theyr brother when his bretheren had worshipped him and nothing more ordinary in holy hcripture then worship giuen to persons in dignity and authority As therefore this Protestant position that God only is to be worshipped being vnderstood at it must here by the opponent that noe worship at h all is to be giuen to any saue God playnly contradicts those and the like places of Scripture Soe the Romaine Catholique position that some kinde of worship is to be exhibited to others then God is both euidently consonant to these texts and noe way dissagreeing from that of Mat. 4.10 and the like texts wich command vs to worship God nay though they should command vs to worship God only beecause such commands are all wayes to be vnderstood of that first and highest kinde of worship aboue mentioned neyther is there any possible meanes to reconcile different places of Scripture which seeme to ascribe to God only that which in other places is ascribed to creatures but by such distinctions of perfections or worships as I haue declared And this is soe cleare that it must be and is confessed by Protestans themselues who generally graunt that Religious worship is to be giuen to God only but ciuil worship to creatures wich distinction being once admitted the opponent will neuer be able to conuince any thing against the worship of Saincts and Angels out of Mat. 4.10 for if one will terme the worship giuen to Saincts and Angels a ciuil worship as I will presently demonstrate Protestants must doe if they make noe distinction betwixt religious worships then euen Saincts and Angles may be worshipped at the least with some kinde of ciuil worship euen according to Protestants notwithstanding thath text of Mat. 4.10 which according to them must be vnderstood to forbid only Religious worship to any saue God But because the common tenet of Catholique Doctours is that things created may be worshipped with some kinde of Religious worship I will make it euident out of Scripture that some Religious worship hath been and may be lawfully exhibited to creatures and soe not to God only Thus wee read in the bookes of kings that the captaine of 50 men worshipped Elias the Prophete and 50 men together the Prophete Elizeus and after the Sunamite receiuing her reuiued sone adored the same Prophete Thesame is of Moyses commanded to adore the grouÌ„d where on God stood and of Dauid commanding to worship the footstoole of God And least it should be thought that this manner of worshipping was only in vse in the ould testament wee haue an expresse president of it in the new for our Sauiour in the reuelation speakes to the Angell of philadelphia thus Behould I wil make them that is his enimyes come and worship before thy feet Now that it may appeare that these acts of worship were Religious and not meerely ciuill wee must know in generall that worship is nothing but an humiliation of our selues in acknowledgmeÌ„t of some goodnesse and excelleÌ„cie in that which wee worship Soe
exhibite reuerence and worship to persons and things in acknowledgement of the supernaturall and free gifts graces and blessinges of God where with they are inriched as I haue shewed many holy persons mentioned in the Scriptures haue done let him call that worship supernaturall or christian or pious or an exterordinary ranke of ciuill worship I shall not much contend about rhe name when the thing is done For what soeuer he call it it is and cannot but be a Religious worship in it selfe at least in that large sense soe clearely drawn from the Seriptures And Thus much of the discouery redresse of the second mistake THE THIRD MISTAKE The vvord serue in Mat. 4.10 is misunderstood THe opponent indeuoring to proue that God only is to be worshipped and therefore neyther S. nor Angell from the text of Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worshipp the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue Seeing there is noe proofe in the former part of the text as I haue shewed must haue recourse to the latter and him only shalt thou Serue and that this clause may haue any appearance of force it must suppose that the word Serue here vsed signifies all kind of Seruice Soe that these words and him only shalt thou Serue must signify thus much that noe seruice must be done but to God alone which must needs be a very grosse mistake for the word Seruice taken in this generall sence playnly contradicts the Precept of S. Paul Obey your temporall Lords c. Seruing them with a good will as to our Lord and not to men And that Prophesie in Genesis of Iacob and Esau. The greater shall serue the Lesse Soe that it is manifest that not God only is to be serued Whence may breefely be noted that before one cite any text of Scripture for the proofe of any thing one must first coÌ„sider whether the sence in which that text must be taken to be of force to proue what we intend contradict not other playne places of Scripture as this does which if it doe we must seeke some other proofe for that will not be a proofe but a mistake But the mistake in this place of Mat. 4.10 proceedes not only from want of reflection vppon other places of Scripture but from want of knowledge of the greeke word vsed here by the EuaÌ„gelist For though both in English Latin and Hehrew there be only one word to signifie the seruing of God and creatures Yet in the greeke there is a proper word which signifies only the seruice of God or proper to him alone and is neuer vsed for the religious seâ—uice done to any creature as a creature but as esteemed by those whoe exhibite that seruice to be a God This word in greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 latreuin vsed by the holy Ghost in this place Mat. 4 10. to signifie serue That this may be vnderstood the Reader may please to note that many words haue two kinds of significations the one by force of theyr first institution which they anciently had and haue amongst heathen Authours the other by vse and application to some one particular Sence by vertue of common vse and custome which hath in processe of tyme obtayned force to limite them to that perticular Sense Thus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tyrannos amongst the ancient Greekes first signifyed a king and was taken in a good Sence but amongst later Authours and now vniuersally it signifies a Tyrant or cruell and vniust oppresser of such as are vnder him And as the vnanimous consent of approued Authours and common wealths hath a power to giue a new signification to words or rather to limite or restrayne the ould to some determinate parte of what they signifyed by force of theyr first institution soe hath allsoe the vniuersall consent of ecclesiasticall approued Authours and the common voyce of Christendome the like power soe to alter the ancient signification of some words that it determines the indifferency and vniuersality of theyr originall Signification to some one part or member of it when they apply it to expresse something in Christian Religion Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptismus which anciently signifyed any kind of washing amongst ecclesiasticall and Christian Authours is taken for a SacrameÌ„t known by that name Thus Euangelist which originally signifeyed any one who told good tydinges signifies a wryter or promulger of the Gospell In the like manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifyed amongst the auncient infidels any kind of feruice amongst Ecclesiasticall Authours signifies only that kinde of Religious seruice which is don to God Soe that it hath two significations the one morall the other Ecclesiasticall as Scapula a Protestant authour of our nation acknowledges in his Lexicon both of this and the former and many other words graunting that according to the Sence which it hath amongst Ecclesiasticall authours and in the new Testament it signifies a Religious worship only and in proofe of this cites the epistle to the Hebrewes where beeing put absolutely it signifiâ—es the worship of God This dubble significaâ—ion supposed I vrge further that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latreuin in the Scripture signifies that Religious worship only which is exhibited to God or diuine worship and is neuer vsed through the whole Scripture for a religious Seruice done to any creature as to a creature I haue bestowed some dayes study to examine this matter and hauing searched all the places of Sctipture where this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is I neuer found it signify any religious sesuice saue diuine and I Prouocke any Protestant authour to proue the contrarie True it is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 douleuin is indifferently vsed very commonly in both Testaments to signify the religious seruing of God or creatutes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latreuin neuer but for seruing eyther a true or false God when it is referred to worship blonging to Religion And though Scapula being a Protestant only say that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a religious worship yet the proofe which he bringes for it out of the epistle to the Hebrews conuinces that being absolutely put that is alone without any oblique case it signifyes as he acknowledges the Seruice done to God only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectum facere seruientem that could not make him that did the seruice perfect And he might alsoe haue cited the same word put absolutely and signifying only the seruice of God in S. Luke where he sayth Anna the Prophetesse was night and day in the Temple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seruing that is doing seruice to God This text Luke the 2.37 The Protestant bible of 1589. with Fulks commentarie translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Serued God And Heb. 9.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seruings of God and the later Bibles translate it diuine feruice whence it appeares that the absolute significarion of this word is the seruice of God or diuine
seruice In the like manner I find it Acts 7.7 Rom. 1.9 and Reuel 22. taken for the seruice of the true God and for the seruice of Idoles or false Gods Acts 7. v. 41. 1. Cor. 5.1 and Rom. 22.15 in the old Testamēt very often From this ground proceeds the ordinary distinction of Religious worship into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latria and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doulia for seeing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latreuo signifyes noe other Religious Seruice saue that which is due to God through the whole Scripture and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 douleuo signifyes in hundreds of places as well that which is due to God as to creatures hence the seruice done to finit Persons belonging to Religion may rightly be termed doulia and that which is exhibited to God alone Latria and hence it proceeds alsoe that the seruice of false Gods or Idoles is neuer called eyther in Scripture nor in approued Ecclesiasticall Authours noe nor by Protestants themselues Idolodoulia but Idololatria Idolatrie because it giues to them diuine seruice due to God only being deriued from Larria which signifies noe other Religious seruice saue diuine Seeing therefore noe Romaine Catholique teaches that diuine seruice due to God only is to be giuen to any creature but the quite contrary they hould nothing against this text of S. Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is with the seruice of Latria or highest degree of Seruice which as I haue demonstrated by Scripture is due to God only Thus haue I discouered three plaine mistakes in these few words of Mat. 4.10 to proue that God only is to be worshipped where in I haue beene forced to be more large then I wished because vppon what I haue here deliuered depends the clearing of the insuing controuersies in this matter of worship The second Protestant Position Forbidden the worship of Angells This is proued by Scripture mistaken I Iohn saw all these thinges and heard them and when I had heard and seene I fell downe to worship before the feete of the Angell wich shewed me these things then said he vnto me see thou doe it not for I am thy fellow seruant worship God The first mistake This text is made contrary to other playne texts of Scripturc allowing the worshp of Angells ANd two Angells came into Sodome at ninght Lot sitting at the gates of the citty who when he had seene them rose and went to meete them and he adored prostrate vppon the groūd c. which worship the Angells accepted noe way reprehending Lot or forbidding him as appeares in the text And when Iosua was in the feeld of Hierico he lift vp his eyes and saw a man standing against him houlding a naked sword and he went vnto him and sayd art thou ours or our aduersaryes who answeared no but I am a prince of the army of our Lord and and now I come Iosua fell groueling vppon the ground and adoring sayd wy doth my Lord speake vnto his seruant c. where it appeares that this Angel was a creature and not God for he is called a prince That is one of the Princes of Gods army The second mistake THis text of S. Iohn proues noe more that all worship of Angells is forbidden then an other of S. Luke that the worship of Saints yet liuing is forbidden As Peeter was coming in Cornelius met him and fell downe at is feet and worshipped him But Peeter tooke him vp saying stand vp I my selfe alsoe am a man And yet it is cleare out of Scripture that holy men yet liuing are to be worshipped and haue accepted of the worship of others Againe he sent a third captaine of fifty men and fifty men with him who when he was come bowed his knees tovvard Elias and prayed him and said man of God despise not my life and the liues of thy seruants that are vvith me c. She that is the Sunamite fell at his feete and adored vppon the groond where we see that the Prophete Eliseus was worshipped and he refused it not And it is the common practice of Protestants in Engeland to kneele downe and aske blessing of theyr Godfathers and Godmothers desiring them to pray for them to God which is a true worship and yet it is noe ciuill worship because the reason why they doe it belonges not to any dignity in the common wealth but to Religion and therefore it must be a worship appertaining to Religion as was the worship of Elias and Eliseus now cited which is the wery same with that worship which by Romain Catholickes is giuen to Saints and Angells as creatures belonging to faith and Religion The third mistake ONe may proue as well that it is vnlawful to weepe as ro wurship Angells beecause an Angell forbad S. Iohn to weepe And I wept much because noe man was found-worthy to open and to read the booke neyther to looke therein And one of the Elders said vnto me weepe not And yet certainly it is lawfull to weepe for if it weare not neyther our Sauiour would haue wept ouer Hierusalem nor commaunded the woemen of Hierusalem to weepe ouer themselues c. The text of S. Iohn Reuel 22. v. 8. v. 8. ad 9. reconciled with the other texts of Scripture IF any one would proue out of the 10. of the Acts v. 25. and 26. now cited that noe Apostle or saint yet liuing were to be worshipped because S. Peeter refused the worship which Cornelius exhibited to him I demaund what would a Protestant answer to such an obiection Eyther he must say that S. Peeter refused this worshep though he might laufully haue accepted it as beeing due no lesse then the like worship was accepted by Elias and Eliseus that S. Peeter I say notwithstanding Refused it out of humility and respect which he bare to Cornelius and this supposed Protestants must giue vs leaue to apply with the greatest part of the ancient Fathers and Doctours the same answer to S. Iohn's worshipping the Angell and his refusing it for some worship was noe lesse due to this Angell then it was to the two Angells which Lot worshipped Gen. 19. v. 1. and the Angell which Iosua worshipped Iosua 5. v. 14. now cited and yet this Angell refused it out of humility and respect which he bore to S. Iohn as S. Peeter did Acts 10. v. 25. and 26. or if this answer seeme not soe conuenient to this plare of the Acts a Protestāt must answer that Cornelius here gaue him the worship which was due to God only that is the highest diuine worship which he therefore refused ' as iniurious to God noe otherwise then ' S. Paul and Barnabas with all earnestnesse possible refused the saerifice which the heathen Priest of Lystra would haue offered to them as to two Gods Iupiter and Mercurius whom they tooke them to be
question of for though the coming by prayer to them be not commanded here yet that hinders not but eyther in some other place of Scripture or by other lawfull authority commended in Scripture it may be either commanded or allowed as if one should argue against Protestants euen out of this place in this manner our Sauiour sayes Matth 11. v. 28. Come vnto mee all yee that labour c. Hee sayes not here addresse your prayers expresly and by name to God the Father or the oly Ghost by saying our Father which art in heauen c. or come holy Ghost eternall God c. but come vnto mee therefore it is vnlawfull to vtter such perticular prayers to God the Father or the holy Ghost expressing them by name but all must be made to our Sauiour only who sees not how false and senslesse this reasoning is for though our expresse coming to God the Father and the holy Ghost be not commanded here yet neyther is it forbidden and is commanded in other places and practized by the whole church of God yea and by the Protestants themselues Others vrge the Same text in this manner Come vnto me sayth our Sauiour Therefore to mee alone and to no other and so neyther to Saint nor Angell which hath as much force as this Come vnto mee sayth our Sauiour therefore goe not by name to any other diuine person but to me and so neyther to God the Father nor to God the holy Ghost expressly who are two distinct Persons from him or as forcible as this come vnto me all yee that are pore and needy and I will releeue you saith some rich charitable person to the pore of the citty where he dwells therefore he commands them to come to no other but to him and forbids them the asking almes of any â—aue himselfe Or very like to this Come vnto me c. sayth our Sauiour therefore to no other but to him and so forbids children to pray to their Parents or to beseech other Christians yet liuing to pray for them c. which notwithstanding Protestants dayly practise for if our Sauiours meaning be to exclude all saue himselfe when he said come vnto me c. then the liuing must be excluded noe lesse then the Saints and Angels of heauen and if the Saints yet liuing be not excluded then our Sauiour did not intend by those words to exclude all and if not all then it can neuer be prouued from this text alone that the coming as wee doe to Saints and Angels is forbidden in this text I answere therefore that though our Sauiour in these words command all sinners to come vnto him yet he commands them not to come vnto him only and so forbids not the comming vnto others and this answer will I hope satisfy any considerate person standing precisely in the force of the wotds and in what by true discourse may be deduced from them Yet for a more full satisfaction all Protestants are to understand that when Catholikes come by prayr vnto any Saint or Angell they still performe what our Sauiour here commands of comming to him for wee come by their intercession mediately vnto him when wee beg of them to pray to him for vs no lesse then Protestants children come mediatly vnto him by the intercession of their parents when they desire them to pray to God to blesse them and as the Centurian who by one Euangelist is sayd to haue gone to our Sauiour and yet by an other he only went to some of his friends to speake to our Sauiour for him which was to come mediately or by their meanes to him especially seeing that when wee pray to any Saint or Angell wee desire that all theyr praires for vs may be heard through the merits of Christ. The text of S. Luke mistaken When you pray say our Father which art in heauen THis text if it were only cited to proue that wee ought to pray to God in this forme is not against vs but against those Nouellists who disallow of it If to proue that wee are to pray in no other words nor forme suaue this It concludes as much against Protestants who vse other formes as against vs if to proue that wee are only to pray to God the father it contradicts the former of comming to God the Sone and if to pray to God only and not to Saints or Angells it proues as well that one Christian liuing may not pray to another So that Protestants must confesse it proues either too much or nothing In a word all that can be drawne from it is that it teaches an excellent forme of praying to God as appeares by the Apostles demand Lord teach vs to pray and the scope of our Sauiours doctrine against the hypocrisy of the Iewes Matth. 6. v. 7. The text of S. Iohn mistaken VVhatsoeuer yee shall aske the Father in my name he will giue it you THis is the constant and vniuersall doctrine and practise of the Church of Rome for whether wee pray to any Person of the Blessed Trinity or to any Saint or Angell or to Father or Mother or any Christian yet liuing wee beg all Per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum c. through our Lord Iesus Christ or in his name knowing that nothing is to be demanded or granted in heauen or in earth but for his sake which I repeate often because it imports much An other text of S. Luke mistaken Aske and yee shall haue seeke and yee shall finde knocke and it shall bee opened vnto you THis text hath not so much as any shew of proofe against vs for wee dayly aske and seeke and knocke with full hope of what is here promised The third Protestant Position Christ our Sauiour only mediatour our Aduocate and intercessour how dare wee admit of any other This is proued by Scipture mistaken For there is one God and one mediatour betwixt God and man the man Christ Iesus The first Proof mistaken The word mediatour misapplyed against vs. THis text speakes of a mediatour of Redemtion only as appeares by the words following v. 6. One mediatour c. who gaue himselfe a ransome for all which all Romain Catholikes grant to be but only one to wit our Sauiour If any man sin we haue an Aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours but also for the sins of the whole world It is Christ that dyed yea rather that is risen againe who is euen at the right hand of God who also maketh intercession for vs. The second Proof mistaken The wâ—rd Aduocate misvnderstood and misapplyed IN this whole text is not found that Christ only makes intercession for vs or that he only is our aduocate which is to be proued all that is sayd here is that wee haue an Aduocate with the Father Christ Iesus c and who also waketh intercession for vs
falls to his own maister The Council of Trent in the same session IN has autem sanctas ac salutares obseruationes si qui abusus irrepserint eas prorsus aboleri sancta Synodus vehementer cupit ita vt nullae falsi dogmatis Imagines Rudibus periculofi erroris occasionom praebentes statuantur But if any abuses haue erept into these holy and prefitable obseruations the holy Council vehemently desires that they be wholy abolished or taken away soe that there be not exposed any Images teaching false doctrine and giuing occasion of dangerous errour to the common people And then the Council addes these wrds Quod si aliquando historia◠narrationes sacrae Scripturae cùm id indoctae plebi expediet exprimi sigurari contigerit doceatur populus non propterea diuinitatem figurari vel quasi corporeis oculis conspici vel coloribus aut figuris exprimi possit But if some times it happen that the histories or passages of holy Scripture be expressed and figured out in pictures when that shall be expedient for the vnlearned let the people be taught that thereby the diuinity is not painted eyther as if it could be seene by corporeall eyes or expressed by coulours or figures And presently after Omnis porro superstitio in Sanctorum inuocatione reliquiarum veneratione Imaginum sacro vsu tollatur omnis turpis quaestus eliminetur omnis denique lasciuia vitetur Moreouer let all superstition in the inuocation of Saints the veneration of reliques and the holy vse of Images be taken a way let all base lucre be banished and let all immodestie be auoyded And least any Protestant should conceiue that the second Council of Nice cited here by the Council of Trent deliuers any doctrine contrarie to what is here deliuered I thought fit to adioyne the words of that Council The second Council of Nice Actione 3. NOn materiae vel coloribus cultum offerentes sed per haec inuisibilibus visibus ad principalem adducti honorem illi debitum impendentes Scientes secundùm Basilium Magnum quòd Imaginis honor ad principalem transeat Not presenting worship to the matter or coulours but through these being brought to the person represented by them wee giue due honour to him Knowing according to Basil the Great that the honour of the Image passes to him who is represented by it Hauing deliuered the doctrine of the Romain Church in this point of Images let vs now see what her Aduersaries produce against it out of Scripture mistaken The first Protestant Position It is not lawfull to represent God the Father in any likenesse whatsoeuer of any Image This is proued by Scripture mistaken The first Proof THey changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to a corruptible man and to birds and to foure footed beasts and to creeping things The second Proof TAke yee therefore good heed vnto yeur selues for yee saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spoke to you in Horeb out of the middest of the fier Least you corrupt your selues and make you a grauen image the similitude of any figure the likenesse of male or female These proofs mistaken· THese texts are missappleyed against the doctrine of the Romain Church wee grant most willingly all that is sayd here neither do wee euer represent God the Father by any image at all immediatly or directly that is to signify that he is of a figure or shape like that image but cheefly as wee haue now shewed in the Council of Trent wee represent by our Images the figures wherin he appeared to the ancient Prophets historically And I beheld till the thrones were cast down and the ancient of dayes did sit whose garmēts were white as snow the hayre of his head like to pure well This figure here described by the Prophet Daniel we represent neither is it forbidden in any of the places alleadged or any other of holy Scripture to represent the figures wherin Allmighty God hath pleased to represent himselfe for where is it forbidden to represent by way of history this vision of Daniel as he describes it or the vision of other Prophets and of S. Iohn in the Apocalyps more then any other historyes of Scripture Let any such place be produced neyther by such representations do Romain Catholikes more beleeue that God the Father is an old man then did Daniel the Prophet beleeue he was one when he saw this vision For the Roman Church both stedfastly beleeues her selfe and strictly commands all her Prelats Pastours and teachers to instruct all her children that God is a pure spirit in himselfe and hath no body or figure at all and that such like pictures are not to represent God immediately but the figures wherin he appeared And this euen the little children are taught in their catechismes and if some chance to be ignorant of it it is not the Churches fault but the fault of her particular Pastours who are negligent in instructing their flockes as also ignorant people may easily fall to thinke as well amongst Protestants as Catholikes that God the Father hath a right hand consequently a body because they haue mention of his right hand in their creed and the like is in many places of Scripture read ordinarily by common people in England where God is sayd to haue feet hands head face mouth eyes eares and particularly in this vision of Daniell and others of S. Iohn in the Reuelations if these words be not by negligence of Pastours or Ministers well explicated and yet notwithstanding as these words he sits at the right hand of God the Father Allmighty and the like are not to be blotted out of the creed or Scripture but to be well explicated so also those pictures though some through their Pastours negligence may fall into errour by them are not to be taken away but explicated and expounded according to the grounds of the Christian faith and the doctrinc of the Catholicke Chruch Yet if any one would vrge that some attributes of God may be signifyed by some pictures which are vsed in the Catholicke Church I answer that thence followes not that we intend to picture the Diuinity or nature of God or to signify that it is a visible corporall thing like to that picture but only to make a hieroglyphicall expression of certaine attributes as wee doe when we represent vertues or vices in certaine shapes of men or weomē the better to expresse the nature of them not to signify that they are corporall or like to those persons Thus the white haire mentioned by Daniell signifycs the neuer begining nor ending eternity of God the crown scepter and world his absolute dominion ouer all things the light about him his infinite glory and so of the rest Only here I thought fit to note that according to the Council of Trent aboue cited The Church of Rome hath not commanded nor ordayned
that the Pictures which thus represent the apparitions of God the Father or God the holy Ghost should be had and reteyned espeacially in churchs for there the Council mentions only the Images of our Sauiour and of Saints but she only tolerates or permits that such other pictures may be made when it is found expedient and that only historically The second Protestant Position Noe Image whatsoeuer ought to be worshipped This is proued by Scripture mistaken The first Proofe YEe shall make you no Idolls nor grauen Image◠neither reare yee vp a standing image neither shall yee set vp an Image of stone in your Land to bowe downe to it for I am the Lord your God The first mistake Noe word in this text neeessarily signifies Image in the originall which is heere translated Image HEre is named Image three tymes in so few words and yet neither the 70. Interpretes in greeke nor the vulgar translation in Latine haue so much as once this word Image in the whole verse neither is there any word in the Hebrew text which necessarily signifyes Image in this place as is cleare out of Pagninus his translation word for word So that this appeares alsoe to be a mistake like the former Coloss. 2. to deceiue the ignorant reader by making him abhorre holy Images seeing them so clearly and often forbidden in his English Bible I deny therefore that Images are forbidden in this place or the reuerence due to them and it belongs to Protestants to proue it neither will it be inough if they proue that some one of these words may be taken to signify an Image for they must shew that it must needs signify an Image in this very place if they will conuince any thing against the worship of holy Images out of it for it may signify also that which is no Image and till they proue that it necessarily here signifyes an Image they effect nothing especially seeing that though any of these words in the Hebrew mighr signify an Image in some secondary sinification yet here they doe not both because the 70. Interpreters and the ancient vulgar translation and Pagninus and almost all saue the new Protestant translations put it otherwise and because the first word Elilim in Hebrew signifyes an Idol or false God as it is here translated by Protestants and cōsequently all the words following must be taken for Idolls to agree with it the difference betwixt an Idol and an Image I will giue you presently The Second Proofe THou shall not make to thy selfe any grauen Image nor the likenesse of any thing that is in heauen aboue or in the earth heneath or in the water vnder the earth thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them The Second mistake The Hebrew and Greek words here put Grauen Image are mistranslated HEre againe is the word grauen Image put in to the English text contrary both to the Hebrew and Greeke text the Hebrew word here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pesel which the 70. Interpreters in this place translate in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Idol or false God and the Latine sculptile which in the eeclesiasticall signification is always through the whole Scripture taken for an Idol or representation of a false God when it is forbidden as also the Hebrew word pesel which is neuer taken in a good sense for any Image truly representing anything existent as it is really in it selfe as carued or grauen curiosityes Now the difference betwixt an Image and an Idol is this an Image is a representation of a true thing which either is or is possible to be in that very maner wherin he who makes or vses the Image intends to represent it as the paintings or caruings of trees of flowers of beasts of men or women which we ordinarily vse in our houses Thus the word Image is taken Gen. 1.26 and 27. Gen. 5. v. 36. Deut. 4. v. 16. 2. Cor. 4. v. 4. Coloss. 1. v. 15. and in many other places and in Hebrew it is called tsalem in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ikon But an Idol is a representation of what neither is nor can possibly be as he who makes or vsees it intends to represent it and therfore is called Abacuc 2. v. 18. a false phantasie in the 70. Interpreters and according to the Hebrew a thing which tells a lye that is represēts that to be which neither is not can be And Isay 44. v. 10. an Idol is called vanity or profitable for nothing And S. Paul 1. Cor. 8.4 we know that an Idol is nothing in the world because it represents that to be God which neither is nor possibly can be God because there is but one only true God and therefore in Hebrew Idols are called Elilim that is vanity or falsity and in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an empty and Idle fiction of the brayne Hence it comes to passe that the very same materiall representation may in diuers respects be an Image and an Idol an Image in regard of that which is truly represented by it an Idol in reference to that which it represents falsly and lyingly Thus the picture of the Sun is an Image therof so far as it represents the face beames and figure of the visibile sun and puts vs in remembrance of it But the very same materiall picture will be an Idol in as much as it is made to represent the sun as a God and a soueraine diuine power as the heathens represent it in their Idols And hence by different persons the same materiall picture or statue may be esteemed and respected as an Image or as an Idol for a true Christian seeing the Image of the Sun will regard only the true representation of the true sun̄e in it but the Heathen will esteeme it as conteyning or representing some diuinity or deity and so to him it will be an Idol That which here I exemplify in the Sunnes picture is to be extended to all other representations of men or other creatures for if any one in an historicall way would represent some reall passage in the life of Mars Iuno Iupiter Saturne Venus c. as they were men or weomen once here liuing vppon earth and go no further those very pictures will be Images only that is true representations of that which once was but if one intend to draw their pictures or carue their statues with designe to represent them as Gods and Goddesses it will be in that regard no Image but a pure Idol falsly representing that to be God which neither was nor can he God And the very same different respect is in force in those very pictures which Protestants allow of for if one should haue the pictures of Queene Elizabeth or King Iames merely to represent them as they indeed were the one true King the other true Queen of England the would be Images only but if a Heathen should make a God of each of them
as they vsed to doe of their ancient Kings and Queenes and intend to acknowledge them by that picture as such those very pictures would become Idols falsly representing what neither was is nor can be And the same rule is to be verifyed in the Catholike pictures of Saints for if they be only represented as holy persons as Martyrs as Virgins as glorious in heauen with their and our God then their pictures are only true Images as truly representing the Saints as they are But if any one through ignorance or malice should attribute any diuine power or any thing proper to God to them or account them Gods or Goddesses to such the pictures of Saints would be no Images but Idols This therefore supposed as necessary to distinguish betweene an Image and an Idol I answer to the text of Exodus cited in the obiection that both according to the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pesel and the greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idolum and the ancient Latin sculptile that which is here forbidden is an Idol and not an Image as the Protestants English Translation falsly hath it and consequently the other word following Temounach which in hebrew signifies an Idol also which represents any creature falsely as a God it being only a deelaration of the former word pesel and so signifying the very same thing which pesel signifyes that is an Idol which the cōiunction ve and in English not obscurely declares to such as are skilfull in the hebrew tongue which ioynes two words togeather in the same signification for greater explication and yet this is made wholy out of doubt Deut. 5. v. 8. as it stands in the hebrew Lo tegase lecha pesel col temounach c. where the very same words of Exodus 20. are repeated thou shalt not make to thy selfe an Idol all the likenesses in heauen where the sense is nothing but this thou shalt not make to thy selfe an Idol that is any likenesse or figure in heauen so that all the likenesses forbidden in the 20. of Exodus are the same which are forbidden here Deut. 5. that is such as are pesel Idolls or representations of false Gods And this is further confirmed out of Exod. 20. v. 33. where God himselfe explicates those former words in the same chapter v. 4. you shall not make to your selues Gods of siluer nor you shall nor make to your selues Gods of gould which are pesel and temounach Exod. 20. v. 4. and yet lastly that pesel put there in the Hebrew signifyes the same with el a God is most cleare out of Esay 44. v. 10. who hath formed a God or molten a grauen Image which is profitable for nothing in hebrew the word here is pesel and though the Protestant English translation haue it grauen Image falsely as I noted before yet certayne it is that euen according to your owne translation it here signifyes the same with a false God as is cleare out of the words and yet much clearer in the 17. verse and of the risidue of it he maketh a God euen his grauen Image saith your translation where the same peece of wood carued is called a God of the heathens and a grauen Image in hebrew lephislo his Idol or grauen representation of a false God and yet to shew vnanswearably that this word pesel euen by Reformes ought to be translated Idol or at least is capable of that signification let any Protestant read his more ancient translations and he shall find that which is called grauen Image in the later translations to be called Idol or his Idol v. 17. of the 44. of Isay in theyr more ancient which in Hebrew is Phesel Phiselo which in this 20. of Exodi v. 4. they alwayes translate grauen Image See the Bibles printed in King Edwards tyme and others of the most ancient Protestant Prints comimg of the word pesel so often cited Hauing therefore demonstraded that in the two places cited in the obiection Exod. 20 v 4 and Leuiticus the 26. v. 1. no other picture representation or likenesse of any creature is forbidden but only such as are intended to represent them by way of Idolatry as Gods and deityes which they neither are nor can be and not as creatures Saints Angells c. which they truly are The secōd poynt propounded in the obiection about the worship of pictures or Images of our Sauiour or Saints c. will easily be determined for it must be a worship which is forbidden in the forenamed places proportionate or correspondent to the thing which those Idols represent which is a God and that can be nothing else but a diuine worship or an homage giuen to a diuine power and this is so cleare that none who vnderstand it can doubt of it Yet because I intend as much as may be to confirme euery thing I say by cleare texts of holy Scripture we must first note that the foolish Idolatry of the Heathens condemned in holy Scripture almost throughout is that they did adore worship and pray to that very materiall grauen or paynted thing which they had before theyr eyes as a God This is so euident out the 44. of Esay v. 17. iust now cited that it puts the matter out of question euen as it stands in your owne Bible And the residue therof he maketh a God euen a grauen Image he falleth downe vnto it and worshippeth it and prayeth vnto it and saith deliuer me for thou art my God So also is this matter clearly set downe in the booke of wisdome chapters 13. and 14. in many verses at large which though Protestants receiue not as Canonicall Scripture yet they put it in their Bibles and therefore esteeme it not to be a lying fable especially agreeing so well in this matter with other parts of Canonicall Scripture So also Ieremy 2. v. 28. and 16. v. 20. Dan. 3. v. 12.14.18 and the 5. v. 4 23· Oseas 8. v. 6. Psal. 133. v. 4. and many other places which I omit for breuitys sake where it appeares clearly that the Heathens and Idolaters esteemed that visible picture befote them to be a God and to haue power to heare their prayers and to helpe them and so they bowed vnto it worshipped it with diuine honour prayed to it and put their hope in it This supposed as certaine it will presently be thought most reasonable to vnderstand that worship of pictures or resemblances of things to be forbidden Leuit. 26. v. 1. and Exod. 20. v. 4. which is generally explicated in so many other passages of holy Scripture for by clearer places the more obscure are to be explicated and expounded euen according to Protestants Seeing therefore the word bowing downe and worshipping in the Protestants translation is set downe in the two sayd places generally and without clearly expressing what kind of worship is meant we must gather the further explication of it out of other places of holy Scripture where it is more distinctly and clearly deliuered
and indeed though the text in the 20. of Exod. be obscure and generall in Protestants translations in these words thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them yet in hebrew and the 70. in greeke there is light enough giuen to direct vs in the true vnderstanding of them namely that it is a diuine worship alone which is forbidden for the hebrew words ve lo tagauethenâ— signify and you shall not serue them which word shewes an homage or seruice done to those Idols as to things capable of such offices done vnto them and endued with knowledge vnderstanding power and diuinity for no man is strictly and properly sayd to serue that which is wholy voyd of knowledge to exact or accept of that seruice and hence appeares that if the ProtestaÌ„ts had followed closely the first and ordinary signification of this word in the originall as they professe to do and translated it thus thou shalt not bow down to them nor serue them the word serue would haue giuen occasion of vnderstanding a right the word bow down that is such a bowing down as is vsed to those whom wee serue who are only in the proper ordinary vnderstanding of seruice such as we esteeme to be endued with knowledge understanding and power able to receiue our seruice and assist vs in our petitions And to demonstrate that this translation of yours is not without partiality and dubble dealing of putting worship for serue the word worship being put in of purpose to bring the ignorant people from the reuerence of holy Images as they are reuerenced amongst Romain Catholikes you must know that in a hundred other places of Scripture where Moyses Caleb Iosua Dauid and othets are called seruants of God in your translation not worshippers the hebrew hath the very same word gauedy my seruant which is vsed here in the 20. of Exodus end yet further the fraud appeares more clearly Hier. 13. v. 10. the 16. v. 11. and 22. v. 9. where the two very same words put in hebrew which are in Exod. 20. now cited and applyed to false Gods are alwayes translated adore and serue because it serued not their purpose to translate it otherwise only in Exod. 20. and the like to breed a hatred of the worship of holy Images in the common peoples minds it must be translated fall down and worship and yet more clearly by their owne translation they conuince themselues of partiality for in the Psalme 96. aliter the 97. v. 7. they haue these words confounded be all those who serue grauen Images who boost themselues of Idols where in the Hebrew the same words are which are Exod. 20. gauthe ' peselâ— where also may be gathered that that which they please falsly to translate grauen Image is the very same with a heathen Idol as being ioyned with it as the same thing in signification And to vrge an other place this partiality is clearly conuinced out of the first text cited by the person who writ it Matth. 4. v. 10. It is written thou shalt worship the Lord by God and him only shalt thou serue where the 6. of Deut. v. 13. from which that of S. Matthew is taken hath the very same hebrew word gauedth which is here translated worship in the 20. of Exodus and there serue But to put all out of question and to bring an vndeniable discouery of their fraud and falhood in the translating of this hebrew word gauedh worship not serue it is to be noted that in their more ancient translations of these words Exod. 20. v. 4. they translated it thou shalt not bow down vnto them nor worship them as appeares by the text here cited in the obiection and by the Bibles themselues but in their later impressions and translations of the yeare 1638. and somwhat before and since they haue corrected this errour and put it thou shalt not bouw down vnto them nor serue them both in Eod. and Leuiticus yet because they had taught all the common people to say it after the ancient erroneous maÌ„ner it is still in the cateâ—hisme set down in the common prayre booke thou shalt not bow down vnto them nor worship them least if they should haue changed it there the people might haue discouered that they had beene taught their commandements amisse and that in the ancient editions of the common prayer the commandements were otherwise then in the latter but the correction in the Bible might more easily be admitted because few of the common people read the commandements as they stand there But that at one view may be seene the manifold tricks and diuises frauds and deceits vsed in the sophisticating and falsifying of this text in their translations I will briefly set them all down together First therefore contrary to both hebrew and greeke and Latin and all antiquity they translate pesel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sculptile grauen Image Secondly they ad the word any thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image which is not in the hebrew but thus thou shalt not make to thy selue an Idol or if the Protestant translation of pesel were true it should haue beene a grauen Image not any grauen Image And this they seeme to adde therby to make the ignorant beleeue that all sorts of Images whatsoeuer euen of our Sauiour and of his Saints are here forbidden by this generall clause thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image Thirdly to make the text yet more to sound against vs in the eares of the vulgar they make it say nor the likenesse of any thing that is in heauen aboue c. when it should be according to the hebrew col tegumach asher nor any likenesse which is in heauen or verbatim thus or all and euery likenesse which is in heauen not of any thing which is in heauen these words any thing being added vnto the hebrew text therby to perswade the vnlearned that the likenesse of all things in heauen and consequently of our Sauiour the Angells and Saints are here prohibited wher as the direct meaning of the text is to forbidde these likenesses to be made which appeare visibly in the materiall heauen to the corporeall eys as the sunne moone slarrs c. as is cleare Deut. 4. v. 19. which agrees well with the hebrew text any likenesse which is in heauen for at that time when this commandement was giuen there was nothing in the imperiall heauen which had any visible figure or could be immediatly expressed by any visible picture as a true Image of it for there was nothing then in heauen but God and his holy Angels But the English translation the likenesse of any thing which is in heauen is subiect to giue occasion to the simple reader who being taught that our Sauiour with his Saints are in heauen and that they are forbidden in this commandement to make the likenesse of any thing which is in heauen to thinke that they are clearly forbidden to make
the likenesses or Images of our Sauiour the Saints and thus the common people of our nation ordinarily vnderstand it and their ministers and teachers nuzzle them vp in this errour Fourthly yet further to extend the words of this commandement to all sorts of holy likenesses and similitudes though in the little catechisme contayned in their common prayer-booke they put the commandement thus nor the likenesse of any thing mhich is in heauen aboue c. which was lesse intolerable yet in their Translations from the yeare 1638. they adde another any to the text thus nor any likenesse of any thing that they may be sure to include all And though in their later Translations they put the word any any Image any thing in a different letter to signify to the more learned that it is not in the originall yet in theyr little Catechisme they are still put in the very same letter with the rest as if they were no lesse in the originall then the other words which may be noted for an other fraud and I finde these words of Exodus thus translated in a booke called the confession of faith reprinted at London for the Compaignie of Stationers 1652. all the words being in the same leter pag. 167. Thou shalt not make vnto thee any grauen Image nor any likenesse of any thing Lastly for serue they haue put worship as I haue now declared So that in these few words thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image nor any likenesse of any thing c. thou shalt not bow down vnto them nor worship them are six mistakes corruptions or additions to the text And though some of these in themselues may be iudged to be of no great moment and might passe amongst such as with a sincere meaning should admit some of them in their translation yet in our new Reformists who labour all they can to presse this text to common people aboue all others against vs and about the meaning wherof wee are in great Controuersy and who professe reiecting all other Translations to stand closely and strictly to the hebrew text they are wholy inexcusable Now if any illitterate Protestant much deuoted to his ministers and teachers and confident of their sincerity in Translating God's word should not be brought by what I haue yet sayd to beleeue that they would put Image in the place of Idol and adde other words to the text which are not in the originall thereby deceiuing the people for a cleare and vndeniable proofe of their partiality and deceit in this particular let him examin the 11. chapter to the Romans v. 4. and the first of the Kings c. 19. v. 18. and his own eyes will tell him that they haue added the word Image to the text for he shall find in the Translations of the yeare 1648. and about that tyme these words Rom. 11. v. 4. who haue not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal where these three words the Image of are added to the text being neither in the greeke Latin nor hehrew for it should be who haue not bowed the knee to Baal Not as they haue it to the Image of Baal the word Image being added of putpose as it seemes to create a hatred in the harts of the common people against the vse of holy Images seeing them so expresly forbidden in their Bibles euen in the new Testament Now that it may vnanswerably appeare that this word Image is added to the text looke into this very text cited by S. Paul out of the first of the Kings c. 19. v. 18. in their own Bible and you shall find it thus all the knees which haue not bowed vnto Baal without these words the Image of Baal And that they may vndoubtedly know that these words are added to the text in those later Translations let them peruse this place in the more ancient Translations of King Edwards or Queene Elizabeths tyme and they mill find this text to the Rom. c. 11. v. 4. without this addition thus which haue not bowed the knee to Baal as indeed it should be And though in the latter Translations those words the Image be put a different print or letter which may signify to such as are learned that they are not in the originall yet this may reasonably be called into question because the word of which hath a necessary relation to the two fotmer words the Image is put in the same print or letter with Baal and the rest of the text which is in the originall thus which haue not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal and for what belonges to the vnlearned who are most in danger to be seduced by such shifts as these they are commonly ignorant of the reason why some words are in different or lesse letters and all they find in the text they take to be equally Scripture and the word of God as I haue had experience of about a hundred togeather who all esteemed the words the Image to be no lesse Scripture then the rest of that text yea I found one who very eagerly and strongly vrged this text against Images telling me and glorying in it that Images were condemned expresly in the new Testament by these words of S. Paul Neither can it stand with the rules of true and sincere Translatours to adde when they please and when it makes for theyr aduantage and indangers the deceiuing of the vnlearned in matters of Religion as here it doth by adding certaine words which are neither found in the hebrew greeke nor Latin as these are not though it be in a different letter In the Bibles printed 1648. at London by Robert Barker I find the said words in the same letter with the rest thus which haue not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal by which the vnlearned Readers cannot iudge but that these words the Image of are as much the word of God as the rest seeing them all in the same print and leter with the other words of the text especially when they marke that in a hundred other places the words which are not in the originall are printed in a different leter from the others in that very Bible which makes it probable in a high degree if not certaine that the maner of printing in this text is a mere corrupt dealing of our aduersaries and a wilfull adding to the word of God to incense the ignorant against Images M. Fulck in his English translation and commentaries vppon the new Testament Printed at London by the deputies of Christopher Barker 1589. exuses this addition by alleadging that in the greeke text here in S. Paul Rom. 11.4 the article is of the feminine gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore must agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 image beeing also of the feminine gender which word though it be not expressed in the greeke yet saith Fulck it is to be vnderstood and soe might lawfully be expressed in the English translation But that this
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
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
such like and in this respect we giue them no more honour nor worship then the Protestants vse to doe to Churches in England by keeping their hats of kneeling c. for as they doe that to such places rather then to theyr own houses because they are the houses of God so doe we reuerence holy Images because they are holy things putting vs in remembrance of God and heauenly things Neither doe we this without warrant of holy Scripture for Iosue 5. v. 15. an Exod. 3. v. 9. Iosue and Moyses are commanded to put of their shoes because the earth was holy wheron they stood which was nothing but a reuerence vnto that earth made holy by the presence of God or an Angell and if a piece of ground must haue beene reâ—erenced because it was holy why not all other things which are consecrated or referred to the worship and reuerence of God The second respect which we haue in worshipping holy Images is particular to them as they are Images and representations of other things and in this respect all the acts of externall reuerence or worship which we exhibite to them is not directed to them as the ende or reason of our worship but it is only to passe by meanes of them to that which is represented by them where it wholy and only rests as in a thing intended to be worshipped by it Thus when wee doe any reuerence to an Image of the Virgin Mary respecting it merly as her Image the reuerence or worship passes by meanes of that to the B. Virgin and there only rests and terminates it selfe and it is impossible to honour an Image as an Image otherwise for being in its proper nature nothing else but a representation of such or such a person or thing all which is done to it is intended by it to that which it represents neither is it possible at least in this life to giue any honour to God or his Saints otherwise then by meanes of one Image or other eyther corporall of spirituall for it is impossible to honour or worship any thing vnlesse we thinke vppon that which we worship and it is impossible to thinke of any thing vnlesse there be framed in our heads or vnderstandings a representation of that thing which we thinke of now nothing can be represented without some representation as is cleare and euery representation is an Image and likenesse of that thing which is represents So that we always honour whomsoeuer we honour through that Image of our thought which we frame of them and all our acts of honour of worship passe through that interiour imagination or thought which we haue framed to the obiect or thing which is represented by it Now for the better help of our imagination or internall thought we vse some externall thing as an obiect of our senses to excite vs to such thoughts and keepe vs more liuely and fixedly in them thus words and discourses wherin the things which we intend to worship are described or signifyed help vs to a more strong and attentiue thought of them and are the Images of the eare through which as through representations of what we worship we giue honour to that which they represent to vs thus pictures and images paynted or carued help the eye to frame a more full and ferme imagination or thought of that we worship now we haue warrant enough in holy Scripture to giue honour or adoration to such things as helpe vs to thinke of God and haue a reuerence giuen them to that end Thus in the 98. Psalme alias the 99. v. 5. Adorate scabellum pedum eius worship or adore his footstoole which was nothing but the Arke of the Testament as all agree and notwithstanding here is a command to worship it Your English translation to auoyd the force of these words translates it in this manner worship at his footstoole as though indeed no worship at all were commanded to be giuen to it but only that God were to be worshipped at it But this is another manifest fraud for the hebrew word and greeke is the very same here with that of the 20. of Eodus lo tishtachaue lachem and here ve hishtacauou la hathom ragluau and in Exod. 20. because they will exaggerate the command against holy Images it must be thou shalt not bow down vnto them and here Psalm 98. v. 5. because they feare that the people might gather from hence that creatures and Images such as were the two Cherubins in the tabernacle putting vs in mynd of the true God were to be worshipped it must be with them worship at his footstoole Thus they change and chop the words of holy Scripture to serue their own turnes at their pleasure so far that euen two Psalmes before Psalm 97. v. 7. they translate the same word and phrase in hebrew worship him all yee Gods and here it must not be worship his footstoole but worship at bis footstoole nay in hundreds of other places of Scripture where the same word and manner of speech is in the Hebrew either attributed to God or men or Idols or false Gods they translate worship or worship not the things forbidden or commanded only here forsooth because it makes quite against them if it be truly translated they will needs haue it worship at his footstoole but both the hebrew and greeke and the Septuaginta and the ancient vulgar Translation haue it plaine enough bow down vnto his footstoole or worship his footstoole whence I gather that it is warranted in holy Scripture to giue reuerence and worship as I before explicated to such things as put vs in mynd of Allmighty God and consequently to holy Images And as this is cleare in Scripture so is the practise thereof no lesse cleare euen amongst Protestants for what more common amongst the more moderate of them then to make a profound adoration at the name of Iesus which is nothing but a representation or Image of our Sauiour to the eare which practice seeing it is grounded according to them in those words Phil. 2.10 In the name of Iesus euery knee shall bow and those words extend themselues as much to that sacred name seen by the eye as heard by the eare brings in a necessity of granting a religious worship to that most diuine name when we see it eyther printed in a booke or carued in a stone c. what worship soeuer therefore a well minded Protestant should iudge to be giuen to that name thus ingrauen with out all superstition or Idolatry or breach of this commandement let him giue the same to any Image of our Sauiour and in the same maner or at least iudge that the like may lawfully be giuen to it and noe more in this point will be required of him to be esteemed conformable to the doctrine and practice of the Romane church what more generally practised before these troubles then to kneele in receiuing the coÌ„munion which is only a resemblance or
reape life euerlasting So that life euerlasting is a proper fruit of a spirituall and godly life and so such a life is the true cause of saluation Reuel 3. v. 4. Speaking of the elect saith They shall vvalke vvâ—ith me in vvhyte garments because they are worthy Therefore the true seruants of God haue something in this world which makes them worthy of eternall life and that is theyr innocent and vnspotted liues as the Euangelist declares in the next precedent words but thou hast some in Sardis who haue not defiled their garment R. 3. v. 8. Behold I haue giuen thee a dore open which noman can shut because thou hast some smal vertue and hast kept my word and hast not denyed my name where the vertuous life and good works of that person are affirmed to be the cause why eternall happinesse was to be bestowed vppon him Hebr. 6.9 for God is not vnrighteous to forget your worke and labour of loue which yee haue shewed towards his name in that yee haue ministred to the Saints and doe minister and v. 12. That yee be not flothfull but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promisses where it is said both that it belongs to the iustice of God to remember our good workes and that not only by faith but by patience allso and the same is of all other vertues wee inherit the promises as Abraham did v. 13.14 Reuel 3. v. 10. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience I will preserue the from the hower of temptation which is to come through the whole world to tempt the inhabitants vppon earth where the desert of good workes is most clearly deliuered The Protestant argument against merit of Good workes The blessed saints were euer ready to acknowledge theyr vnworthynesse with humility Mistake This tutches not the merit of good workes THey are humble and euer will be and must be according to our doctrine both because they are neuer fully certain that they haue any one worke that is truly pleasing to God and if they were fully certain they must attribute all the glory to him seeing it is only his grace which workes all good in them And all theyr merits are his gifts as S. Augustin says and rewarded through the free acceptation of them for the merits of Christ according to the Concill of Trent sess 25. c. 16. But if by this title be vnderstood that noe iust man hath any workes truly good and pleasing to God through the working of Gods grace in them as the mistaken proofes seeme to insinuate it will be a false humility because it stands vppon a false ground and soe no humility of Saints This Protestant argument is proued by Scripture mistaken The first proofe O Lord righteousnesse belongs vnto thee and vnto vs confusion of face saith Daniel The first mistake The Persons here mentioned vvere not Saints These words were spoken by great sinners Therefore Daniel ascribes confusion of face to the Izraelites of his tyme because from the highest to the lowest they and theyr Predecessours had greeuously sinned against the law of God As appeares through the whole prayer of Daniel in that chapter and he puts his own sinnes to the rest v. 20. as hauing transgressed with the rest But how proues this that neyther he nor any other Saint had done any good workes The second proofe And Dauid If thou Lord shouldest be extreame to marke vvhat is done amisse O Lord vvho may abide it The second mistake This text proues that all Saints haue some sinnes but not that they haue no merits How proues this that noe Saint can haue any good wotkes or merits for they doe many things a misse yet through the grace of Christ they may doe some things aright The third proofe Speake not thou in thy hart saing for my righteousnesse the Lord hath brought me in to possesse the Land but for the wickednesse of this nation the Lord doth driue them out from before thee was the counsell of Moyses to the Israelites The third mistake This tutches sinners but not Saints The reason of this counsel was because the Israelites had greeuously offended god in the wildernesse as appeares v. 7.8.9 c. where Moyses reekons vp the haynous Idolatrie and other great sinnes which they committed THE FIFT CONTROVERSIE Of Purgatory The Romane Doctrine declared in the Council of Trent Sess. 6. Can. 30. SI quis post acceptam iustificationis gratiam cuilibet peecatori poenitenti ita culpam remitti reatum aeternae poenae deleri dixerit vt nullus remaneat rearus poenae temporalis exolueudae vel in hoc saeculo vel in futuro in Purgatorio antequam ad Regna caelorum aditus patere possit anathema sit If any one shall say that after the grace of iustification is receiued the falt and guilt of eternall punishment is soe remitted to euery penitent person that there remaines noe guilt or liablenesse to some temporall punishment to be payed eyther in this world or in the world to come in Purgatory before the enterance into the Kingdome of heauen can be opened to them let him be accursed Conc. Trid. sess 25. Decreto de Purgatorio Praecipit sancta Synodus vt sanam de Purgatorio doctrinam à sanctis Patribus sacris Coneiliis traditam à Christi fidelibus credi teneri doceri vbique praedicari diligenter studeant Apud rudem verò plebem difficiliores ac subtiliores quaestiones quaeque ad aedificationem non faciunt ex quibus plerumque nulla fit pietatis accessio à popularibus concionibus secludantur Incerta item vel quae specie falsi laborant euulgari ac tractari non permittant Ea verò quae ad curiositatem quandam aut superstitionem spectant vel turpe lucrum sapiunt tanquam scandala fidelium offendicula prohibeant The holy Synode commands the Bishops that they take diligent care that the sound doctrine of Purgatory deliuered by the holy Fathers and the sacred Councils be beleeued held taught and preached by the faithfull of Christ. But that amongst the common sort of people all difficult and subtile questions which make not for edification by which commonly there is noe accesse to piety be secluded from popular sermons But those things which tend to curiosity or which tast of base lucre as being scandalls and offenses of the faithfull they are to prohibite In these two places we see 1. That none but iust persones suffer in Purgatory 2. That those paines are only the remainder of such temporall paines dew after the remission of sinne and eternall punishment which they deserued in this life 3. That the Church of Rome forbids all temporall gaines to be made of the doctrine of Purgatory where by it appeares how injurious the aspersion of some of our Aduersaries is to the Church of Rome in accusing her to haue inuented Purgatory not to gaine soules but mony 4. All difficult questions
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
that is to say put bread into the hands of his disciples before they tooke it into their hands which is impossible or that he bad them take what they had already taken which were absurd because S. Matthew relates the institution so that he mentioneth first gaue and then take Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake and gaue to his disciples and sayd take eate this is my Body If indeed the Scripture had affirmed that our Sauiour gaue to his disciples after he had sayd This is my Body the argument had been of force but sâ—eing it sayes not so but only mentioneth first gaue and after the words of consecration as it mentioneth gaue before it mentions take and that common sense tells vs they must be done at the same tyme there is nothing against the reall presence by this rather mistake them argument Obiection 3. S. Paul obserues that after he brake and gaue he sayd This is my Body which is broken for you Answer S. Paul's words according to the Protestant translation are these tooke bread and when he had giuen thankes he brake it and sayd Take eate This is my Body where there is no expresse mention of giuing to his disciples at all and therefore what the obiection here affirmes that S. Paul obserues that after he brake and gaue he sayd This is my Body is very farre from truth Againe though S. Paul sayd This is my Body yet he sayes not that after he brake he sayd This is my Body as the obiection affirmes Neither sayd S. Paul when he had broken he sayd Take and eate as he sayes when he had giueÌ„ thankes This is my Body for that would haue some shew of proofe that he pronounced the words after he had broken but only affirmes he brake and sayd This is my Body which words may as properly signify that he brake and spake these words morally at the same tyme as that he first beake and then pronounced them As when it is sayd in S. Matthew In those dayes came Iohn Baptist preaching in the desert and saying Repent c. where though saying be put after preaching in the text yet no man is so senselesse as to thinke that he preached before he sayd somthing or that he preached before he sayd what the Euangelist affirme him to haue sayd as the subiect of his preaching Repent c. So also in Iob different tymes Almighty God Iob and his friends are affirmed in the English Bibles then Iob answered and sayd c. Then the Lord answered and sayd c. where though answered be put before sayd yet no child will imagine they answered before they spake or spake before they sayd what the text affirmes them to haue sayd Whence it is most euident that words which are set one after another signify not alwayes nor euer certainly meerely because they are set one before another that the actions done and signifyed by them follow one another iust as these words do And so meerely thence can be drawn no forcible argument in this particular And yet if we should grant for other reasons and circumstances that our Sauiour brake the bread before he pronounced the words of consecration whilst it was yet but bread what would this helpe our aduersaryes or hurt vs for then it would follow that bread was broken whilst it remained in its own substance but giuen to the disciples after it was changed into the Body of Christ or morally speaking whilst our Sauiour was giuing it vnto them Obiection Here wee see plainly both by theyr own rules and our Sauiours actions that it was bread which he brake and gaue and not the species of bread which was broken and giuen that is to say the bredth coulour and tast of bread but noe bread This word broken must needs haue relation to that bread broken before he sayd This is my Body because he did not break it againe after he said it was his Body Answer If we vnderstand by broken mentioned by S. Paul when he sayd He brake and sayd Take eate this is my Body that he brake the bread changed into his Body by consecration or in a morall vnderstanding whilst he changed and consecrated it by these words This is my Body it might happily containe no great absurdity to grant that this second word is broken may haue relation to the former he brake for in both of them according to this opinion his Body was mysteriously and sacramentally broken for vs. But if we vnderstand by brake as the Obiection supposes vppon a false ground as I hauc already demonstrated the breaking of naturall bread before he sayd This is my Body then it is wholy false and iniurious to our Sauiour and the worke of our Redemption to vnderstand that these words whith is broken for you haue relation to brake which was mentioned before For that were to say that a meere piece of bread before it was made either a Sacrament or his Body or so much as a signe of his Body was hroken for vs which neither Catholike nor Protestant nor Christian doth or can affirme without blasphemy for before these words This is my Body were pronounced all agree that the bread was neither made his Body nor any SacrameÌ„tall signe of it Neither can it possibly stand with the other Euangelists that broken here should be only a breaking of common and naturall bread before it was made a Sacrament by these words This is my Body for it is certaine that S. Paul here vnderstands by broken for you the same which S. Luke signifyes by this is my Body which is giuen for you especially seeing that by breaking giuing thinges belonging to eating whether temporall or spirituall the same thing is signifyed in many places of Scripture according to the Hebrew phrase Now to say that a piece of naturall bread vnconsecrated was giuen for vs is an intolerable blasphemy And yet this is clearer in the other species of the chalice for S. Marke relates it thus This is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many and S. Matthew VVhich shall be shed for many for the remission of sinnes Which no hart truly Christian can imagine to haue any relation to pure and common wine before consecration To that which the Obiection adds that therefore broken for you must haue relation to that bread broken before he sayd This is my Body because he did not breake it againe after he had sayd these words I answer first that it can neuer be prooued from the words of S. Paul that the first breaking here mentioned by S. Paul was not presently speaking in a morall sense after these words were pronounced for though it be mentioned before yet it followes no more thence that it was not presently after then when S. Marke sayes speaking of the chalice and they dranke all of it before he mention the consecration of the chalice that the disciples dranke not after the consecration of
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
which followes after that he tooke bread or doe this in remembrance of me so they will forget c. Answer How farre this is from truth cleerely appeares by what our approued authours write in this point who most exactely exanime all precedents and consequences belonging to these words which also I haue hetherto indeauored to doe in this treatis Obiection So they will forget that this cup which our Sauiour said was his blood was after consecration called by him the new Testament for that it was a holy signe of the new Testament Answer The obiecter would make vs to be of a very short memory should we forget these words which vsually we pronounce euery day in saying Masse we therefore remember very well that our Sauiour sayd according to S. Luke and S. Paul This cup is the new Testament in my blood but we remember not that either S. Luke or S. Paul or any other writer of holy Scripture euer alleadged this reason here mentioned in the obiection that this sacred cup was called by our Sauiour the new Testament in his blood for that it was a holy signe of the new Testament and I would gladly haue any Protestant helpe the weakenesse of our memory by producing any clere text of Scripture where this reason is giuen and if there be noe such to be found as vndoubtedly there is not then they must giue vs leaue to esteeme this explication according to their own principles groundlesse and noe way belonging to Christian faith but a mere glosse framed from their naturall discours or rather a pure mistake grown from their ignoranee of the true meaning of the word new Testament here according to the Scriptures acception of that word which that it may appeare We must not by new Testament here vnderstand as many ignorant readers of Scriptures may and doe happily misconceaue the bookes of the Gospel commonly called the new Testament for none of those were then written neither is there any one of vnderstanding who will thinke that the cup which our Sauiour had in his hand was a signe of the bookes of the new Testament much lesse that by new Testament in our Sauiours blood should be vnderstood a signe of the said bookes Secondly we must conceaue that the very same thing may be a signe in respect of one thing and an essentiall and substantiall part in regard of another thus words and sentences are signes of the inward thoughts and affections of the speaker but part of his outward discours and in this manner the words new Testament were a signe of our Sauiours internall will and intention but withall were a necessary part of the compleat Testament of the new law then inacted by our Sauiour and so beare the name of the whol Testament as we shall presently see I answer therefore to the obiection and deny that by new Testament is vnderstood a signe of the new Testament but truly really though partially the new Testament it selfe solemnised by our Sauiour in his last supper not long before his death and that in his own most precious blood there properly receaued and diuided amongst his Apostles whereby he certified and obliged himselfe to be the authour head protectour defendour of his law and all those who should truly professe it by giuing what he held in his hands to the Apostles and they testified and obliged themselues and all Christians representatiuely to teach professe and continue in that law by receauing and diuiding of it amongst them Now to make cleare what I haue sayd wee must also know in generall what a Testament is In latin it is called testamentum of wose etymologie Iustinianus Instit. de testamentis ordinandis sayes Testamentum ex eo appellatur quòd testatio mentis sit it is called a testament because it is the testification of our mynde or will so that a true testament includes two thinges a reall minde and intention to doe what we testify and an outward testification of what we intend or oblige our selues to doe so that neyther this outward testimony without the inward will nor the inward will without the outward testifying of it can be compleatly termed a testament not the inward will alone because that cannot be vnderstood amongst men vnlesse it be externally testifyed not the outward testimony alone because it must haue something reall which it testifyes but the outward testification as corresponding to the inward will and exhibiting it to others is a testament now all kindes of externall significations of our wills ot intentions are not sufficient but such as signify by way of a compleate confirmation that the will of him who makes this testament is such as it is signifyed there to be and hence it is that so many witnesses subscriptions seales and other solemnityes are not mere signes buts parts of the testament as the pronuntiation of the wordes in a sermon though it be a signe of the minde of a preacher yet it is essentially required as a part of the sermon Now this outward part of the testament or last compliment or confirmation of it was accustomed to be exhibited in bloud as witnesses Liuie speaking of a solemne league or testament made betwixt the Romans and the Albans and no lesse Moyses in Exodus speaking of the testament or pact made betwixt Allmighty God and the Israëlites vnto which our Sauiour may we haue alluded in the institution of the chalice vsing according to the first two Euangelists the very same phrase or maner of speech This is the bioud of the testament which our Lord hath made with you c. This is my bloud of the new Testawent c. the word testament is in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berith and in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diatheke and though the Hebrew word signify a pact league or solemne promise mutually obligatory betwixt two parties and the Greeke word a testament or last will of a person before his death and confirmed by it as S. Paul sayes Hebr. 9. yet because that last will is the most solemne and strong of all other pacts or leagues the Greeke word diatheke often signifyes a pact or promise mutuall in Scripture And the Septuaginta translate the Hebrew Berith by the Greeke diatheke as S. Hierome notes Zachar 9.11 and Psal. 82.1 Mach. 1. and often the English Protestant translations for berith put testament thus they call the arke of Moyses the arke of the testament Berith in Hebrew Seeing therefore in the 24. of Exodus the bloud is there sprinkled first vppon the aultar which supplyed the place of God and then amongst all the people wherby as Interpretours and ancient authours obserue was signifyed that the bloud of that party who first broke this pact or testament should be shed and dispersed as that was and that our Sauiour in S. Matthew and S. Marke commāded his bloud to be deuided amongst his disciples drinke yee all of this ir is so farre from
bloud of the Lord which giues enough to vnderstand what kind of bread and cup he meant here for they cannot be properly sayd to be guilty of the body and bloud of Christ who receiue vnworthily an externall signe or remembranee of it though otherwise they may highly offend him as a subiect cannot be rightly said to be guilty of the body and bloud of his King who receiues not his seale or signet with that reuerence which becomes a subiect te shew to his Prince but in the opinion of Catholikes it is litterally and propetly true being a most high affront and iniury done to the very body and bloud of Christ there present and yet this is more clearly insinuated in the 29 verse for he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himselfe not discerning the Lord's body where the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a determinate iudging one thing from another which is cleare in Catholique doctrine but not easy to be vnderstood in the Protestant for how can one be sayd properly to discerne that which he acknowledges not to be present in that thing which he receiues Vnworthily and though happily in some improper and far fetcht sense this might be sayd yet according to the true rule of interpreting holy Scripture we must vnderstand the wordes of it in a proper sense when nothing compells to the contrary as the Opponent acknowledges Obiection And which is more attributing to this bread things which cannot agree to the Body of Christ to wit to be broken Answer I haue before answered to this and shewed that the word broken is familiarly taken for giuen by way of diuision or distribution amongst many which is vsed by other Euangelists so that giuen and hroken here may signisy the same thing But if by broken be vnderstood a breaking in peeces of that which was whol before who can deny that such a breaking agrees with the Body of our Sauiour absolutely speaking was not his sacred flesh all torne and broken with the nayles thornes and scourges as the Prophet foretolde ipse attritus est propter scelera a nostra he was broken for our wickednesses and though naturall bread be properly sayd to be broken yet it cannot be affirmed by any Christian to be broken for vs as the Apostle here sayd it was that is for our saluation as onother Euangelist affirmes of the chalice And therefote Christians must beleeue and confesse quite contrary to the Opponent here that S. Paul is attributing here to this bread that which cannot agtee with naturall bread but only with the true Body of Christ to wit to be broken for vs as that only was mystically in this Sacrament by may of an vnbloudy sacrice and visibly vppon the Crosse. Obiection And Christ himselfe called the cup. after consecration the fruit of the vine both in S. Matthew and S. Marke Answer But in S. Luke he calls the cup as much the fruit of the vine before consecration Therefore if you vrge S. Matthew and S. Mark 's authotity for the one giue vs leaue to vrge S. Luke's authority for the other and know that you haue concluded nothing vnlesse you proue that we are rather to stand to the narration of S. Matthew and S. Marke then of S. Luke which here you haue not done Certaine it is that there can be no contradiction nor opposition amongst the Euangelists therefore seeing S. Luke relates these words I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine c. before the institution of the Sacrament and the two former Euāgelists after and yet none of them expressly affirme that our Sauiour sayd these words after or before the Sactament was instituted though one put them before and the other after we must gather by the context and other circumstances whether indeed they were spoken by our Sauiour before or after the consecration of the chalice That this may be vnderstood Nothing is more otdinary with the Euangelists as all Interpreters note then to set things down by transposition or anticipation somtymes putting things iust in that order they happened somtymes transposing them into a former or latter place This supposed it is more probable that S. Marke sets down those words out of their proper place then S. Luke for we haue a cleare testimony that S. Marke in this very institution of the chalice puts those words by way of anticipation and they drunke all of it out of their ptoper place the chalice hauing not then been consecrated nor any of the Apostles hauing then tasted of it therefore it is more likely of the two that S. Marke vses here a trāsposition then S. Luke who reckons all othet things in their proper places and orders as they happened and if there be a transposition admitted in S. Marke it must be also one in S. Matthew But though it were that our Sauiour sayd these words after consecration and that by this fruit of the vine he meant reall and materiall wine which I will presently discusse yet the argument proues nothing at all against vs. for our Sauiour hauing drunke in his last supper true and reall wine with his disciples before the institution of this holy Sacrament may very easily be vnderstood to haue referred words to that first dtinking in tyme of his last supper and so in relation to that say I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine c. as if some person hauing first drunke wine after some other drinke at a banquet may vsually say I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine till I drinke it in my own house referring those wordes only to that which he dranke first neyther can I see how Protestants according to theyr principle of beleeuing nothing but what is in Scripture can deny this explication for seeing our Sauiour sais expresly here I will drinke noe more of the fruit of the vine c. and that we haue noe place of Scripture which eyther affirmes or insinuates that our Sauiour then drank of the consecrated chalice he must necessarily referre his drinking the fruit of the vine to some other wine which he had drunk before the conscration Vnderstanding the two first Euangelists in this manner we clearly reconcile them with S. Luke for he must probably be vnderstood of that which our Sauiour dranke before the Sacrament was instituted as according to this interpretation the others also must vnderstand it but it will be much harder to reconcile them if those words be referred to the consecrated chalice for that hauing not been yet instituted according to S. Luke's setting down our Sauiour's words they cannot possibly be referred to them for our Sauiour according to the Protestant opinion would presently haue drunke wine in the Sacrament and so must haue falsifyed his own words as soone as he had spoken them promising then not to drinke any wine till his father's kingdome were come and yet presently after drinking it
them Secondly I answer that the objection proceeds vppon a false supposition for the rod of Moyses is not called a rod when it was turned into a serpent because the serpent had been a rod before nor Adam dust because he was before dust for though it be true to say that that which was become a man or a serpent was dust or a rod by reason of the subiect which remaines common to them both called in philosophie materia prima yet it is not true in any formall philosophicall sense to say Adam was dust the serpent was a rod for Adam neuer was nor neuer could haue been any thing else then what his essence made him viz a man and a reasonable creature nor a serpent any thing then what the being of a serpent requiers to wit to be a serpent when therefore in holy Scripture Adam is called dust and the serpent the rod of Moyses it is not because Adam was once dust and the serpent a rod for how can that be proued out of any place of Scripture but because Adam was made of dust and the serpent of the rod of Moyses which is cleerely testified in Scripture so that the supposition and fundation of the obâ—ectioÌ„ failing that which is built vppon it viz that the body of our Sauiour is called bread after consecration by S. Paul because it was bread before must needs fall to the ground For we say not that the body of Christ was euer bread but because that which was bread is now become the body of Christ bread casing to be vnder those accidents by vertu of Christs body coming in the place of it so that though this sacred body cannot be said to be made of bread ' as a house is made of wood and stones which remaine in their own substances to compose it nor as fire is made of wood where the matter common to them both remaines yet if there be vnderstood only that the body of Christ succeds to the substance of bread vnder the same accidents and so issues from it as the day issues from the night as from the terme from which it beginnes to be as one may say ex necte fit dies of the night is made the day so may one say ex pane fit corpus Christi of bread is made Christs body as it is mysteriously in this Sacrament and might be therefore called bread after consecration as the wine in Cana in Galilee is called water because it was made of water and the serpent called the rod of Moyses because it was made of the rod of Moyses or which is the same in other termes because that which became wine was water and that which became a serpent was the rod of Moyses which if it be resolued into philosophicall termes is nothig but this that the substantiall matter which was vnited to the substantiall formes of a serpent and wine was immediately before vnited to the substantiall formes of the rod of Moyses and of water which happens in other changes of one thing into an other Thirdly it is not the ordinary way of speach to say that all things which are made by substantiall changes were such things as were changed into them thus though fire be made of wood or wood be changed into fire yet it is an ordinary manner of saying to affirme this fire was wood neither say we these flowers were earth though they were made of earth changed into them In like manner when our own flesh is produced of the different meates we eate we vse not to say our flesh was beefe or mutton or hearbes or btead or drinke c. and yet it is made of all these when they are changed into our substance and hence is true the same proposition of our Sauiour in time of his nourishment for his meate was as truly changed into his flesh as our meate is into our flesh and consequently the bread which he did eate was changed by nourishment into his flesh and so it is true euen out of holy Scripture which speakes of his eating and drincking and increasing and by consequence of his nourishment that the flesh of Christ at least in some part was made of bread and yet it is not the ordinary manner of speech to say that those parts of the flesh of Chrtst were bread not withstanding it would be neither impious nor false to say that some parts of Christs flesh were once bread supposing it were true that the serpent had been a rod and Adam dust as the Opponent here affirmes to wit those into which bread was changed by naturall nourishment if then it might be truly affirmed of some parts of Christs flesh that they were bread in this sense for-named why should it be not only false but impious to affirme that the flesh of Christ as it is in the SacrameÌ„t for we affirme it noe otherwise was bread there being noe more difficulty in the one then in the other fourthly this change being made in a way wholy supernaturall where noe part of the substance of bread remaines to wit neither forme nor matter as we speake in the schooles which happens not in any naturall nor in many supernaturall changes where the matter and substance still remaynes now receiuing one forme now an other by reason whereof the thing that succeeds may be sayd as the opponent contends to haue been the thing that was changed into it by reason I say that noe such common subiect remaines here but the whol substance of bread is changed into the substance of Christs body it will not be so proper a manner of speech to say that the flesh of Christ was bread as the like would be in other naturall and ordinary changes if that manner of speech were allowable Fiftly the objection mistakes the compleat reason of Catholikes why S. Paul calls thc Sacrament bread after the consecration for it is not only because the bread is changed into the flesh of Christ for this might haue been done so inuisibily that neither the body of Christ nor the species of bread should haue appeared and then we should haue had nothing common to them both to haue continued the denomination of bread but the entire reason giuen by Catholike Doctors is that the bread is changed into the flesh of Christ which is put vnder the outward shewes or species of bread which giue occasion or ground of giuing it the same denomination it had before Thus we call the dead carkase of a lamme a lamme and the dead body of a man a man by reason of these outward organs and proportions which remaine the same they were before though the thing be quite changed from what it was Vnto that which is added that we haue noe where in Scripture that bread is conuerted into the flesh of our Sauiour as we haue that the rod of Moyses was conuerted into a serpent I Answer that it is not necessary to haue all things in Scripture in the like clearnesse and
stand to his former couuenant of shewing his grace and mercy vnto Abraham and his children So that that which the objcctiō saies that the word couuenant is here taken for the signe of the couuenant if it meanes thereby that it signifies not a true couuenant in it felfe which was a signe of a former couuenant is farre ftom the truth And though this solution be cleare and cannot be questioned yet if one would stand meerely in the words cited one might easely answer that the obligation of circumcision put here vppon Abraham and his children was a true couuenant but the actuall performance and execution that is circumcision in it selfe performed vppon the Israëlites was a signe of this obligatory couuenant and so it is said ver 10. hoc est pactum meum c. circumcidetur this is my couuenant c. euery mal child shall be circumcised that it may be a signe of the couuenant between me and you that is that the actuall circumcision may be a signe of this couuenant So that neither is here the obligation to be circumcised called a signe of the couuenant nor circumcision called the couuenant as the opponent affirmes not out of Scripture but from the Protestant glosse or addition to it And these answers which I haue giuen are clearly confirmed by S. Paul Rom. 4. v. 11. where speaking of Abraham he said he tooke the signe of circumcision the seale of the iustice of faith c. that he might be the father of all beleeuers where not the obligation appointed by Allmighty God to be circumcised but circumcision it selfe is called the signe and chiefly the signe or seale of his being the father of all beleeuers which was the first couuenant here made with him Objection So the lambe of the Passouet was called the Passeouer because it did figure the passing ouer of the Angell Answer The Scripture in this place calls not expresfely the Lambe the Passeour Ye shall gird your loines and put shooes on your feet holding staues in your handes and ye shall eate hastily for it is the Passeouer of our Lord. the hebrew hath it the Passeouer to our Lord. which whether it be meant of the lambe it selfe or of the whole compliment of the ceremonies required or of thc lambe as eaten in that manner or order imports little because it makes nothing at all against vs. for we must obserue that the word pascha hath a double sense sometimes it is taken properly and primarily for the reall passing of the Angell from one house to another through Egypt at other times and that commonly improperly or figuratiuely for the solemnity or feast ordained on that day when he passed and so yearely vppon the same in insuing ages Thus we take ordinarily the words Natiuity Resurrection Ascension of our Lord either for his reall birth rising from the dead or his ascending into heauen or for the solemnities of Christmas Easter or Ascension and to come to our purpose we take the word Corpus Christi the body of Christ either for his reall and true body or for the feast in honour of his body called amongst vs Corpus Christi so that vppon that day one might say Hic dies est corpus Christi this day is Corpus Christi Now the same was amongst the Iewes and instituted by Allmighty God in this place so that by the word Pesach or Passeouer was vnderstood not the reall passing ouer of the Angell but the feast or Passeouer in honour of it and so it is not called in hebrew as I haue noted the passing ouer of out Lord but to our Lord that is in his honour for the great benefit represented in the feast of the Pascha Now if the Scripture had said This is that very Passeouer wherein our Lord killed so many thousand Egyptians and saued so many of our forefathers as here is This is my Body which is braken for you This is my blood which shall be shed for many for the remission of sinnes whereby the words body and blood are determined to his reall body and blood for noe figure or type of them was brooken or shed for our finnes it might haue had some shew of parity for then must the paschall lambe needs haue been called the reall passage of the angell and not the festiuityes nominated by the same word Thus vppon Corpus Christi day one may say This day is the body of our Lord vnderstanding by Corpus Christi the solemnity so called as it is ordinarily vnderstood it might well passe hut if one should say vppon that day Hic dies est Corpus Christi quod pro nobis datum est this day is the body of Christ whieh so many hunderd yearcs a goe was giuen for our saluation all the world would condemne him noe lesse of foolery then of falshood and impiety Though therefore the thing it selfe and the picture memoriall and solemnity of it may be called by the same name in a large or generall acception thus the picture of Caesar is called Caesar the solemnity of Corpus Christi is called Corpus Christi yet when there be certaine other particles and words adioyned which tye it to a signification of the thing it selfe and distinguish it from the picture or memoriall of it then the figure or memoriall can neuer be vnderstood by that word accompanied with such adiuncts neither can the pourtraict or solemnity be euer ioyned with that word explicated with those said restrictiue particules Thus though seeing the picture of the present King of Spaine I can say this is King Phillip the fourth for that word signifies as wel King Phillip painted as really existing yet I cannot say with truth if the word is be taken in its proper and substantiall signification which for the present is supposed I this is that King Phillip who liues now in Spaine and whom this picture represents neither can I say seeing the King himselue this is King Philip which stands in such a chamber painted in the low countryes for that is not the reall but painted King seeing therefore in the words of the institution that which our Sauiour gaue his Apostles is not only called his body which happily alone were indisserent to fignifie his body painted or reall substantiall or figuratiue naturall or mysticall but addes this restrictiue which is giuen for you which particle can agree only with his reall body the opponent will proue nothing at all against Roman Catholikes vnlesse there be produced out of Scripture some text where the word signifiing the thing it selfe be applyed to the signe or figure with the same restrictiue and limiting particles as proper to that thing it selfe as here the word my Body is affirmed of the word this and declared to be that body which was giuen for vs so that the words my Body which is broken or giuen for you can neuer be taken for any signe or figure of his true body for then a mere signe of his body should
can be truly and really the one affirmed of the other thus This which I am to giue you is really and substantially my body which is giuen for you according to the rules of all good interpreters it must be vnderstood so as the opponent also acknowledged before if therefore the opponent or any other Protestant will proue any thing against vs in this particular there must be produced some text of Scripture where a proposition all things considered can be verifyed in a reall and proper sense as I haue proued this proposition This is my Body which is giuen for you can be and yet is to be vnderstood figuratiuly and improperly for so long as they produce ptopositions which cannot possibly be vnderstood in a reall and proper sense as this is which they haue cited seauen eares are seauen yeares and the like there is a manifest disparity because the former can very connaturally be vnderstood in a proper sense and these not and the fundamentall and vnanswerable reason is because the words of Scripture as also of all other authours must be vnderstood properly when soeuer they can be vnderstood so or when nothing compels vs to the contrary Obiection Euen before the fall of Adam there were two trees the one whereof was called the tree of life because it was a signe and memoriall to Adam that so long as he obeyed God he should inioye life the other of knowledge of good and euil because it was a signe and memoriall vnto him that if he obeyed God he should know by experience the difference betweene good and euill Answer These are only glosses and additions to Scripture contrary to what was before promised where read you in the Bible that those two trees were so called because they were signes the one of life the other of knowledge of good and euill if there be any such place why was it not cited in the margent if noe such what can it be but glossing and adding to Scripture not only without but against Scripture in the very places cited if we stand to the expresse words for if the tree of life had been so called only because it was a signe or memoriall to Adam that so long as he obeyed God he should enioye life as the objection affirmes why then did God Allmighty prouide euen after his disobedience that he should not eate of the tree of life by putting a cherub in the way least by eating he should liue for euer Thus farre I haue answered the objections and laid open the mistakes which are extant in the paper some others there are which are commonly objected and mainely stood vppon by our aduersaries in this most weighty point of the reall presence least therefore some might stik vppon them as not being yet solued I will propound distinctly some of the cheef of them obseruing the methode which I held before of objection and answer Obiection What soeuer may be answered to any figure or signe in these wordes my body which is giuen for you as being so cleare and determinately signifying the reall body of Christ yet why can there not be a figure in the word is which may be as much as signifies so that those words of our Sauiour This is my Body may haue this sense this signifies my Body Answer I haue in effect already satisfyed this difficulty or at least giuen sufficient grounds to satisfye it for the word is is neuer to be drawn from its ordinary and proper signification when it can with all conueniency retaine it as I haue iust now demonstrated it may here beside that which is more cleere and known cannot prudently be signifyed by that which is more obscure and remote from our knowledge now the body of Christ visibly present before the eyes of the Apostles was more cleerely known to them then the significant figure of the bread and so could not be signifyed without absurditie by the bread in time of the first institution of this Sacrament as if I show my naked hand to any one it were absurd to hold vp my gloue to signifie that my hand is there Further had the bread then barely signifyed the body of Christ as presently after to suffer it would haue been a bare type and figure of his passion as was the Paschall Lamb and so a shaddow of things to come proper to the old law and consequently would not haue been a Sacrament of the law of grace as certainly according to all it was Objection When the Iews thought that our Sauiour would giue them his true flesh to eate he corrected theyr errour and tould them it is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words which I speake vnto you are spirit and life therefore our Sauiour giues vs not his reall flesh to eate Answer Sayes our Sauiour here my flesh profiteth nothing where find you that noe replies the protestant but he sayes that the flesh profiteth nothing and seeing he had spoken much before of his own flesh what can he be thoughâ— to meane by the flesh but his own and can any Christian thinke that he meant his own vnlesse he denie that he is redeemed by the torments and death of Christ or esteeme his redemption noe profit or dare a Christian entertaine so base an opinion of Christs most sacred and diuine flesh as to thinke that it is in opposition to the Spirit of God as the flesh here mentioned is affirmed to be by our Sauiour it is the spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing or where through the whole Bible shall they finde flesh contradistinct from spirit as here they are wherby is not meant our corrupt nature our fleshly immaginations our low and naturall discourses ignorance malice c. and must it only here signify the flesh of Christ is not this Scripture mistaken it is therefore of the Iews carnall and grosse vnderstanding whereof he speakes which was wholy opposite to the true spirit light and life of God which made them immagine that our Sauiour would cut out peeces of flesh from his body and giue it them to eate or permit himselfe to be visibly cut and quartered as meat is at the shambles and so rosted and eaten by them as S. Augustine obserues in this place which naturall and carnall discours our Sauiour affirmes to profit nothing and not his own most pure and heauenly flesh vnderstood aright only by true faith which he calls here the Spirit or spirituall light it will be said that we affirming that our Sauiours flesh is truly eaten by vs though not in so grosse a maner are no lesse condemned by our Sauiour for our carnall vnderstanding of this mistery then were the Capernaites I answer that there is as much difference betwixt vs in this particular as there was betwixt S. Iofeph and Herod about our Sauiours natiuity for though both of them vnderstood that he had true flesh and was borne of a woeman yet Herod imagined that he
and formes of bread in the Sacrament how shall wormes be generated from the hoast corrupted or putrifyed seeing they must consist of matter and forme and so be produced of some materiall substance Answer If there were nothing but humaine nature in Christ as man without humaine personality how could it performe the actions of a person seeing all other actions of men proceed from theyr persons and not from theyr natures as the compleate principle of them You will say the diuine personality supplyed the place of humaine personality in Christ and I say that diuine power supplies the place of nature in this Sacrament in producing a matter after the species of bread be corrupted and the body of our Sauiout ceases to be vnder them Obiection But how can an accident performe the office of a substance Answer But how can the personality of one persone performe the office of the personality of an other Obiection God vnited the diuine personality to humane nature and so it subsists by it as supplying the want of its own Answer God vnites a matter produced at the exigency of nature to thé accidents which were of bread which in the production of wormes from a putrifyed hoast supplyes the want of theyr own These to my best remembrance are the cheefe difficulties which according to the principles of naturall reason our Aduersaries commonly presse against vs in this mistery in answer wherof I haue playnly shewed that they themselues must answer as great or greater difficultyes which may be opposed by heathens and Infidells against other articles of our faith which they beleeue let them therefore eyther desist to moue any such heathnish objections as these against the reall presence or acknowledge that whilst they presse these against it they giue iust occasion to an Infidell to presse the like against themselues which when they haue solued in other mysteries they will haue solu'd theyr own against this Before I end this controuersie I will summe vp briefly what I haue said at large in this treatis that the Reader may haue a full sight of it at one Vew first I haue according to my former methode cited the doctrine of the Concil of Trent whence clearly appeares that it conteynes nothing grosse and Capernaiticall as Protestants commonly are made beleeue but a most heauenly pure mysticall liuing and ineffable presence Secondly I haue cited the words of the Euangelists and S. Paul touching the Institution which are not only most clere in themselues as I haue proued but are iudged soe to be both by Martin Luther in his first Tome printed at Iena an 1589. Concione 3. de Confessione Sacramento Eucharistiae parte 2. pag. 329. where after he had cited the words of the Euangelists he saith thus Haec sunt verba quae neque ipsi neque etiam Sathan negare poterit in quae figendus pes est vt firmiter in iis consistamus Sunt autem nuda planissima quae nullis interpretationibus eludi possunt Quòd panis sit Christi corpus pro nobis traditum calix Christi sanguis pro nobis effusus iubemur illa facere in commemoratione ipsius These are words which neyther they he meanes Romane Catholicques nor Sathan can denie vppon which wee are to fix our foote that we may stand immouuable in them For they are naked and most plaine which cannot be shifted of by any Interpretations That bread is the body of Christ which is giuen for vs and the cup the blood of Christ which is shed for vs and that we are commanded to doe them in remembrance of him Thus Luther which though he here affirmes to proue his errours of Consubstantiation and Communion in both kindes against vs yet withall he clearely confesses that the words are most plaine for the reall presence of Christs true body and blood in this holy Sacrament which he allwayes held These texts also are so vndeniably clere for the reall Presence that Zuinglius the first authour of the Sacramentaries changed the word in all the Euangelists and S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke est in Latin in these words This is my Body this is my blood into significat thus this signisies my body this signifies my blood and so printed them in his Bible dedicated to Francis King of France and printed at Tiguris anno 1525. as witnesses Conradus Sclussenburgh a learned Protestant in Theologiâ Caluinistarum Ie. 2. ar 3. fol. 43. And Zuinglius himselfe approuues of this his translation to 2. de verâ falsâ religione c. 5. fol. 210. And Beza Translating those words of S. Luke qui pro vobis effunditur which is powred out for you puts them thus in greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc poculum quod pro vobis effunditur this chalice which is powred out for you and in his Latin translation he puts them thus hoc poculum c. in sanguine meo qui pro vobis effunditur which blood is powred out for you referring the word this to blood and not to chalice quite contrary to the Greeke construction which not withstanding he confesses to haue found in all the ancient Greeke copies which he had read and hauing noe other shift to auoyd the force of these words as they stand in all these Greeke copies acknowledging that they make quite against him he is put to that desperate insolensie as to say that these words which chalice is powred out for you haue crept out of the margent into the text by negligēce of writers and soe are not the word of God soe Bezaes translation Greeke and Latin printed by Henry Steenen anno 1565. Thirdly I haue discouered clerely the sundry grosse mistakes of Scripture in the words it take eate this doe this in remembrance c. Fourtly I haue shewed the mistakes in the parities brought of I am a dore a vine a way c. Fiftly I haue layd open the mistakes in the instances of other Sacraments and figuratiue speeches alleadged by the opponent in the old Testament and many such like misapplications The maine things where in I stand are that the words of S. Luke are soe clere that Beza hath noe way to auoyd the force of them then by saing that they crept out of the Margent into the text though he confesses to haue found them as he cites them in all the Greeke Copies which he had seene And secondly that seeing these words This is my Body which is giuen for you may most easily and connaturally be vnderstood in a most proper sense without violating any other article of our faith or plaine place of holy Scripture that they must be soe vnderstood onlesse wee will take away all force from Scripture to proue any thing and destroy the fundamētall rule not only of Interpretation of Scripture but of all humaine conuersation which is that euery one is so be vnderstood to speake properly when nothing constraynes to the
as will presently appeare Hauing therefore as I hope cleared this point of the reall presence in the iust balance of an open and impartiall eye it will not be very difficult to euen an other as a sequell from this concerning communion vnder one kind which though it be not thought vppon in these objections yet this fit occasion the great difficulties which our aduersaries raise against it the earnest desire which many not otherwise ill disposed haue to be satisfied in it and the request of others who haue seene some part of this treatis haue put me vppon necessitie to say something but very succinctly of this matter holding my selfe close to Scripture according to my former methode This point therefore supposes the reall presence and is rather to be treated against Lutherans or such other Protestants as are conuinced of that mysterie then against Caluinists or Suinglians who disbeleeue it for were not our Sauiours body and blood really present there as the practise of receauing one only kind had neuer been allowed so could it not haue been defended This therefore supposed I will indeauour to defend communion vnder one kind and answer whatsoeuer is pressed by our aduersaries against it out of Scripture mistaken Objection First they vrge the institution of this Sacrament as hauing been vnder the formes both of bread and wine which institution is to be followed by all Christians and so both to be receaued Answer The bare institution of a Sacrament drawes with it noe necessitie of frequenting it as appeares in Priesthood and mariage instituted by our Sauiour which not withstanding impose noe necessitie or command to receaue them so that standing precisely in the institution noe man wil be obliged to receaue either both or either of rhem Objection Secondly though the bare institution of a Sacrament impose noe command to receaue it yet it imports a precept that when it is receaued or administted it be done in that manner it was instituted as it appeares in baptisme Priesthood and other Sacraments Seeing therefore our Sauiour instituted this Sacrament both in the consecration and communion in both kinds at least whensoeuer it is receaued it must be receaued vnder both Answer This objection inuolues many difficulties and is first to he vndeestood that Sacraments are to be receaued and administred as they were first instituted in such matters as belong to the substance and essence of the Sacrament not in other accidentary circumstances of time place personnes precedences consequences c. as was the institution of this Sacrament after supper sitting vppon the ground giuen to priests only in a priuate secular house c. Secondly there is something particular in this Sacrament which is in noe other euen concerning the substance of it for the very same entire substance being here put vnder each kind makes that woesoeuer receaues either of them receaues the whole substance of this Sacrament and consequently receaues a true Sacrament instituted by our Sauiour and so that which is able to sanctifie him who worthily receaues either of them Thirdly concerning the substance of this Sacrament all that can be gathered from the bare words of the institution is that it is to be consecrated and receiued by Priests such as were the Apostles who were Priests then made when it was first instituted vnder both kinds but here is noe president giuen about the lay people because none then receaued it That the whole substance of our Sauiour is here receaued I suppose for the present neither is it much questioned by such as grant the reall presence nor can be possibly doubted of by any who beleeues that our Saoiour dies not more and soe both flesh and blood and life and soule and diuinitie are all vnited togeather weresoeuer he is hence therefore followes that lay people receiue as much of our Sauiour seeing they receaue him wholy and interily as Priests doe That he who receaues our Sauiour thus vnder one only kind receaues a true Sacrament is as cleare as the former for who can without absurditie denye that vnder one kind is exhibited an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace which is the compleat definition of a Sacrament according to our aduersaries for here the formes of bread only containing vnder them our Sauiour by way of meat signifie that he confers a spirituall grace nourishing and feeding our soules to eternall life and thus much is signified by the English ministers when they distribute the bread to the people saying the Body of our Lord Iesus Christ preserue thy body and soul to eternall life c. and containing his body represented as separated from his blood and so as dead by force of the words of consecration are an outward visible commemoratiue signe of his sacred death and passion and seeing that both bread is composed of many graines and wine of many grapes vnited togeather the mystical vnity of Christians receauing this Sacrament is sufficiently signified hy the species of either of them if then here he an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace both exhibitiue commemoratiue and significatiue here must needs be a true Sacrament euen according to the pttnciples of our aduersaries and what I haue said of the forme of bread is by the same reason verified of the forme of wine but not only in their principlcs but in all good Theologie there must be a true Sacrament vnder each kind for certainly seeing that a different grace is conferred by each of them the one of spirituall meate the other of spirituall drinke which how it is to be vnderstood I will hereafter examine each will be sufficient to sanctifie and helpe the soul to eternall life If it should be replyed that in neither of these kinds alone is exhihited a compleate signe either of our spirituall refection or the death of our Sauiour but only a partiall or imparfect signe of them which notwithstanding are compleatly significd vnder both togeather I answer that if by a compleat signe be vnderstood a most full and expresse representation of these two particulars I grant that there is not vnder one only kind so full and expresse a representation and in this sense not so compleat a signe of them as vnder both togeather but then it must be prouued this most full and expresse representation vnder both being exhibited to lay Christians by the consecration and communion of the Priest in the dread full sacrifice of the masse that the substance of this sacrifice requirs that they should be allways so fully and expressely represented in each particular communion of the people but if by a compleat signe be vnderstood a signe sufficient to signifie both our spirituall food and vnion and the death of our Sauiour I denie that there is not a compleat signe of both exhibited vnder each kind This distinction may be much illustrated by an instance from baptisme certainly the mystery of the trinity was more expressely fully and compleatly signified by that
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
good workes 162.163.164 concerning good workes 52.53 Concerning Purgatory 179.180 Of the reall Presence 189.190 c. Concerning communion vnder one kinde 317.318 to 322. The second Council of Nice concerning Images 83. Communion in one kinde supposes the reall Presence 323. How the cup is the fruit of the vine 257.258 c. D. â—he DIuinity of God neuer pictured by Romane Catholiques 72.73 Doe this c. Signified nothing to be done in time of the Institution Doe this c. cannot be extended to lay men 347. to 350. Doulia is indifferently taken in Scripture for the worship of God and of creature 33.34.35 Drinke yee all signifies not all Christians 34. to 346. F. FAith only Iustifieth not prouued by Scripture 143.144 c. Faith ioynd with other vertues the disposition to the first iustification 138.139 153. The flesh Io. 6. cannot signifie the flesh of Christ. 303. G. Some GLory may be giuen to creatures but not that which is proper to God 26.27 I. IF all worship of Image weere forbidden one place of Scripture would be coÌ„trary to annother 110.111 Image put for Idol 105. a grauen Image signifies a false God in the Protestant Bibles 119. The name of Iesus is as much worshipped by Protestants as the picture of Iesus by Catholiques 28. VVhat an Idol properly is 8.81 VVhat in Image properly is 80.81 The difference betwixt an Image and an Idol 82.83 How Images are to be worshipped 124.125 Grauen Image scarce euer put in Protestant Bibles but in place of words which signifie Idoles or false Gods Image-worship for Idolatry 105.106 Image added to Scripture 95.96 98.101 c. The worship done to the Image redounds to the persone represented proued by Scripture 132.133 Iustification not acquired but increased by good workes 152. VVhat relation Images haue to God the Fader and the holy Gost. 75.76.77 K. In one KInde is a true Sacrament conferring grace 326. to 3 n0 How these words onlesse yee eate c. Io. 6. declare the necessity of receiuing both kindes 351. to 355. L. LAy people are depriued of noe grace necessary to saluation by wanting one kinde 328.329 334. How one kinde is a compleate refection 332.333 How the actuall sacrament all graces of both kindes are giueÌ„ by each apart 335. 340. Noe lay man is bound some limes in his life to receiue vnder the forme of wine eyther ioynly with the other kinde or separately 397.398 How the Lamb is called the Passouer 289. to 293. Latria is allwayes vsed in Scripture when it is brought for religious worship for the worship dew to God only 32.33.34 How eternall life is a gift of God 171.172 Luther thought the words of consecration most cleare 313. M. MEdiatour and Aduocate of 2. sortes 60.91.62.63 Merit of good workes takes not a way humility 175. P. The Hebrew word Phesel Exod. 20. falssly translaeed Image 84.85 Phesel translated Idol in some Protestant Bibles Isay 44. 85. Protestants pray as much to sinners on earth as Catholiques to Saincts in heauen 58.59 Protestants worship bread and wine as much as Romane Catholiques worship Images 129.130 Protestants themselues esteeme it not necessary to saluation to communicate vnder both kindes Diuisions amongst Protestants and not amongst Catholiques in matter of the vnderstâ—ding Christ words 243.244 Protestants beare little or noe reuerence to the bloud of Christ in this Sacrament 367. Protestants frame a most meane opinion of the Body and the blood of Christ. 365.366 Noe Scripture against Purgatory 182.183 c. Proofes out of Scripture for Purgatory 187. Six mistranstations in Ex. 20.4 in the Protestant Bibles 91.92.93.94 R. REligion and Religious taken in 2. senses in Scriptuâ—re 21.22.23.24.25 That which our Sauiour gaue his Apostles in his last supper could be noe remembrance of his Body 222.223 c. How any thing may be a remembrance of it selfe 227.228.229 How the Rock is called Christ. 295. to 296. S. SAcraments according to theyr essentiall parts are to be receiued as they were instituted whensoeuer they are receiued 325. The bare institution of a Sacrament induces to necessity no receiue it 3. Saincts and Angels prayree to God for vs are herad only trough the merits of Christ. 58. 62. The worship of liuingâ—Saints as much forbiddeÌ„ in Scripture as of Angels 35.36 VVhensoeuer by praires we come to the Saints we come mediately but truly to Christ. 56.57 Iintreating the Saints to pray for vs is not a necessary meanes but a profitable helpe to saluation 1.2.3 65. Saints indowed with supernaturall graces 16.17.18 Saturday commanded to be Kept holy Ex. 20.116.117 The vvords of Scripture are allways to be vnderstood properly vvhen noe other article of faith compells vs to the contrary 315.416 The Scriptures allowes of praying to Saints departed and Angels 66.67.68 Noe text in Scripture saies expressly that vve are iustified hy faith only 149. c. Scripture mistranflated 78.79.80.81 88.89 and from 95. to 127.128 Scripture eyther mistranflated or misinterpreted or missapplied or misused or augmented or altered or reiected and generally mistaken one vvay or other by Protestants per totum The seauenth day not Sunday but Saturday and the Iewish Sabbath 116. All Seruice is not dew to God only 29.30 T. VVhat is meant by new Testament 235.236 c. Testament in my blood is not to fay signe of my blood 239. Threskia signifies not vvorshipping but Religion 45.46.47 Perpetuall tradition teaches that some allwayes receiued vnder one kinde 370. Objections drawn from naturall reason against Transubstantiation breefly answeared 306.312 The torment of dearh or of triall of malefactors touches not souls of the iust 158. W. WHat the word this signifies in these vvords this is my Body 107.108 c. VVords haue two significations ancient and now in vse 30. ciuil and Ecclesiasticall 31.32 VVords of Scripture are not to be extended beyond theyr ordinary signification vvithout necessity 361. to 364. VVhen vvords spoaken to the Apostles are to be extended to others and how farre 334.344 The vvords of consecration vvholy true according to Catholiques 245.246 The vvord est is cannot be signifies 301. VVhich are workes of the law 149.150 c. and 156.157.158 c. All Good workes and vvords are the gifts of God 164. God workes vvhich are fruits faith are pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ according to English Protestants 167. The difference betwixt vvorship serue 123. To vvorship God is not to vvorship him only 6.7.8.9 vvorship of 3. kindes 9.10.11 Religious worship strictly taken dew to God only 11.12 Taken in a large sense may be giuen to creatures vvhich are indewed vvith supernaturall graces 12.13.14 n 15.16.17 c. Creatures commanded to be vvorshipped 108.106 S. Iohn is as much forbidde to vveepe by an Angel as to vvorship 36.37 The vvorship vvhich the Romane Church giues to Saints and Angels cannot be giuen to God vvithout blasphemy and sacrilege 25.26 Creatures may be vvorshipped vvith the vvorship of Doulia 19.20 The vvorship of