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
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
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
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
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
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
SCRIPTVRE MISTAKEN THE GROVND OF PROTESTANTS AND COMMON PLEA OF ALL NEW REFORMERS AGAINST THE ANCIENT CATHOLICKE RELIGION OF ENGLAND Many texts quite mistaken by Nouelists are layd open and redressed in this treatis by restoring them to theyr proper sense according to which it is made manifest that none of them are of force against the ancient Catholicke Religion By IOHN SPENSER of the Society of IESVS Videtis id vos agere vt oninis de medio Scripturarum auferatur auctoritas S. Aug. li. 32. contra Faust. c. 19. PRINTED AT ANTWERPE By IAMES MEVRSIVS ANNO M.DC.LV. The points of Controuersie conteyned in this Treatis I. Of vvorship of Saincts and Angles pag. 1. II. Of the making and vvorshipping of holy Images pag. 69. III. Of Iustification by faith only pag. 137. IV. Of the merit of good vvorkes pag. 161. V. Of Purgatory pag. 179. VI. Of the reall Presence pag. 189. VII Of Communion vnder one kinde pag. 317. THE PREFACE THose victories are deseruedly inroled amongst the most noble and memorable in the monumeÌ„ts of Antiquity wherein an Enemy is ouercâ—m me with his own weapen Thus Dauids beating down that Tower of the Philistines seemed to the Israelites to haue been a conquest ouer ten thowsand Enemies Saul percussit mille Dauid decem millia because he cut of Golias head with Golias sword Thus the sone of God our dearest Sauiour purchast the noblest of all victories against the strongest of all Enimies vt qui in ligno vincebat in ligno quoque vinceretur because he who ouercame vs by a tree was through him by a tree ouercome And thus our deare Redeemer hauing been furiously attacked by the Tempter in the desert with the authority of his own word put to flight and vanquished the same Tempter by the authority of the same word which he had pressed against him Hence it is that not the sling of Dauid werewith he begunne but the sword of Golias was reserued and wrapt vp in a holy Ephod in the Tabernacle as an eternall trophe and monument of his victory Hence that anciently most ignominious hatefull of creatures the crosse is now erected in triumphal maner not only vppon the highest towers of Christian temples but vppon the most sacred and soueraigne heads of Christian Emperours And hence it also is that the Catholicque Church hath soe carefully conserued soe religiously honored and gloriously triuÌ„phed in those breathes of diuinity the holy Scriptures because that as her spouse stopt the fontaine soe she by the heat of his spirit hath dried vp the troubled and diuided streames of all errours and heresies trough theyr heauenly light and authority This is the victoty which I represent in triumph in this present treatis as the most heroicke amongst all others of the Romane Church because it conquers heresie by the weapen of heresie vt qui in verbo pugnabant in verbo quoque vincerentur that those vvbo haue hitherto fought vvith the sole vvord might be ouercome vvith the sole vvord The Romane Church euen from the first Challenge of her aduersaries in these last ages hath giuen them the foile nay quite defeated them at the weapens of Antiquity vniuersalâ—â—y vnity succession visibility sanctity miracles Fathers Councils reason authority but these were soe farre and clearly her weapens that they scarce euer dirst lay clayme to any of them and soe the victory glassed in theyr eyes seemes eyther none or small because not gayned with a weapen of theyr chusing now therefore to accomplish what she hath soe prosperously attempted she accepts the combat euen with that weapen which they take by mistaking to be theyr own It is the vvritâ—en vvord of God the sole vvritten vvord to which all appeall here they boast and glory here they exult and triumph not only before the victory but befote the fight this and this alone they take for theyr bucklar of defense for theyr armour of proofe for theyr deepe piercing dart theyr swift flying arrow and theyr sharp edged sword this they brandish before the eyes of innoceÌ„ts with this they florish in theyr bookes and Pulpits in theyr publicque meetings and priuate conuenticles nay in the very streetes and tauernes and that soe seemingly with a glosse as false as it is faire that they dazle the eyes of the vulgar and strike them with admiration in each motion of it Here they fully perswade themselues that those of the Roman Church dare not medle with them and take for granted that whatsoeuer wee haue gained vppon them by other weapens yet wee yeeld our selues clerely conquered by this So confideÌ„t are our Aduersaries in theyr own conceipts where as the Roman Church neuer as yet acknowledged to haue been eyther worsted or soe much as touched by any one text of Scripture which they euer pressed against her witnesse the many large volumes of full and cleere answers to euery senteÌ„ce objected by her Aduersaries Neyther euer refused she to incounter her enemies with this weapen of theyr own chusing True it is she requiers iudges present to see and determine which party hath the better in the incounter but they refuse all other iudges quite contrary to the light of reason saue that very weapen where with rhey fight and though she still keepe the feeld continue on the coÌ„bat maintaine the quarel without soe much as yeelding eyther a step or hairs breadth not withstaÌ„ding she must be worsted only because her aduersaries say she is What will an impartiall ey iudge of such proceedings yet to shew how empty and vaine all these flotishes are and how strong desires she hath of the eternall good of her enimies rather then leaue them wholy destitute of redresse she freely like an indulgent mother condesceÌ„ds to theyr infirmities and conformes her selfe to theyr wayward humours and that soe farre as to expose the equitie of her cause euen to the iudgement of her very Aduersaries and confides with holy Dauid inimici nostri sunt iudices that euen her most forward enimies will not be soe voyd of light reason and equity as not to acknowledge her conquerant and themselue vanquished euen in theyr own iudgements and with theyr own weapen Thus she enters the list and confides in the strength of her God and spouse that the day wil be hers And findes noe surer meanes to incompasse it then by disarming her enimie because to dissarme him him is to dissanimate him for yeeld he must when he can feight noe longer I haue indeauored in this present Treatis to giue my Readers an essay of this kinde of victory of the Roman Church where in I hope he will finde it manifest that the texts which our Aduersaries vsually alleadge against the Romane doctrine in such points as I haue tuched are not arguments but mistakes And that soe grosse and palpable that halfe an ey may discouer them Thus therefore the matter stands and the combat proceeds betwixt vs. Our Aduersaries haue now aboue
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
twelue seates iudging the twelue tribes of Israell And S. Paul Know you not that the Saints shal iudge the world if the world shall be iudged by you are you vnworthie to iudge of small matters Know you not that vvee shall iudge the Angells how much more things of this life And S. Iohn brings in the 24. Elders saying thou hast made vs a kindome and Priestes and vve shall reigne vppon the earth whence most clearly appeares that the Saints in heauen haue those two highest dignities which are in esteeme amongst men of Iudges and Kings of the whole world which notwithstanding is aboue the power of all mortall men to confer vppon them and only in the power of God and therefore these iudiciary and Royall powers must be of a higher ranck and order then are any dignities meerely ciuill humane and naturall And the like dignities are ascribed in holy writ to the Angells for our Sauiour calls them holy Angells and soe they must haue true holinesse wihch is a gift of God aboue the force of nature They were the Promulgers of the ould lavv the Embassadours of God in matters of highest concernment the inflicters of Gods punischments Gen. 19.1 Reu. 15. trough out The captaines generalls of the armies of God Iosua 5.14 The Gouerners controulers of kingdomes Dan. 10.12.13.14 The. deuiders of the Reprobate from the elect in the day of Iudgment Mat. 13.49 And the Sendres of the wicked in to hell fier ibidem with many such like dignities and preheminences all great and high in them selues and aboue the reach both of all humane and Angelicall nature bestowed freely vppon them through the liberality of God And as this supernaturall excellency is found in Saints and Angells soe is it ascribed all soe to other things in Scripture to which God hath freely communicated certaine blessings and priuileges Thus we read in Iosua Loose the shoes from thy feete for the place where thou standest is holy And in Exodus Loose thy shoes from thy feete sor the place where thou standest is holy ground Thus the bread of the temple is called holy bread and sanctifyed bread The Temple is called holy yea soe holy that our sauiour saith that the temple Sanctisieth the gold which is in it and the Alter sanctifieth the gift which is offered vppon it Thus the most inward place of the temple had noe other name then Sanctam Sanctorum the holy of holies that is the most holy place of the whole world The holinesse of these and the like things where in soeuer it consisted issued not from any ciuill or humane power but was drawne from the power and authority of God as authour of the true Sauing religion of those times Thus I haue made it cleare out of Scripture that there is a worth a dignity a power an excellency which is meerely created and infinitely inferiour to the attributes and perfections of God and yet far excelling all ciuill and humane worth and aboue the reatch sphere and force of all ciuill power and authority The most cleare rule to the capacity of the vulgar to distinguish ciuill worths and excellencies from Spirituall and supernaturall is that those which are common to the true religion with all other kinds and professions of men are only ciuill and naturall such as are wit vnderstanding knowledge learning eloquence nobility valour Gouernment Magistracy c. But those which are proper to the true religion are Spirituall and Supernaturall as are the dignity of a Saint in heauen of an Angell a holy man yet liuing a Prophet an Appostle a Bishop a Priest a Godfather a God mother c. And because these and the likc excellencies are proper to religion they may in a large sence be termed religious excellencies or dignities· That this may be better vnderstood the Reader may take notice that the word Religion may eyther be taken in a strict sense for the vertue of Religion as it is distinguished from othet infused and supernaturall vertues whereby true worship and honour is giuen to God or in a more large and generall sence for the whole profession of those who esteeme them selues to haue the true sauing way of seruing God and attaining Saluation And this is the more obuious and vulgar vnderstanding of this word Religion thus we commonly say the Catholicque Religion c. that is theyr whole beleefe and profession In the first strict and and rigid sense Religion is taken amongst the Schoole doctours when they dispute of the nature of infused vertues and in the like sense it is often taken in the bookes of Moyses Exod. 12.26.43 Exod. 29.9 Leuit. 26.31 n. 19.2 where it is restrayned eyther to sacrifice or or some other worshrp of God In the Second more large acception it is found both in the old and new testament Hester 8.17 Soe that many of an other nation and sect ioyned them selues to theyr Religion and ceremonies Hester 9.27 Vppon all those who would vnite them selues to theyr Religion Acts 26.3 Saint Paul saith that before his conuersion Hee liued a Pharesie according to the most certaine sect of his Religion Iames e. 2. If any one seeme to be religious and bridleth not his tongue this mans religion is vaine In which texts it is manifest that Religion is taken for the whole beleefe and Profession both of Iewes and Christians Hence it followes that as the word Religion soe the word Religious deriued from it may be taken in the two fore said differēte senses yet I find it vsually in Scripture in the secōd larger acception where a Religious Persone signifies nothing but a person truly deuout vertuous and fairhfull Thus Acts 2.5 But there vvere dvvelling in Ierusalem Ievves Religious men of all nations vvhieh are vnder heauen And Acts 10.2 where it is said of Cornelius that he vvas Religious and fearing God vvith his vvhole houshould giuing many almes to the common people and all vvayes praying God And Acts 13.50 The Iewes stirred vp certaine Religious and honest woemen and the chiefe of the citty c. And Iames the 1.26 If any man seeme to himselfe to be Religious not bridling his tongue this mans Religion is vaine where Religious is taken for pious vertuous c. For ells the ill gouernment of the tongue would not hinder a true exercise of the vertue of religion strictly vnderstood as it differs from other theologicall and morall vertues as it hinders not the true exercise of faith and hope as they are particular vertues This large acception therefore of these words Religion and Religious being soe clearely deliuered in Scripture It will be sufficient for defence of the Catholique Romaine faith in this point to affirme that when our Doctours say that any thing created may be or is worshipped with Religious worship that it is Religious in this large acception found soe familiarly in Scripture that is vertuous pious christian a worship belonging to our Religion proper to
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
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
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
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
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
amici Dei ac domestici facti euntes de virtute in virtutem renouantur vt Apostolus inquit de die in diem exhibendo ea arma iustitiae in sanctificationem per obseruantiam mandatorum Dei Ecclesiae in ipsâ iustitiâ per Christi gratiam acceptâ cooperante fide bonis operibus crescunt atque magis iustificantur sicut scriptum est Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc Being therefore thus iustified and made the friends and of the houshold of God going on from vertu to vertu they are renewed as the Apostle saith from day to day and vsing those armes of iustice to sanctification by the obseruance of the commandements of God and the Church theyr faith cooperating with theyr good workes they increace through the grace of Christ in the iustice which they haue receiued and are iustified more and more as is it written he who is iust let him be iustified still Conc. Trid. ibidem can 9. Si quis dixerit solâ fide impium iustificari ita vt intelligat nihil aliud requiri quod ad iusticationis gratiam consequendam cooperetur nullâ ex parte necesse esse eum suae voluntatis motu praeparari atque disponi anathema sit If any one shall say that a wicked man is iustified by faith only soe that he meanes that nothing els is required which may cooperate to the obtayning the grace of Iustification and that it is noe way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his will let him be accâ—rsed From these authorities of the Council it is manifest that in this matter of Iustification the Church of Rome theaches 1. that noe workes done by the mere naturall force of our freewill 2. nor by the sole doctrine or knowledge of the diuine law can iustifie a sinner in the sight of God Can. 1. 3. That noe vniust persone can without the preuenting inspiration of the holy Ghost doe any thing as it should be done to obteyne the grace of iustification can 3. 4. That neyther faith nor workes done by the inspiration of the holy Ghost before Iustification can merit Iustification for it is a free grace of God giuen not of workes but by the sole mercy of God and for the sole merits of Christ. cap. 8. 5. That though the iustification of a sinner cannot be merited yet a soul may be disposed prepared to instification by acts inspired by the holy Ghost c. 6. 6. That we are not thus disposed by faith only but also by other good motions of our will preuented and assisted by the grace of God can 9. 7. That being thus freely iustified become the childeren of God through the assistance of Gods grace in Christ we may doe good workes and by them accepted through Christ's merits become more and more iust in the sight of God cap. 10. where in cheefly consists the Roman doctrine of Iustification by good workes This doctrine supposed we will now take a vew of those texts which Protestants vsually presse out of Scripture mistaken against it hauing first proued the Roman doctrine The Catholicke Position Faith only iustifyeth not YOu see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only which must needs be vnderstood of a true and internall iustification before Allmighty God for it must be that iustification which comes by faith but that is true and internall iustification as appeares by all the texts cited hereafter in the paper for proofe of iustification by faith only that the iustification which S. Iames speakes of here is the very same with that which comes by faith is most cleare out of the words themselues Yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only For it would be quite contrary to common sense to vnderstand a iustification before men in the first part of this sentence yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and a true internall iustification in the sight of God in the latter part and not by faith only For the word only clearly demonstrates that the same iustification is to be vnderstood in both parts of the sentence Now that the iustification common to both members of this place must necessarily be meant of a true iustification only in the sight of God is out of all question to such as ponder what is deliuered in it for it would be most false were it vnderstood of a iustification only before menâ— no lesse then this manner of speech yee see that this man is vnderstood by his words and not by his thoughts only would be wholly false were there only mention made of a man's being vnderstood amongst men for amongst them he is not vnderstood at all by his thoughts and so the latter part of this proposition would not be true and therefore to verify this manner of speech it must of necessity be meant of a man's being vnderstood by Allmighty God who only by his own power vnderstands both thoughts and words and so it is truly sayd yee see that a man is vnderstood to wit by Allmighty God by his words and not by his thoughts only And for the very same reason this proposition of S. Iames wee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only cannot be vnderstood of a iustification before men for we are no more iustifyed by saith before men then we are vnderstood amongst them by our thoughts and therefore it must be interpreted of a iustification before Allmighty God who only vnderstands our faith as he does our thoughts by his own power and knowledge and can only see whether our faith be true sincere and iustifying or no faith being nothing else but a thought assent or iudgement of the soul. And as all Protestants in the ensuing texts vrged for iustification by faith only vnderstand an internall iustification in the sight of God so must they will they not be vnreasonably and willsully partiall vnderstand the same by iustification by faith in this place of S. Iames which is cleared v. 2. was not Abraham our father iustifyed by worket when he had offered Isaac his sone vppon the altar for this hauing beene done priuatly in the desert could not when it was done iustifie him before men and yet more clere v. 22. seest thou not how faith wrought with his workes and by workes was faith made perfect what is here spoken of but the operation of faith and workes in the soule iustifying in God's sight For faith cannot be truly made perfect but declared to be perfect by workes soe farre as they iustifie only before men And it is further demonstrated v. 23. And the Scripture was fulfilled which sayth Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse and he was called the friend of God Can any Protestant deny this to be meant of an imputation of righteousnesse as they terme it or a iustification before Allmighty God seeing it is the very
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
vnder this or vnder these species if they grant that the word this signifies bread as they must needs being spoken before consecration will they make it signify nothing after consecration can it both be somthing and nothing If the word this signifie bread then we must vnderstand that this bread is my Body but no other thing can they make it signifie but bread not the species of bread why because yet it was not when he sayd this not his body for his body could not signify his body neyther as yet was it consecrated when he sayd this they must therefore confesse it to signify bread or nothing if bread then of bread he sayd This is my Body which is as much as to say this bread is my body Answer Here is only a repetition of what hath been objected before wherfore I referre the reader to my former answer wherin I auoide all these difficultyes by replying that the word this iust when it was pronounced by our Sauiour neyther signified the species of bread nor vnder the species of bread nor bread nor that which he precisely then held in his hands before he pronounced the other words nor yet nothing but this which I am presentely to giue you and you are to take and eate is my Body and this well considered let any man iudge whether opinion is lesse forged and more naturall ours which puts a plaine proper obuious signification both to the word this the subiect the word is the copula and the word body the predicate of this proposition This is my Body agreeing with the wholl context and intention of our Sauiour or theyrs which will haue signifyed a mere peece of naturall bread not yet made a Sacrament by the word this â—nd by is my body is a commemoration of my body â—nd that not only without all ground in Scripture but contrary to the plaine text contrary to the mystery here instituted and contrary to common sense discourse all which I haue already proued Obiection Now that it is discouered what our Lord brake and gaue what he bad them take and eate and what he sayd was his body none need doubt but that the disciples did eate that which he tooke blessed brake and gaue and which he bad then eate it was bread by their own rule for as yet he had not sayd it is my Body if they did eate that which he sayd was his body what can any conceiue it to be but bread for what sayd he was his body was it not bread which he tooke blessed brake and gaue and bad them eate saying it was his body if they could disproue the Protestant church in this poynt they could neuer maintayne transubstantiation by the words of institution which in all circumstances words and actions of our Sauiour is agreeable to what we beleeue but we may safely conclude that the Apostles did eate bread and that it remaynes bread after consecration both by that which hath beene sayd c. Answer Here the same thing seemes to be repeated twice or thrice ouer and altogeather is nothing but a new repetition of what hath been answered before only here seemes another objection to be pointed at which may be framed as it is more clearly by other Protestants in this manner That which our Sauiours tooke blessed brake and gaue was bread for certaine it is that which he tooke was bread and is confessed to haue been so by both sydes but that which he tooke he blessed that which he blessed he brake that which he brake he gaue therefore from the first to the last that which he gaue his disciples was bread I answer that all this is true for it was bread in denomination both which he tooke blessed brake and gaue but the bread which he tooke was bread remayning in its own nature the bread which he gaâ—e was bread made his body and yet it was the same bread in denomination for the very same bread which was yet in its own nature when he tooke it was made his body when gaue it Now if one should reply that this is sayd gratis and seemes to be a mere shift for obscuring and inuoluing the matter to escape the difficulty or rather an explication destroying and contradicting it selfe I will shew that this is sayd with great ground euen in Scripture it selfe for if an Infidell should oppose the change of water into wyne in the second of S. Ihon with the like argument say that that wherewhith the seruants filled the vessels at our Sauiours command was that which they drew out of the vessels that which they drew out was that which they carryed to the maister of the mariage-feast that which they carryed to him he drunke but that which the seruants filled the vessels first withall was water therefore that which the maister of the feast drunke was water A Christian vnto such an objection may answer that all this is true if we respet only the name or denomination of the thing for that which was put into the vessels the maister drunke and as it is true that water was put into them so is it true to say that the master of the feast drunke water but the very same water which remayned in its own nature when in was put into the vessels was denominated water made wyne when the maister drunke it And that this may appeare to be no fiction of myne all that I affirme herof is plainly deliuered in the Protestant Bible the words are these Iesus saith vnto them fill the water-pots with water here behold water was to be put into them and they filled them to the brimme see here is water put into them by the seruanrs and he sayd vnto them draw out now and beare to the gouernour of the feast and they bare it marke yet here the seruant bare it that is that which they had put into the vessells which was water when thc Ruler of the feast had tasted the water which was made wyne and knew not whence it was behold it is still called water not water remayning in its owne being but water made wyne but the seruants which drew the water knew still it is called watcr and the water that is the very same that it was in denomination when it was put in but changed into wyne Apply this in each particular to the present mystery and it will appeare how light the objection is fit only to deceiue vnlearned people who are not acquainted with such subtilityes and sophismes as such like objections conteyne Obiection And likewise that S. Paul called the consecrated bread bread three tymes after consecration for as often sayth he as you eate this bread and so let him eate of this bread and whosoeuer eates this beead vnworthyly but we do not eate till after consecration it is then bread after consecration Answer I haue giuen iust now a full answer to that which is objected here that S. Paul calls the hoast bread three
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
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
be broken for vs. Obiection In the same sense the arke the signe of the presence of God is called God for when the arke was brought into the camp it is said God is come into the camp Answer It is said so indeed but not by the Israëlites which were the faithfull people of God but by the vnbeleeuing philistines who esteemed the Israëlites to haue an idoll for their God as well as themselfes and the philistines feared much and said God is come into the camp and by this argument the opponent may proue as well that it was a signe of many Gods because the philistines called it Gods who will saue vs from the hands of these high Gods these are the Gods c. Objection So the rock is called Christ because it is a figure of Christ. Answer The words are these They dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them but the rocke was Christ. where seeing that the text speaks expressely of a spirituall rock and sayes that rocke was Christ it speakes not of any rocke which was a signe of Christ for that must haue been a materiall visible rocke but of that which was Christ himselfe for he is truly a spirituall rocke without all signes and figures as he is our spirituall phisician our good shepheard c. and this spirituall rock only from which as the true supernaturall cause that water flowed and which alone can truly be said to haue followed the childeren of Israel in the desert was properly our Sauiour Obiection The seauen eares ares said to be seauen yeares Answer Certaine it is that Pharao knew well enough that those were not reall but imaginary eares framed in his phantasie in time of his dreame and so neuer intended to demand what they were in themselues but what they portended or what was signified by them for it was the interpretation of his dreame which he sought for and if Ioseph had answered him that these seauen eares were cettaine representations which passed in his minde as in themselues they truly were he would haue deserued disgrace and punishment rather then praise and reward for Pharao knew that as well as he Ioseph therefore answered according to Pharaos intention that those seauen eares signified seauen yeares and though in the English and Latin be the word are are seauen yeares septem sunt anni yet the Hebrew according to the proprietie of that language hath noe word expresly signifiing are which may for any thing that can be conuinced srom the Hebrew text haue as well the verbe signifie or represent vnderstood as the verbe are seauen eares seauen yeares that is seauen eares signifie or prefigure seauen yeares so that standing close to the originall the argument proues nothing yet though we should with the English translation vnderstand the words are seauen yeares yet it would proue as little for they were certaine Hieroglyphikes emblemes or characters defining or prescribing what was portended by the dreame noe otherwise then when one seeing a virgin painted with her eyes blinded and a paire of scales in her hand should aske what is this if one should answer him that it is a piâ—ture drawne vppon a painted cloth he would scarce haue patience with such a folly or mockery for he could not prudently be supposed to demand that which he saw with his eyes but if it should be answered that it is iustice he would presently be satisfied or if one who I know could read Latin and not vnderstand it seeing this word domus should aske me what it is and I should answer him that it is domus he might thinke I mocke him but if I answered him that it is a house he would take it for an answer but if I knew he could not yet read I might answer him that the word he asked me was domus thus according to the different circumstances and reasons that one hath to iudge that he who demandes what this or that is intends to know either what it is substantially in it selfe or significantly in respect of some other thing which it figures out vnto vs the answer is to be framed but yet with this caueat that when the subiect of the demande is a thing absolute of it selfe and not a signe figure or embleme of anothcr thing then we are truly to answer what it is substantially in it selfe vnlesse it be cleare that the demanders intention be to know what in some extraordinary case it signifies but when the subiect in question is it selfe a signe figure embleme or representation of some other thing it is to be answered what it signifies vnlesse it appeates euidently or very probably that the intention of the demand is to know not what it signifies but what it is Thus when Pharao demanded what those eares weare they being only conceiued by him to be certaine presages or tokens of something else noe man could in common sense answer him but by telling him what was presaged or intended by them that is what they were in that sense in which he demanded which answer could not be true in any other sense then a figuratiue for when Ioseph gaue this answer that seauen eares were seauen yeares had he vnderstood it properly and substantially it had concluded a formall contradiction and implication in the termes For it is impossible that the thoughts of ones head which passe in an houre should be truly and really one or many yeares So the truth of holy Scripture and Iosephs answer necessarily requiers a figuratiue sense and had our Sauiour said as expressely this bread which you see is my body as Ioseph said seauen eares are seauen yeares he should haue beene vnderstood to haue spoken for the same reason only in a figuratiue sense but seeing he neither sayd nor intended to say any such matter but only This is my Body c. that is this which I am now to giue you and you receaue is my body as I have shewed he must be supposed to affirme in a reall proper and substantiall sense without all signes or figures that that which he was then about to giue them was his true body for the word this both in it selfe and in those circumstances signifying a thing absolute in it selfe and noe signe or figure as the word eares doe in the place obiected cannot be thought to haue any figuratiue signification neither the word my body being expressed by that which followes which is giuen for you to be his reall body can be impropetly nor figuratiuely vnderstood to signifye a signe figure remembrance or commemoration of his body for it was not a signe figure and remembrance of his body but his reall and true body which was giuen for vs. neither can there be any figure or impropriety in the word is as though it were nothing but signifies or commemorates for seeing the subiect of the proposition this that is which I am to giue and the predicate my Body which is giuen for you properly vnderstood
was conceiued and borne in the ordinary maner of other childrē that he was a mere man c. and was holy ignorant both of his mothers virginity and that his humaine soul and body were vnited to the diuine person Thus the Capernaites hauing no more knowledge of his diuinity then Herod had thought that his flesh was to be eaten after the same ordinary maner that other meates vse to be eaten merely to feed the body and went noe sarther But all true Catholiques beleeue that his sacred flesh is liuing and vnited to the diuine persone and eaten by vs though truly and really as he was truly and really borne yet after a most pure heauenly and in effable manner as he was brought into this world wherby his blessed flesh cōsidered absolutely in it selfe is neyther rent nor torne nor deuided nor consumed but remaines as whole perfect and intire after he is eaten by vs as it was before as the Apostle S. Andrew sais In this maner though our Sauiour spoake of his reall flesh yet were his words Spirit and Life noe lesse then these words of S. Iohn the word was made flesh and a thousand such like are though they speake of the true flesh of our Sauiour because his very flesh it selfe by reason of its vnion to the diuine person and glorious proprieties wholy deifyed and spiritualizd in such sort that receiuing it we receiue a Spirituall body though true and reall Here the earnest Reformer will tell mee that I speake contradictions for it is as vnpossible that a body should be spirituall as a Spirit corporall I answer If I speake cōtradictions I haue learned them out of the Protestant Bible and common prayer booke where S. Paul sayes of a body after the resurrection it is sown a naturall body it rises a Spirituall body And yet this wonder full body of Christ exists in the Sacrament much more like a spirit then doth any other glorious body according to ordinary prouidence viz whole in the whole host and whole in euery part of it as the soul exists in the body an Angel in the place he possesses and God in the world And as this admirable body hath the proprieties of a Spirit so hath it the properties of life being liuing bread and giuing life eternall to those who worthily receiue it as our Sauiour pronounces of it and according to S. Iohn what was made in him was life diuinity and humanity and soul and body and flesh and blood in him are all life foe great reason had our Sauiour to say speaking of them the words which I haue spoaken to you are spirit and life These are the cheefe arguments against the reall presence which Protestants vse to draw from Scripture others there are fittet for heathens then Christians which they draw from naturall reason where to though I be not oblidged to answer in this treatis yet because I am exceedingly desirous to giue all the satisfaction I am able to euery one I will breefly set the cheefe of them down and as breefly answer them but because I suppose for the present that I dispute against such as make profession to be Christians I esteeme my selfe to haue giuen a sufficient satisfaction to theyr difficulties if I giue them cleare instances in some article of Christian faith which they beleeue wherein they must solue the like difficulty to that which they vrge from naturall reason against this mystery Objection How can accidents exist without a suhstance as here they must doe Answer How can a humanc nature subsist without its propet personality as in the Incarnation of Christ it must doe vnlesse Protestants with Nestorius will grant that in Christ be two Persons Objection How can one and the same body be in many places at the same time as they must be if the reall presence be true Answer How can one and the same soul Angel and God be in many places at the same tyme which they must be if theyr spirituality and Gods vbiquity be true Objection How can the parts of our Sauiours body so penetrate one an other that the whole body may be conteyned in the least part of the host or drop of the chalice Answer How can the body of our Sauiour penetrate the dore and passe through his mothers wombe when they both remayned shut Objection How should the body of our Sauiour in the consecrated host be distinguished from others when it is put amongst them Answer How should a drop of our Sauiours blood he distinguished from the blood of other men if in tyme of his passion it had been mixed with them Objection If our Sauiours flesh and blood be really present in the Sacrament then cats and Rats may eate them Answer If our Sauiors flesh and blood were truly in the passion particles of his sacred flesh being rent of and drops of his blood shed here and there then dogs and cats might haue as well eaten them Objection How is it possible that the whol bulke of a mans body should be so light that a fly should be able to crary it Answer How should the whole bulke of a mans body be so light that it should mount vp like a flame of fyer into heauen as our Sauiours did in his ascension Objection If there be so many miracles as you must hold wrought by our Sauiour in the reall presence why were none of them seene as the other mitacles of Christ were Answer If there were so many miracles wrought in the Incarnation of our Sauiour as you must hold why were none of them seene as the other miracles of Christ were Objection How can we possibly conceiue a body with out any extention of parts or locall forme and figure Answer How can wee possibly conceiue a humaine nature subsisting without a humaine personality Objection What difference will there be betwixt a body without all extention and locall figure and a spirit Answer What difference will there be betwixt the soul of a new borne infant and that of a brute beast which cannot actually vnderstand the one hath a power to vnderstand will you say and not the other the one hath a power to be extended and haue a locall figure say I and not the other Objection If our Sauiours body be truly in the Sacrament then all wicked persons and greeuous sinners who frequent it receiue his true body into theyr mouthes and brests Answer If our Sauiours body was truly in the wildernesse then the Diuel receiued it into his armes and carryed it to the pinnacle of the temple and if it were a true body in tyme of his Passion then Iudas the traitour kissed it the hard harted Iewes and Barbarous souldiers tutcht it abused it scorgd it crucified it and troad his most pretious blood vnder their feete is not this as much disgracefull to his body and blood as now to be receiued into sinners mouthes Objection If there be nothing visible or sensible but species accidents
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